The problem of evil case study: genocide [Trigger warning, if you need it]

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, manol said:

Bingo.  When we tune our internal "radio" in to a negative "station", we consent to our minds indulging in and becoming aligned to that way of thinking.  We cannot think about something and not have it affect us.  The way of thinking that led to the Rwandan genocide started out as "othering", a practice which most of us find perfectly normal and acceptable and even desirable, religions do it all the time, people do it all the time.  Imo we have room for improvement. 

Whether or not something crosses the line of technicality into "sin" territory may not be the best barometer of whether something is acceptable in the presence of God.  We're not supposed to take our negative thoughts into the prayer circle and into the Celestial Room.  If the Kingdom of God is within us, why would negative thoughts be any more acceptable there?

 

Excellent point. One does not overcome negative thoughts by focusing on not thinking those thoughts.     

Imo, one overcomes negative thoughts by "tuning in" to a higher "radio station". 

Here's the blueprint:  "Look to me in every thought.  Doubt not.  Fear not."  It doesn't matter whether "doubt not" and "fear not" are justifiable to our logical minds.  We are to do them anyway, to the best of our ability in the moment, and our ability will increase.

Those who partake of the Sacrament only witness unto God that they are actually doing one thing.  What is that one thing?  It is "that they do always remember him."  That's the radio station we're supposed to be tuned-in to.   It takes effort but is within our reach at least to some extent at any given moment. 

And whadda ya know... no more elephants! 

Okay admittedly it takes diligent attention and consistently re-directing one's thoughts in order to re-set one's "default" radio station, but ime it can be done in a matter of weeks.  And then re-tuning one's station when the elephants try tip-toeing into the room becomes much easier because those pathways have been strengthened by use.

*  *  *

As for the far weightier subject matter of this thread, at this time my response is "I don't know."  I haven't finished watching the video yet, nor read the essay, but it's unlikely I'll emerge with anything better.

Yes, this is what I am thinking of…if we choose to tune our radios to the lust or murder channels, we are choosing to lust and dwell on murder and maybe even let them become the dominant thoughts in our minds.

At that point I don’t see much internal difference between this person that just wishes they could murder someone but does not out of fear of being caught and hurt (they fear rejection by others and punishment) and an actual murderer except perhaps the murderer has a higher risk threshold or has less fear for some reason of being caught (arrogance, they have power they believe will protect them, etc).

An actual murderer might be able to more quickly repent if their murder was more impulsive and not thought through and they hadn’t dwelled on it in the same way a murderer in his heart would.

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I am talking about those who would commit, but lack opportunity.  You are putting conditions on the lusting I am not. Or rather I am putting the condition of proactiveness on the lusting….as in nurturing it and possibly to the point that all one needs is a perceived opportunity to do it.

I am not talking about those who have thoughts pop into their head, but don’t dwell on it.  Lusting in one’s heart is closer to doing porn without the pictures (one’s imagination is enough) and includes feelings of covetousness.

You don’t think it alters a relationship and harms the loved one to actively choose to commit adultery in one’s heart? 

I see where you're coming from on this, and I agree with you.

 

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Stargazer said:

I see where you're coming from on this, and I agree with you.

 

Thank goodness!  

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, manol said:

Bingo.  When we tune our internal "radio" in to a negative "station", we consent to our minds indulging in and becoming aligned to that way of thinking.  We cannot think about something and not have it affect us.  The way of thinking that led to the Rwandan genocide started out as "othering", a practice which most of us find perfectly normal and acceptable and even desirable, religions do it all the time, people do it all the time.  Imo we have room for improvement, and need not wait for someone in a position of authority to give us permission. 

Whether or not something crosses the line of technicality into "sin" territory may not be the best barometer of whether something is acceptable in the presence of God.  We're not supposed to take our negative thoughts into the prayer circle and into the Celestial Room.  If the Kingdom of God is within us, why would negative thoughts be any more acceptable there?

 

Excellent point. One does not overcome negative thoughts by focusing on not thinking those thoughts.     

Imo, one overcomes negative thoughts by "tuning in" to a higher "radio station". 

Here's the blueprint:  "Look to me in every thought.  Doubt not.  Fear not."  It doesn't matter whether "doubt not" and "fear not" are justifiable to our logical minds.  We are to do them anyway, to the best of our ability in the moment, and our ability will increase.  (In other words, imo we are to align ourselves to the highest thoughts, the highest radio station, that we can in the moment, regardless of whether or not it makes sense.)

