Jacob H. Friesenhahn, a theology teacher at John Paul II Catholic High School in Schertz, Texas, has an article attempting to explain away the problem of evil by reference to the trinity, one of the sillier ideas in Christianity (Thomas Jefferson called it “metaphysical insanity”). It’s not a new argument, of course, but he makes it sound a lot more sophisticated than it really is:
My contention is that the doctrine of the Trinity provides the most fruitful foundation from which to defend the justice of God in the face of evil and to announce hope to suffering humanity. In developing this argument I will draw deeply on the insights of the great twentieth-century Swiss theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar, particularly from those texts in which the connections between Trinity and theodicy are most explicitly considered,Mysterium Paschale and the final two volumes of his masterful Theo-Drama series.2
Von Balthasar’s theology of the Trinity relies heavily on the concept of kenotic or self-giving love. The Greek word kenosis indicates an “emptying” or “pouring out.” The most significant single biblical referent for the Christian concept of kenosis is Philippians 2:5–7, which uses the verb form of the term: “Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness” (NRSV; emphasis added). Balthasar speaks of Christ’s kenosis as the Eternal Son’s emptying of himself to become incarnate or human, even to the limit of accepting death on the cross and descending into hell. What is striking about the theology of von Balthasar is that he uses this idea of kenosis as the hermeneutical or interpretive key for understanding not only Christ, the Incarnate Son, but the very inner nature or life of God.
In von Balthasar’s theology, the doctrine of the Trinity most fundamentally means that God’s essence is an eternal interplay of kenotic love. The dynamic love at the heart of God is the sort of love by which lovers give themselves away for the sake of the beloved. This central idea of self-donation is more than an abstract concept; it is a term brimming with existential content. The experience of authentic love, the feeling of pouring oneself out for the sake of another, cuts to the heart of human existence. This lived experience of self-sacrificial love can provide a means for our deeper understanding of the Trinity. In the context of classical theism, the guiding analogy for approaching the Trinity may have been the threefold nature of the soul, that is, the soul itself, the soul’s self-knowledge, and the soul’s self-love. This rather closed-inintrapersonal model is perhaps best replaced by a more interpersonal approach, in which we conceive of the triune life of God less in terms of the essential operations within an individual soul and more in terms of reciprocal loving relations and communion among distinct persons. Our guiding analogies for understanding the God of the Trinity can become the human family or community—human relations of love and reciprocity—not merely the interior life of the soul, which is often conceived along Platonic or Neoplatonic lines.
For von Balthasar, the content of the doctrine of the Trinity is essentially nothing other than “God is love” (see 1 John 4:8 and 4:16). At its root, the doctrine of the Trinity means that interpersonal love—love selflessly shared among distinct persons—is the very nature of God. In von Balthasar’s theology of the Trinity, the Father begets or generates the Son in an act of self-emptying love. This outpouring of love is so primordial and constitutive both of God’s essence and of God’s relation to the world that von Balthasar speaks of the Father’s begetting of the Son as the act of supra-kenosis or Ur-kenosis which undergirds all other acts of love, both divine and human: the Father utterly pours himself out, entrusting his very being and divine essence to the Son, letting go not only of all that he has but also of all that he is in his generation of the Son. The Son, in an act of total, reciprocal self-giving love, returns himself fully to the Father. The Father’s perfect gift of love and total gift of himself to the Son elicits or engenders the fully matching or mirroring kenotic love of the Son. All that the Son has and is he receives only from the Father, and the Son returns himself without remainder to the Father in a perpetual act of filial love and trust. The Holy Spirit is the personal expression, the We, of this personal, primordial exchange of pure love, such that the Father and Son stand in an I-Thou relation to one another, while the Holy Spirit is the We, or the Spirit of communal love shared between the I-Thou of Father-Son.
In a world of individualism, the doctrine of the Trinity confronts us with a God whose nature is social and communal. In a world of consumerism, consumption, and the grasping of the ego, the properly Christian view of God as triune envisions the divine essence as a life of love in service only of the Other, a life in which every I prefers the welfare of the Thou over and above all self-interest. The consuming individual ego, so much taken for granted in the modern West, is the very opposite of God’s nature as revealed to us by the doctrine of the Trinity. While sinful humankind seeks modes of domination, the assertion of one’s will-to-power over against any competing factors, the truth of the Trinity shows us another way. In the life of God, the life of the Trinity, into which we are all called as our final destiny and beatitude, we discover love that lets go, forgoes power, and puts oneself at the disposal of the Other.
This is very similar to what Daniel Dennett calls a “deepity,” in that it’s a long and sophisticated explanation that pretends to be far more profound than it really is. It’s just the old “God loves you because he sent his only son to die so you could be saved” idea (or, since it invokes the trinity, “God loves you because he sent himself to die so you could be saved”). But that leaves out one very important thing: What are we being saved from? From the divine wrath of God, of course.
So the claim, in plain language, is that God sent his own son — himself, actually, by some bizarre twist of illogic — as a sacrifice to himself to satiate his own sense of divine anger at the things we do that he doesn’t like (which he knew we were going to do before he created us). That’s not loving sacrifice, it’s just absurdity.
84 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
Reginald Selkirk
July 25, 2012 at 10:21 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Kenosis? I thought that had something to do with gambling addiction.
anteprepro
July 25, 2012 at 10:21 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
What the fuck kind of shaggy dog story is that? Did he manage to fool himself into thinking that he actually answered the question?
Q: Why is there natural and human evil in the world if God is good?
A: Well, that’s an easy one. It’s because God loves, and is so loving, and is love, and loved so much that his love became loving Jesus who sacrificed out of love because love and if you loved as much as Jesus loved, you filthy individualistic sinner, then the world would be love.
Q: WTF?
Sophisticated Theology strikes again!
flatlander100
July 25, 2012 at 10:26 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I think George Carlin had the best response to this sort of woo. Something to the effect that God says he will send you to burn eternally in a fiery hell suffering unspeakable torment if you break any of the many rules he set for you to follow. Why? “Because he loves you.”
Carline 1, Christion Woo 0. Game to Carlin.
richardelguru
July 25, 2012 at 10:32 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@ Reginald Selkirk
“Kenosis? I thought that had something to do with gambling addiction.”
Actually I think it’s—Oh my God!—What killed Kenny!
Raging Bee
July 25, 2012 at 10:32 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
In developing this argument I will draw deeply on the insights of the great twentieth-century Swiss theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar…
Isn’t Balthasar the name of a demon? I’m seeing a serious problem right from the start. That, and the fact that he’s being quoted by an apologist for a Church that facilitates the rape of children and tries to use law-enforcement to punish people who call out its con-games.
Seriously, doesn’t the Bible itself predict that evil spirits will seek to poison and misrepresent God’s messages to Man? That’s pretty clearly what’s happening here.
Raging Bee
July 25, 2012 at 10:34 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“Theo|logical:” the one-word oxymoron.
umlud
July 25, 2012 at 10:42 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I would prefer that this be called “derpity,” in that it is
a literary or spoken phrase that combines elements of “WTF” and ‘cool story bro’.” -Urbandictionary.com
Of course, one characteristic of “derp” is that it is short and not discursive. Of course, too, the above is just “derp” followed by “derp” followed by “derp”, so perhaps it’s just “iterative derpity.”
… I have to think about this some more.
umlud
July 25, 2012 at 10:43 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
If there’s Kenosis, does this mean that there’s Barbieosis, too?
anteprepro
July 25, 2012 at 10:50 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Oh wow. He actually does get to a point. And it is…ugh.
So, evil and suffering spurs us into a spiritual, martyr-like life via the Power of Jesus! What a satisfactory answer.
“I’m not justifying suffering, because I say I am not.”
If only he spent time illustrating how his theodicy isn’t basically “suffering is good because Jesus” instead of spending paragraph after paragraph babbling about the Trinity and sacrifice. What the fuck kind of priorities does this guy have, that he thinks that that was a good use of his effort? He goes on and on about something that is barely relevant to his argument, and then just decides to phone it in when defending his few sentences of actual Excuse with a few sentences of “Nope, don’t it interpret that way.” Is it really that difficult for him to understand that it might be a good idea to actually give reasons why this argument doesn’t justify abuse and neglect as routes to spiritual growth? “Christ redeems all human suffering” is apparently just typical theobabble. It doesn’t actually mean anything in real world terms. Fuck, what a waste of time.
Bronze Dog
July 25, 2012 at 10:53 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’m reminded of a children’s cartoon episode trope: A “heroic” character shows up, saves the day from threats, often stealing the thunder from the main characters in the process. Then they find out that said “hero” is actually manufacturing those threats in order to get the glory when he stops them.
IIRC, that was one of the alleged names of the three wise men who visited Jesus: Balthasar, Melchior, and Casper. Mostly I know those names because they show up in anime references.
frrolfe
July 25, 2012 at 10:54 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Dear Ed and fanboys, I’ve been following your blog for a long time now. I followed you from science blogs. I’m a “cultural catholic / agnostic” from Ireland who has moved back to the emerald isle after spending over 20 yrs in Oz (g’day Dingo!).
I have felt for a long time now that the free thought blogsite was becoming an echo chamber where a small number of people have been confirming each other’s views, and dare I say it, (scare quotes here) “beliefs”. you are preaching to the converted and nothing you say will do anything other than to convince Cletus and Brandine that all scientists are atheists who want to destroy their values and the murkan way of life.
The real commies at Alternet have recently decided to introduce a section on “faith”. The Guardian has an excellent section on belief at CIF. Pitting your belief in the absence of god against believers, even the lowest pond life of the fundigelicals is a lose / lose game.
Wittgenstein had 2 often quoted aphorisms:
“Whereof one cannot speak, one must be silent”
“The limits of my language means the limits of my world”
Lets all try to be nicer to each other.
Michael Heath
July 25, 2012 at 10:59 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ed writes:
It’s not mere absurdity, it’s near-infinite evil. Punish sentinent beings for all eternity, that’s the intelligent design claimed by biblical inerrantists and many other Christians. The idea of earthly theodicy is a mere red herring relative to the Christian promise their God plans to punish some for all eternity. A subject they steadfastly avoid or avoid the best arguments against.
As an aside, while I never sought out an optimal explanation, does a coherent argument even exist that the Christian trinity is even logical if we concede a chance a theistic god exists (forget real). Especially in light of biblical passages distinguishing the supposed father from the supposed son. Like the supposed son supposedly praying to the supposed father about his supposed pending crucifixion. “Supposed” noting that the evidence this even happened is of course nil, my point is merely whether it could logically happen conceding the existence of a theistic god.
tubi
July 25, 2012 at 10:59 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Dear Jacob H. Friesenhahn,
Thanks to your article I now know that God loves me. A lot.