Those who partake of the Sacrament only witness unto God that they are actually doing one thing.  What is that one thing?  It is "that they do always remember him."  That's the radio station we're supposed to be tuned-in to.   It takes effort but is within our reach at least to some extent at any given moment. 

And whadda ya know... no more elephants! 

You remind me of something. Elder Harold B. Lee once wrote an article or spoke in General Conference to describe an experience he had as a stake president that dealt with a church court he presided over, in which a man was excommunicated. That man's brother came to see him to tell him that his brother hadn't done what he had been accused of, and was trying to convince Elder Lee of that. The story was compiled with a number of other talks and articles into a book called "Stand Ye in Holy Places." It's a bit too long to reproduce here, but basically the man had prayed and got the answer that his brother was innocent. Elder Lee then asked him about his faithfulness, and he said that he never attended church, didn't pay tithing, ignored the Word of Wisdom, and never prayed except for this time. Elder Lee then said that 15 of the leading men in the stake, who were living faithfully in all the respects that the man was not, had come to the opposite conclusion. And asked him where he thought he had gotten his answer from. 

For the sake of the discussion I've put the text of this incident on my personal wiki, which you can read here: Stand Ye In Holy Places

1 hour ago, manol said:

Okay admittedly it takes diligent attention and consistently re-directing one's thoughts in order to re-set one's "default" radio station, but ime it can be done in a matter of weeks.  And then re-tuning one's station when the elephants try tip-toeing into the room becomes much easier because those pathways have been strengthened by use.

*  *  *

As for the far weightier subject matter of this thread, at this time my response is "I don't know."  I haven't finished watching the video yet, nor read the essay, but it's unlikely I'll emerge with anything better.

Not everyone is the same. And not everyone is as old and wise as I have become. (LOL)

As @Calm was saying, those whose minds are dwelling upon the things that they shouldn't be doing, the ones who have stoked themselves to the point that they are simply waiting for the opportunity to indulge in that which they shouldn't -- they are the ones that Jesus was talking about. And lest anyone think I'm somehow immune to all of that, I am not. I like to think that I have hardened my heart to the evil which potentially dwells in all of us, but I don't deceive myself that I can't get to that point. 

 

[manol]

I don't have any answers to the “why would God allow this?” questions, nor to the “this disproves the existence of a God we can worship or trust” objections. None that I am actually comfortable with right now, anyway.

In the meantime, here's my fallback: I think the best question one could ask in the aftermath of something horrifying would go something like this:

“What would be the greatest good that could come from where we are now, and how can we make that happen, or at least make it as likely to happen as we can?”

No belief in God is needed to ask this question. I can envision @smac97 and @Teancum sitting across the table from one another and agreeing completely on the answer to this question.

I think there were wise people in Rwanda who asked themselves essentially that same question and came up with the idea of the reconciliation villages, where perpetrators and survivors promise to live together in peace, and where forgiveness is not mandated but is allowed. Imo that is brilliant.

“The holiest of all spots on earth is where an ancient hatred has become a present love.” - A Course in Miracles

 

Edited September 3, 2024 by manol

[CV75]

55 minutes ago, manol said:

I don't have any answers to the “why would God allow this?” questions, nor to the “this disproves the existence of a God we can worship or trust” objections. None that I am actually comfortable with right now, anyway.

In the meantime, here's my fallback: I think the best question one could ask in the aftermath of something horrifying would go something like this:

“What would be the greatest good that could come from where we are now, and how can we make that happen, or at least make it as likely to happen as we can?”

No belief in God is needed to ask this question. I can envision @smac97 and @Teancum sitting across the table from one another and agreeing completely on the answer to this question.

I think there were wise people in Rwanda who asked themselves essentially that same question and came up with the idea of the reconciliation villages, where perpetrators and survivors promise to live together in peace, and where forgiveness is not mandated but is allowed. Imo that is brilliant.

“The holiest of all spots on earth is where an ancient hatred has become a present love.” - A Course in Miracles

 

Your central question (“What would be the greatest good that could come from where we are now, and how can we make that happen, or at least make it as likely to happen as we can?”) is simply politics as usual, not that there's anything wrong with that in an inherently nonreligious/nontheist ethos. This is how many people solve problems. What else are people and societies going to do?

Edited September 3, 2024 by CV75

[Calm]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

simply politics as usual

Politics as usual is closer to “what is the greatest good for me” whether or not it is voiced, imo.