That is all.
anteprepro
July 25, 2012 at 10:59 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Hah. Says the man who comes in here with nothing but bluster and condescension? Yeah, that’s pretty much par for the course.
tubi
July 25, 2012 at 11:02 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@12
“Oh, why hast I forsaken myself so?!”
busterggi
July 25, 2012 at 11:03 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Theological babble isn’t all that far removed from glossalalia imo. Meaningless buzz words strung together pretending to say something when there is really nothing there.
Raging Bee
July 25, 2012 at 11:06 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I am not justifying the maltreatment of human persons as a strange way of rendering said persons closer to God. I am not giving any spiritual or religious excuse for cruelty toward human persons, or toward any sentient life for that matter. Nor am I providing theological warrant for neglect or indifference toward those who are undergoing great anguish. I am not suggesting that a person caught in a situation of abuse ought to accept his or her abuse as the will of God and thus a situation not to be fought or escaped. I do not assume that a victim of horrendous evil, one who has been broken down or disintegrated physically or psychologically, will be able to or called upon by God to make an active or self-conscious use of his or her suffering for spiritual advancement.
Yes, in fact, he’s contributing to ALL of those dsigraceful endeavors, either diretly or indirectly; and the fact that he listed all of them explicitly proves he’s at least aware of the valid criticism of his sophistry (which he denies but does not refute).
Rather, my point…is that God himself redeems, in Christ by the cross and within the life of the Trinity, all forms of human suffering.
…for valuable cash prizes?
…the goal of a properly Christian theodicy is to proclaim hope to all who are suffering and to proclaim a hope that is clearly grounded in the mystery of the God of Jesus Christ.
A hope that is “clearly” grounded in such abstraction, is a hope that is grounded in nothing at all. And that seems to be the only kind of “hope” this Church has to offer — FALSE hope.
abb3w
July 25, 2012 at 11:10 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Looking through, it appears it does OK at the and to announce hope to suffering humanity part of things. However, that’s a relatively small problem. The big problem is trying to defend the justice of God in the face of evil.
There does seem to be some attempt to address the existence of evil:
This traces back to the Garden of Eden and the fall:
So, the existence of evil is part of a plan to unite man with God. All well and good. However, since God is omnipotent, he could have found other means to the same spiritual union of creator and creation.
There seems some additional trouble with the Euthyphro dilemma as well. To wit,
…only makes sense if one takes the position that morality is that beloved of the gods, or something they create/define arbitrarily. To which, I’d agree more with Vlad Taltos instead: “I think when a god does something reprehensible, it’s still reprehensible.” I think at the root is a form of Hume’s is-ought problem: the universe-creating omnipotence and moral omnipotence of a deity are separate concepts.
The article seems a possibly effective piece of Attitude Bolstering for retaining the sheep within the flock, but useless as Counterargument for bringing back the prodigal lambs that have strayed.
Raging Bee
July 25, 2012 at 11:12 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Pitting your belief in the absence of god against believers, even the lowest pond life of the fundigelicals is a lose / lose game.
If our efforts are so useless here, then why did you go out of your way to belittle us? You’re sounding a bit defensive here. Did we hit a nerve?
Oh, and we’re all quite aware that we can’t “win” an argument with the lowest pond-scum — we’re aiming for a more educated and honest audience, and as several other FTB posts remind us, that’s a game we CAN win, and ARE winning. I think you know this already, and that’s why you’re so desperate to put us down (and change the subject to another tone argument).
marcus
July 25, 2012 at 11:14 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Jacob H. Friesenhahn tl(and idiotic);dr. Liked Ed’s and others comments but as far as the quoted text? Life is just too short to waste it reading this kind of masturbatory drivel. Ick!
Raging Bee
July 25, 2012 at 11:17 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I have felt for a long time now that the free thought blogsite was becoming an echo chamber where a small number of people have been confirming each other’s views…
Is your church a more diverse crowd? I’ve been to many different churches, and I’ve never heard as much dissent from the party line in any of them as you just voiced here.
“Echo chamber?” Coming from a church-going Christian, that epithet is pure hypocricy.
frrolfe
July 25, 2012 at 11:24 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@ 14 Anteprepro. Please explain the bluster and the condescension. I want rationality to win out and i really fear for the future of reality based science in US. The denialist movement in europe is gaining traction because of contagion from US. The comments on this article, prior to my own, confirm my concerns.
We can all live in bubbles. When blogs make out that people like Fisher are super influential and then, days later, say he’s an isolated wingnut, then something is wrong. Ditto to the power of N with WND.
I’m on the side of science, rationality and truth which is supposedly your side. Atheism is a belief system and deserves no more or no less respect than other belief systems. I’m still waiting for proof that god does / doesn’t exist. proofs on a post card please.
anteprepro
July 25, 2012 at 11:30 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The first comment:
The second comment:
Is anyone aside from frrolfe hirself failing to see that xe is all chest-thumping, sneering, and hypocrisy and no substance?
frrolfe
July 25, 2012 at 11:32 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Raging @21: “church going christian”? Is that the new definition of agnostic? You are totally missing the point, and how could you do anything else when you speed-read my comment?
The lack of reality shown on this blog explains why the democrats are doomed if that’s how libruls really view the world.
Raging Bee
July 25, 2012 at 11:36 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’m sorry, I can’t even bring myself to slog through this bogus theo|logical word-salad. Ferfucksake, why can’t this clueless jackass just say God allows evil to exist because he wants us to learn through experience, and then forgives us because he knows our sins aren’t entirely our fault? Seriously, are these German nimrods so clueless, and so rigid in their abstract thinking, that they can’t even begin to explain their beliefs in practical terms?
This Pope and his ideological enforcers may not have ever been actual card-carrying Nazis, but it’s painfully clear that their minds are still in the grip of rigid, dogmatic, narrow-minded, fascist thought-patterns.
Draken
July 25, 2012 at 11:38 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Von Balthasar’s theology of the Trinity relies heavily on the concept of kenotic or self-giving love.
Wot?
The Greek word kenosis indicates an “emptying” or “pouring out.”
Oh, wanking. Why dinnay say so.
MarkNS
July 25, 2012 at 11:48 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@ffrolfe,
Define what you mean by god so I know what I’m trying to disprove. I’m not about to fall for the standard moving goal posts of christianity.
I’m as confident saying “there is no god” as I am saying “there is no invisible unicorn stalking me”. Sure, I (and most atheists I know) are willing to concede that both of these things are theoretically possible but the probability of them existing, given the complete lack of any evidence supporting their existence, is so small as to be negligible.
As for the various flavours of christian gods, with their rather specifically defined attributes…I think the stalking unicorn is more likely.
Taz
July 25, 2012 at 11:52 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
frrolfe –
Bullshit. Atheism does not equate to “I believe god doesn’t exist”, it equates to “I do not believe god exists”. There’s a difference. No atheist I know takes the non-existence of god on faith. They just don’t see any evidence to support the claim.
frrolfe
July 25, 2012 at 11:57 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Raging @ 19: I am really sorry for offending anybody on this blog. That was not my intention. You mention that you are winning the war with “the more educated”. And the proof is?
I cant help feeling that you are missing the point. The future of the US will not be decided by people who don their smoking jackets after dinner and who pass the port while discussing the latest articles in the “New Yorker”. For better or worse a lot of the people who will decide the future will be more familiar with “Left Behind” than the “New Yorker”
The failure of the US “Left” (no pun intended)to engage with the people who have been captured by their churches and the rethuglians is one of the greatest cop-outs ever. Poor Woody must be spinning in his grave!
frrolfe
July 25, 2012 at 12:04 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Guys, can you please look up the meaning of “agnostic”.
Taz @ 28: You’re not a Jesuit by any chance?
Raging Bee
July 25, 2012 at 12:09 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The denialist movement in europe is gaining traction because of contagion from US.
And part of that contagion consists of people like you who mindlessly spout denialist lies and talking-points while pretending they’re “agnostics” and “on the side of science.”
Atheism is a belief system and deserves no more or no less respect than other belief systems.
And not believing in monsters under your bed deserves no more or no less respect than believing they’ll eat you as soon as you’re alone? This is nothing but grade-school subjectivism, and it’s routinely spouted by religious liars and con-artists when their fact-claims are disproven. And it’s just plain false: there is an objective, observable reality outside our heads, and some people’s opinions are simply more in tune with that reality than others.
I’m still waiting for proof that god does / doesn’t exist.
Do you still need proof that many people use religious beliefs to justify evil self-serving acts? Do you still need proof that religious/supernatural thinking very often leads people to irrational, dangerous and harmful behaviors? Do you still need proof that people are imperfect and are prone to ignorance and evil whether or not they believe in a good and perfect god? Because those are the things you need most to understand, and if you see all this and keep changing the subject to “you atheists are so mean and rude!” then you’re NOT on the side of reason.
The lack of reality shown on this blog explains why the democrats are doomed if that’s how libruls really view the world.
Who here is talking about “libruls” and “democrats?” The fact that YOU brought those labels into this conversation (a conversation about a church, not a political party), strongly implies you’re a partisan Republican using anti-atheist tone arguments to pander to the Christian Reich bigots.
Raging Bee
July 25, 2012 at 12:15 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I cant help feeling that you are missing the point. The future of the US will not be decided by people who don their smoking jackets after dinner and who pass the port while discussing the latest articles in the “New Yorker”.
Ah yes, the old “out-of-touch East Coast Ivy-League city-slicker elitist liberal” stereotype, so beloved by Republicans since New Yorker Franklin Roosevelt proved them dead wrong on just about everything; and so routinely and mindlessly used by Republicans every time a liberal tries to criticize bigotry, dishonesty and stupidity. And you still expect us to believe you’re an agnostic on the side of science?
Raging Bee
July 25, 2012 at 12:20 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
…and so routinely and mindlessly used by Republicans every time a liberal tries to criticize bigotry, dishonesty and stupidity.
Sorry, that should have read: “…and so routinely and mindlessly used by Republicans every time ANYONE tries to criticize bigotry, dishonesty and stupidity.”
Chiroptera
July 25, 2012 at 12:22 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
frrolfe, #29: The future of the US will not be decided by people who don their smoking jackets after dinner and who pass the port while discussing the latest articles in the “New Yorker”.
And who is this supposed to describe? American leftist atheists? Really?
Caricatures without basis in fact may be useful to maintain your comrades sense of superiority in the echo chambers that you normally inhabit, but when you are going to go through with the pretense of “engaging” the other side in a “discussion,” you’d at least have the appearance of sincerity if you didn’t address with caricatures they know aren’t true.
frrolfe
July 25, 2012 at 12:25 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Raging @31: As we say in ireland , Jaysus! the number of assumptions in your post are beyond belief. When I first commented it was to express concern that aggressive atheists are not winning any battles but are forcing conservatives and, particularly, fundamentalists, to double-down on their stupidity. Silly me!