[Okrahomer]

On 9/2/2024 at 5:35 PM, Duncan said:

You've never heard that before??????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I had never heard the term before now!  But according to ChatGPT:  “It can be used metaphorically to describe any scenario where someone or something is completely outmatched or overwhelmed by circumstances.”.

[CV75]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

Politics as usual is closer to “what is the greatest good for me” whether or not it is voiced, imo.

Yes, I agree that is the approach taken by many. I also think that some are more altruistic than that even when keeping God out of the discussion  (but only after the original question has been posed). And that some will argue that whatever we do altruistically is motivated by what is best for "me."

Maybe that is why one may steer away from the significance of how they view God in the original question (He really doesn't matter in secular / political approaches to what is best for the whole or the individual).

So, if / since there is a God (all-loving, omniscient, omnipotent) is He permiting evil in His own best interest, and why?

[MrShorty]

On 9/1/2024 at 10:48 PM, Calm said:

Shouldn’t it be the end result that matters?  If he is willing to sacrifice all that he has and is for us to be able to join him in glory, I think he is worthy of worship. 

I realized that I thought about responding to this and never actually published my thought (better late than never, maybe?) Perhaps at some level this is the best answer to the problem of evil. God may not be powerful enough to prevent evil, or maybe He chooses to stay His hand for reasons that I can't understand. But I'm inclined to believe that, somehow through Christ, God is able to redeem whatever happens because of evil and suffering. Sometimes that leads me to a more universalist place, where God will eventually redeem all or almost all of us. I find that, choosing to have faith in God leads me to also believe that God somehow can redeem us in spite of the evils that He cannot (or chooses not to) prevent.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I realized that I thought about responding to this and never actually published my thought (better late than never, maybe?) Perhaps at some level this is the best answer to the problem of evil. God may not be powerful enough to prevent evil, or maybe He chooses to stay His hand for reasons that I can't understand. But I'm inclined to believe that, somehow through Christ, God is able to redeem whatever happens because of evil and suffering. Sometimes that leads me to a more universalist place, where God will eventually redeem all or almost all of us. I find that, choosing to have faith in God leads me to also believe that God somehow can redeem us in spite of the evils that He cannot (or chooses not to) prevent.

Good and evil, I believe, are purely personal attributes and exist by virtue of the mental state that describes them as such. The personal attribute of agency has a role in choosing the mental state and the descriptions it produces (what it calls good and evil). The power of agency is measured by our ability to expand opportunities for others, and this contributes to the paradox that the most powerful and good God does not prevent anyone from choosing, and allows anyone to choose, to be evil. Good people expand these opportunities for everyone but which are sometimes taken advantage of to promote evil attributes and deeds (let’s say, a third part of the time); bad people tend to remove options from others so that there remains little if anything to produce good ends (within their contracted perspective).

The atonement of Christ reconciles all choices that could be made and, in this sense, universally offers everyone the opportunity for perfection in agency and goodness. In this sense He has redeemed all of us. Yet he keeps us from the tree of life to preserve the expansion of our opportunity to prepare to choose eternal life, given the sphere (maturation level and probationary estate) we occupy. Similarly, His atonement also reconciles competing choices among His children, and this is evidenced in His ongoing intervention to preserve this probationary estate, which allows people to produce evil personalities and works.

Edited September 8, 2024 by CV75

[MrShorty]

On 9/8/2024 at 4:32 PM, CV75 said:

this contributes to the paradox that the most powerful and good God does not prevent anyone from choosing, and allows anyone to choose, to be evil.

If I'm not careful, this feels like the top of the slippery slope that leads down to deism, where God never intervenes in the creation He initiated.

[CV75]

10 hours ago, MrShorty said:

If I'm not careful, this feels like the top of the slippery slope that leads down to deism, where God never intervenes in the creation He initiated.

That why it is a paradox!  It might only seem that way at first glance. God does intervene (He sent His Son), but without interfering with anyone's agency. There are many kinds of intervention; typically subtle and in the form of invitation (beginning with the light of Christ). Some kinds are in the form of interruption or prevention of actions after the choice to commit them has been made. In the end, all kinds allow for every individual's agency (but not necessarily their druthers or expectations).

I think the descent down the slippery slope to a belief in "never intervening" begins with an expectation of immediacy in the fulfillment of the Atonement of Christ in individual lives and experiences, or when everything and everyone (or sometimes just in one's own interest) is supposed to be reconciled. This is a function of an individual's interpretation or understanding the Gospel. But that is not how we teach it.

Edited September 10, 2024 by CV75