I case the fact that I am Irish has clouded your views, Ireland is now one the LEAST catholic countries in europe – child abuse etc.
Not one commenter has addressed my central issue: belligerence does not win friends.
Raging Bee
July 25, 2012 at 12:32 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
When I first commented it was to express concern that aggressive atheists are not winning any battles but are forcing conservatives and, particularly, fundamentalists, to double-down on their stupidity.
Were the fundies acting less stupid, dishonest or bigoted when the atheists were less aggressive?
I[n] case the fact that I am Irish has clouded your views, Ireland is now one the LEAST catholic countries in europe – child abuse etc.
Excuse me? Ireland was, up to very recently, a virtual Catholic theocracy, where birth control was illegal (until the 1990s) and priests routinely got away with all sorts of sexual and other abuses. Do you have any idea what you’re talking about?
Not one commenter has addressed my central issue: belligerence does not win friends.
And spineless accomodationism doesn’t deter evil or make it go away.
Raging Bee
July 25, 2012 at 12:34 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
PS: If you think that harsh criticism of obvious religious dishonesty, such as the example Ed quoted above, is “belligerence,” that pretty strongly implies you’re on the side of the con-artists, not reason.
TCC
July 25, 2012 at 12:37 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
In other words, “It’ll all work out in the end.” Which ignores the questions of why it had to happen in the first place and why it continues to happen (a sentiment, I might add, that is even expressed in the Psalms).
Your concern is noted. (Although you chose an interesting post to make this comment on, given that this is far from the “lowest common denominator” approach you criticize. I mean, this theodicy might be absurd, but it at least has a semblance of sophistication that your average fundamentalist probably wouldn’t grasp.)
Hercules Grytpype-Thynne
July 25, 2012 at 12:40 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
And yet this supposed utter self-emptying costs Him absolutely nothing. Nice gig if you can get it.
Raging Bee
July 25, 2012 at 12:40 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Another thing: Catholic priests were raping children and covering it up LONG before those rude nasty atheists showed up. Unbeleivers’ criticism of the evil that religion enables did nto make the Church “double down,” it helped make them accountable! Without robust harsh criticism from secular and rationalist forces, the Church would still be raping children and getting away with it — and probably still telling us the Earth stands still too.
frrolfe
July 25, 2012 at 12:40 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Raging @ everything. One of the most valid criticisms leveled at WND etc is they cherry pick statements to show the speaker / commentator in the worst possible light.
You quoted my comment re. the “New Yorker” with out any reference to my comment re. “Left Behind”. I have to say that this has been a very sobering experience for me and explains to some extent the little local difficulty that FTB has been having lately. Chillax everybody and stop looking for wingnuts under the bed!
anteprepro
July 25, 2012 at 12:44 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
So, ffrolfe is now admitting to just being a run-off-the-mill concern troll, and pretending that that is a good thing? What a fucking pioneer.
How is conservatives and fundamentalists doubling down on stupidity count as losing? Even if that could be solely attributed to aggressive atheists (we are far more powerful of a minority than we even imagined!), even if I grant that these groups are becoming even more stupid (fundamentalists were always fucking stupid), doesn’t that just mean that those groups are even more obviously stupid to those that aren’t as conservative and fundamentalist? Isn’t making these groups choose to become even more obviously ridiculous an excellent way to drive the moderates away from fundamentalism and conservatism? They were always stupid and dangerous. At least this way, it’s harder for them to hide it.
But, yeah: Tone tone tone, the biggest issue is tone.
frrolfe
July 25, 2012 at 12:50 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@ Raging: “Until recently”?? I am talking about NOW. I can excuse your ignorance but not your tired bigotry. If you seriously believe that Ireland is a catholic country you must have been living under a rock for a very long time.
The principal reason that Ireland ceased being a catholic country was because of child abuse and the cover-ups by the church and civil authorities. You should get out more and give your prejudices a bit of a walk. If you’re too lazy to do that, try the googles on the intertubes. Its not rocket surgery!
Chiroptera
July 25, 2012 at 12:51 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
You quoted my comment re. the “New Yorker” with out any reference to my comment re. “Left Behind”.
Probably because he wasn’t disputing your claim that there is a politically significant group in the US that is more familiar with Left Behind than with the New Yorker.
He was pointing out that your caricature of US liberals as elitist snobs who are out of touch with the common folk pretty much pegs you as someone who really is just someone with an axe to grind.
anteprepro
July 25, 2012 at 12:52 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
lolwut? You brought up Left Behind as an example of an opposite to The New Yorker. Which does absolutely nothing to defuse your characterization of The New Yorker as something “librul” elites read. You are clearly buying into wingnut memes and Raging Bee is totally right about that, regardless of whether or not you are actually a full-fledged wingnut yourself.
frrolfe
July 25, 2012 at 12:53 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
BTW, When people stopped being catholic, they stopped period.
frrolfe
July 25, 2012 at 1:11 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’m really beginning to think that I’m dealing with goldfish here. My ref to the “New Yorker” was in response to Bee’s assertion that you were aiming at the “more educated and honest audience”.
Apart from the fact that that comment drips with condescension,
what example should I have used? – the “National Enquirer”?
Give that Ed operates out of Michigan, I wasn’t really thinking of the Algonquin Club.
Reginald Selkirk
July 25, 2012 at 1:18 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
If your jacket is smoking, put it out! before you get burned.
anteprepro
July 25, 2012 at 1:19 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
ffrolfe spews:
Ireland 2012: : 87% Catholic.
It’s 84% according to their 2011 Census.
Sorry, but that’s pretty damn Catholic. Yeah, there are quite a few countries that are more Catholic than that (Poland, Italy, Spain), but only the most lowly and pathetic of sophists would say that “there are countries that are more Catholic than Ireland in Europe” is equivalent to the claim that Ireland isn’t “a Catholic country”.
Reginald Selkirk
July 25, 2012 at 1:21 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
There is so much in religion worthy of condescension. Consider the apologetics quoted in Ed’s post, which you are attempting to hijack, trollboy. It is worthy of condescension, and so are you.
Raging Bee
July 25, 2012 at 1:28 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
My ref to the “New Yorker” was in response to Bee’s assertion that you were aiming at the “more educated and honest audience”.
Yes — I mentioned there are moderate-to-well-educated people who have proven responsive to our messages (without mantioning any particular location, because they’re everywhere), and you responded with a stereotype routinely used to insult and demean educated people. That’s the response I’d expect of a Palinista, not an intelligent and honest agnostic.
And then you called us “goldfish.” And you’re lecturing US about bigotry? You’re not fooling anyone.
Chiroptera
July 25, 2012 at 1:28 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
frrolfe, #47: My ref to the “New Yorker” was in response to Bee’s assertion that you were aiming at the “more educated and honest audience”.
Well, “more educated and honest audience” brings to your mind an image of out-of-touch elitist snobs, then that says something about your attitude toward policy decisions based on reasoned analysis of facts as opposed to bigoted hatred and fear.
In fact, your comments are pretty much standard rhetoric that comes out of the U.S. anti-intellectual rightwing. It’s certainly not something I expect from someone from Western Europe.
anandine
July 25, 2012 at 1:40 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I get it. God allows evil because he loves us.
frrolfe
July 25, 2012 at 1:43 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@ Antiprepro: Well caught! Did you then look at the numbers who attend mass weekly? Thats generally regarded as the gold standard for actual religious observance.
The census figures for the US show that a very majority declare themselves as “christians” despite the fact that fewer and fewer people in the US, including the fundigelicals, actually attend church services and are into non-christian things like, oh, i don’t know, lets just say abortion and contraception.
In case you people (Thanks Mrs. Romney) don’t get it, an absurd number of people in the US claim irish roots. Does that make them irish? Cultural catholicism refers to people who were brought up as catholics but do not practice. Anything else you need to know.
In closing, thank you all for confirming my worst fears.
Raging Bee
July 25, 2012 at 1:58 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Yo, frrolfe, here’s another mean belligerent atheist for you to lecture:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/07/25/sanal-edamaruku-update/#comment-128811
Tell us again how atheists are just as “fundamentalist” as Christians?
Raging Bee
July 25, 2012 at 2:01 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
In closing, thank you all for confirming my worst fears.
Like the religious con-artist you pretend not to be, your worst fear seems to be an audience that doesn’t buy your tired old manipulative talking-points. OOGITEYBOOGITEY BEELZEBUBBIN’!
Chiroptera
July 25, 2012 at 2:05 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
frrolfe, #54: In closing, thank you all for confirming my worst fears.
Heh. You were really afraid that if you were to come in here making ignorant and thoughtless remarks people would mock you and point out what an imbecile you are?
You’re welcome.
Raging Bee
July 25, 2012 at 2:05 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Cultural catholicism refers to people who were brought up as catholics but do not practice.
We’re not questioning your upbringing, we’re questioning your honesty.
anteprepro
July 25, 2012 at 2:07 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ah yes, it is only a Catholic country if the country where a vast majority of people consider themselves Catholic also attend mass at some arbitrary frequency. Well played, assclown.
Finally, we have found the link between Sophisticated Theology and Sophisticated Tonetrollogy: Humpty Dumpty’s Creed:
Anyway, 2006:
Church attendance in the U.S. is self-reported to be 40% each week.
Not only are you arguing dishonestly, but you are still wrong! Pathetically, transparently wrong. And you claim to actually be from Ireland, and yet apparently know fuck-all about the actual trends there. I guess that’s the downside to having your head perpetually up your own ass, huh?
And yet still identify as Catholic because they just enjoy the child rape that much. I mean, it’s either that or they actually still believe in Catholic doctrine or consider Catholicism is an ethnic identity. But that would just be stupid.
Chiroptera
July 25, 2012 at 2:13 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
anteprepo, #59: And you claim to actually be from Ireland, and yet apparently know fuck-all about the actual trends there.
And spouting uniquely US rightwing boilerplate rhetoric.
For someone raised in Ireland and living in Australia, he sure picked up US wingnuttery pretty quick, didn’t he?
Sastra
July 25, 2012 at 2:25 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I can see why the Trinity would be useful here. It encourages doublethink.
Theodicies are often structured on appeals to our common-sense understanding of how people can help out in tragedies: one person sacrifices themselves to save another. Okay, we get that. But of course the person who commits the self-sacrifice can’t simultaneously be the ultimate cause of the problem or the sacrifice is simply a bit of theater and means nothing. So we distance the rescue-person from the cause-person: yes, they’re the same, but they’re different. And now we bring in a different story: the parent who knows a child must make mistakes in order to grow. The cause-person is similar to that.
But now there’s a new conflict: not all mistakes aid in growth. Bring in the image of another person. This time, it’s the helpless parent watching their child do wrong and incapable of stopping them. The witness-person.
Mix them up, mix them together — call the resulting confusion profound.
ffrolfe #35 wrote:
Many people addressed that. “Winning friends” is not the same as “changing minds.” You’re not going to do that last one without honesty and clarity.
And even ordinary folks from simple backgrounds can appreciate honesty — and think things through. Your defense of religious sensibilities seems more like an attack on both their intelligence and their integrity.
I doubt very much that Jacob H. Friesenhahn simultaneously teaches theology in Texas — and lives in New York with the elitists. Or was a Catholic theology teacher explicating the role of the Trinity supposed to represent ‘Cletus and Brandine?’
Raging Bee
July 25, 2012 at 2:40 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
For someone raised in Ireland and living in Australia, he sure picked up US wingnuttery pretty quick, didn’t he?
Stockholm syndrome maybe?
cjcolucci
July 25, 2012 at 2:45 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
For better or worse a lot of the people who will decide the future will be more familiar with “Left Behind” than the “New Yorker”
I doubt that very much. One subset of the crowd that reads the New Yorker and passes the port may well bamboozle enough of the Left Behind crowd to get themselves voted into power over the other subset of the crowd that reads the New Yorker and passes the port, and they may even throw the Left Behind crowd a bone or two on issues they don’t care about while they rig the economy to suit them. But make no mistake, it will be an elite that determines the future of the country. If you’re stupid enough to vote for the particular subgroup of the elite that plays you for a bunch of rubes, you deserve what you’ll get.
footface
July 25, 2012 at 3:27 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Too true! This topic—let’s call it, oh… accommodationism?—has hardly ever been addressed. Anywhere. Certainly not here at Dispatches.
Leo
July 25, 2012 at 3:35 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
That really speaks “No True Scottsman.” So who are the “true” Catholics, then? Or, rather, how often does one need to attend mass to be a “true” Catholic?
I must be mistaken, though. That can’t be a logical fallacy because I am part of an echo chamber.
Reginald Selkirk
July 25, 2012 at 3:57 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Triplethink?
Reginald Selkirk
July 25, 2012 at 4:01 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Let’s not say that, it feeds into the Fundagelical claim that they represent all of Christendom. I see no reason why we should concede that argument.
shockna
July 25, 2012 at 5:06 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I misread “theodicy” as “idiocy”. Perhaps a warning sign from my head not to read any more “sophisticated” Catholic theology?
Raging Bee
July 25, 2012 at 5:24 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I can see why the Trinity would be useful here.
The only Trinity I know of that was of any use was the one played by Carrie Anne Moss in the “Matrix” movies. Pity there aren’t three of her. Oh well, at least there were three movies…
I misread “theodicy” as “idiocy”.
I do that all the time. Maybe it’s not as much of “misreading” as we think.
marcus
July 25, 2012 at 6:55 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I knew something intelligent would emerge in this thread. Yay Carrie Ann Moss! She was awesome as Trinity. My hero. *sigh*
emilyd
July 25, 2012 at 8:44 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Hi Ed and his mindless brainwashed followers! I’m on the side of logic and reason just like you!
But aren’t you concerned that people might think your blog is an echo chamber, or make hasty generalizations about the whole scientific community. So why not just be quiet like a good atheist? I mean, you can’t possibly be helping our cause by writing a blog in which you clearly articulate your views in a sometimes aggressive manner and provide a space for others to do the same. Or by discussing the New Yorker at dinner parties or whatever it is you elitist liberals do.
Finally, here’s a couple of context-less quotes from a philosopher that have only a passing relation to the content of my message, but that will impress you guys, right? You’re impressed by profound-sounding verbiage aren’t you?
Now lets all be nice and not say anything controversial. Chillax guyz (and please don’t criticize me or anything, that would make you big meanies) ^_^
And if more than one person disagrees with me, that just proves I’m right. Nyaah nyaah!
–Trollfe
Ed Brayton
July 25, 2012 at 9:46 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
frrolfe wrote:
Perhaps you could actually cite me ever doing this. I’ll wait.
Sorry, you fail. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods and that is all it is.
kacyellis
July 26, 2012 at 12:01 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
This makes me wish I had studied science in school, instead of spending all my free time studying theology, because I could actually follow that and knew the history behind the development of kenosis. etc. Such wasted time.
Ultimately, your analysis is correct. The author dresses up the same ol’ argument with what I like to call theo-technobabble and slight of hand.
Like a magician, he attempts to draw his readers away from the real question, theodicy–How is God NOT a sick freak?– to, “Just look at Jesus!”
Forget that theodicy question…Jesus loves you!
democommie
July 26, 2012 at 9:24 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“glossalalia”
I thought that meant talking about teh bling.
Does anyone know if there is an app I can get that’s like a virtual “button”? My compooter has a volume control but NOTHING for dialing down the “tonetroll”.
“I cant help feeling that you are missing the point. The future of the US will not be decided by people who don their smoking jackets after dinner and who pass the port while discussing the latest articles in the “New Yorker”.”
There’s actually one word in there that applies to your shilling for JESUS, it’s “cant”. I realize that you might have made a typo and that you had not intended to out yourself that way but, dude, MOST reptilipocrisy is UNCONCIOUSLY humorous. BTW, if I had a “smoking jacket” it would have a roach clip on a chain through the boutteneire hole.
Is ffrolfe related to fnord?
“Raging @31: As we say in ireland , Jaysus!”
Wadeafuggin’minnit! I think our friend ffrolfe is ACTUALLY the late, demented and unlamented KOI.
Although I have to admit that KOI has not, afaia, lied about where he lives, just most other stuff.
thalwen
July 26, 2012 at 9:39 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The trinity makes christian god seem to have multiple personality disorder. You have the nice “love thy neighbour” Jesus personality, the evil “smite them because I feel like smiting” old guy, and the ghost which thinks it’s a ghost? The alternative is that God raped a woman to give birth to himself so he could commit suicide to save humanity from his own wrath.. which sounds beyond stupid.
Also, concern troll fails at concern.
democommie
July 26, 2012 at 11:10 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Trinitarianism may be neatly explained by this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYlJH81dSiw
or NOT. But it makes at least as much sense as the bafflegab.
Raging Bee
July 26, 2012 at 1:14 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I think our friend ffrolfe is ACTUALLY the late, demented and unlamented KOI.
I thought KOI managed to grow up and abandon at least some of his more ignorant ways. IIRC (though it’s been a long time), KOI’s last comments I saw here were a lot more sensible than this stupid trollspew.
Besides, Ireland isn’t THAT small a country — it’s big enough that more than one person has a reasonable likelihood of finding this place from there.
democommie
July 26, 2012 at 1:51 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Raging Bee:
Admittedly, some of that was snark and KOI, afaia, lives in the U.S.
It just had that sortaKOIish “ring” to it.
derekhausheer
July 26, 2012 at 2:41 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Dr. Friesenhahn’s article is a condensed presentation of his Trinitarian theodicy addressing moral evil, but concludes in the original work and the article with an open confession that a deeper understanding is needed to adequately address natural evil. This is an important admission. Dr. Friesenhahn does not believe he has explained away the problem of evil. Rather, at least half the problem remains to be explained. I think the majority of posts about the article are overlooking the modesty of this theodicy. How many theists are willing to acknowledge that Hitchen’s natural evil challenge “can only be partially answered in terms of Christian theological reflection as it has been developed thus far”? While I am unable to believe in the existence of the Holy Trinity, I appreciate the difficulty in and desirability of avoiding moral relativism and nihilism without God as perfect moral legislator. Although the problem of evil is the ultimate barrier to belief in God, and remains so for me, I wish atheists here were willing to offer substantive atheistic explanations to the problem of evil. What are we to make of suffering if there is no God? Is there any consolation for humanity? Can we form meaningful moral judgments?
democommie
July 26, 2012 at 3:50 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
derek hausheer:
Prove your fucking GOD exists, then we’ll quibble about why his “will” varies according to which sect is explaining it.
Derek Hausheer
July 26, 2012 at 3:58 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
democommie:
I think you missed my fairly obvious admission that I too am an atheist… I don’t believe in God precisely because of the problem of evil. As atheists, what are we to make of suffering if there is no God? Is there any consolation for humanity? Can we form meaningful moral judgments?
Derek Hausheer
July 26, 2012 at 4:04 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Lately, my consolation has come from reading the philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer, who addresses all of the aforementioned questions in a deeply pessimistic understanding of life but ultimately salvific vision of the denial of the will to live.
Raging Bee
July 27, 2012 at 8:29 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Yes, there’s consolation for humanity: we already know we’re able to make our lives better than we find them, on the individual level (by learning as much as we can and doing the right things for ourselves and those nearest us), and on the social level (by organizing to push for policies that improve conditions for the greatest number of people).
And yes, we can form meaningful moral judgements — by using rational inquiry to determine which actions have which consequences, and deciding which consequences are most beneficial to humanity as a whole.
anteprepro
July 27, 2012 at 10:42 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Yes, I did overlook that he admitted that the entire exercise was pointless when I was dumbfounded at how pointless the entire exercise seemed. Knowing that he acknowledged that before he spilled so much virtual ink would have saved me some effort of trying to find out what his fucking point was.
Human suffering is awful and something that should be minimized and not explained away as the Mysterious Ways of a magical entity that is somehow using it for a greater good. Human suffering is something that should be lamented, and we shouldn’t force the sufferers to try to look at the bright side. Human suffering is something that is often undeserved, and that is the one thing that those who believe in an overseeing benevolent deity simply cannot stress adequately enough. The result is that those believers blame and shame victims, due to their thoroughly entrenched Just World Bias. Those who accept that the universe is indifferent and unfair can at least be decent enough to not blame people for the random misfortunes that befall them.
We can form meaningful moral judgments insofar as we can agree upon what morality is. A lot of people wring their hands about this, and yet secular morality and laws work . And even the religious accept that. They just don’t realize it. How so, you may ask? Well, in most nations, the laws and common morality are not heavily based in the religious “objective” morality, and yet the common morality pretty clearly superior to strict, by-the-Bible religious morality. It is clear that even the religious agree with this, because they regularly take secular morals that actually have little to no Biblical support (i.e. views on rape, abuse, slavery, torture, equality) and pretend it comes from their religion. They also selectively ignore the bad “objective” morals taught by their religion. Secular morality may be less objective than assuming that the Bible is God’s word and the ultimate set of moral codes, but secular morality is also the only morality that has actually worked. The religious just haven’t been able to admit it to themselves yet.