Essay on Fate in Weatherhead’s The Will of God

“Across that threshold I had been afraid to cross, things suddenly seemed so very simple. There was but a single vision, God, who was all in all; there was but one will that directed all things, God's will. I had only to see it, to discern it in every circumstance in which I found myself, and let myself be ruled by it. God is in all things, sustains all things, directs all things. To discern this in every situation and circumstance, to see His will in all things, was to accept each circumstance and situation and let oneself be borne along in perfect confidence and trust. Nothing could separate me from Him, because He was in all things. No danger could threaten me; no fear could shake me, except the fear of losing sight of Him.” This quote shows a lot of what father had been through in the labor

John Hick argues in this writing that the all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good Christian god is compatible with an abundance of suffering. He offers solutions to the problem of suffering which relies heavily upon a tripartite foundation. Hick divides evil into two: Moral Evil = the evil that human being cause - either to themselves or to each other. And Non-Moral Evil = the evil that is not caused by human activity - natural disasters, etc. He tries to explain that a world without pain and suffering, moral traits such as courage, patience and sympathy would not be developed.

Many of the choices we make, using our free will, lead to suffering. We participate in risky behavior, without thinking of the consequences. For example, people that smoke have greater chances of developing health problem (e.g., cancer), which results in pain and suffering. This type of suffering is caused by our errors and mistakes. Many of the choice we make have consequences, but is it is impossible to live in a way in which we do not take risks. Furthermore, God's existence comes from intellect and not the sense, but suffering is felt through through our senses, whether it be external or internal pain. Suffering is adventitious and not

On the topic of the existence of God, Ernest Nagel and Richard Swinburne have construct arguments that challenge one another. In Nagel’s article, “Does God Exist?” he argues that if God is all-powerful, omniscient, and benevolent; he would know when evil occurs and has the power to prevent it. Because evil occurs, God does not exist. This is the problem of evil. Challenging Nagel, the article by Swinburne, “Why God Allows Evil,” argues that God has the right to allow moral and natural evils to occur because those evils reap greater goods that make the lives of human-beings meaningful. He extends his argument to the idea that God seeks to provide human beings with goods such as freewill and responsibility of not only ourselves, but of the world and others. While Nagel utilizes the problem of evil as an objection to the existence of God, Swinburne employs it to show that God allows evil to occur to provide human beings with goods that go beyond moments of pleasure and joys of happiness.

The author takes different standpoints on explaining his stance on why good people suffer. Throughout the book, he states that instead of people asking why bad things come to them, they should ask themselves what they can do now when they have found themselves in a difficult situation. He deals with the topic of death which is very contentious and hurting in people’s life. In his discourse he discourages people from turning a blind eye on events and being in denial; he argues that it is beneficial for people to believe that events such as death must occur, and that they are not necessarily caused by God.

In the midst of a crisis, does it not damage God’s reputation to say that God intentionally ‘allowed’ the calamity?” he writes (64). “It is tempting to give a reason that answers the theodicy question: the calamity took place because of God’s own limitations—God must be simply mourning with the sufferer because He couldn’t do anything about it. The horrific sufferings in the world are evidence that some things are utterly outside of God’s hands of power, for an omnipotent God would never have permitted this” (65).

William Rowe defines gratuitous evil as an instance of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.(Rowe 335) In a world with so much evil it raises the questions If God is all powerful, all knowing and all good, how can he allow bad things to happen to good people? Can God even exist in a world with so such gratuitous evil? These are questions that has afflicted humanity for a very long time and has been the question to engross theologians for centuries. The existence of evil has been the most influential and powerful reason to disprove the existence of God. It is believed among many theist that God is the creator and caretaker

We serve an omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent God. He created us all in his likeness giving us dominion of the earth and knows our every move before we even make it. Yet in the in the midst of the Garden of Eden, evil entered into our world. Christians have come to ask how is it that the God who has created everything allow evil to enter into his creations. The answer is not to blame God for letting sin in, for it is through us as humans who were given free will to make our decisions, evil entered creation. We have come to terms that our free will has a brought evil into the world but we still have questions about this evil and our will that need to be answered. For instance why would a God who is all knowing give his creations free will, if He knew with that free will His creations would bring evil into this world, and have to provides grace and mercy for His creations who are doomed without Him. A fourth century theologian and philosopher St. Augustine of Hippo is able to explore and articulate such questions of how evil and the free will are intertwined that have perplexed Christians.

The problem of evil has been around since the beginning. How could God allow such suffering of his “chosen people”? God is supposedly all loving (omni-benevolent) and all powerful (omnipotent) and yet He allows His creations to live in a world of danger and pain. Two philosophers this class has discussed pertaining to this problem is B.C. Johnson and John Hick. Johnson provides the theists’ defense of God and he argues them. These include free will, moral urgency, the laws of nature, and God’s “higher morality”. Hick examines two types of theodicies – the Augustinian position and the Irenaeus position. These positions also deal with free will, virtue (or moral urgency), and the laws of nature. Johnson

It is with no surprise that evil is lurking all around us. We live in a world that is unpredictable and dangerous. There are two categories of evil. The first is natural evil, which focuses on nature. The second is moral evil, which focuses on harm among others. The problem of evil is known to object the existence of God. Many atheists will say that if God is so good, then why do bad things happen to good people? Not to mention why did God create a bad world? We are often left speechless by the acts done onto others, whether it’s through natural evil or moral evil. The question is why does evil exist and why does God allow evil to exist? The problem of evil challenges our beliefs and makes us think twice about humanity and God. I intend to evaluate the problem of evil through the following theories, The Free Will Argument, Evil as a Privation of Good and Evil as Therapy.

I remember teaching a men’s workshop and a gentleman raised his hand and said, “What do we do, man? Our wives and children, we’re doing this, they’re doing the other. They won’t work with me ...” And he keeps going on and on and on. So, I let him get it all out. When he was done, I simply said, “Well, now you know how God feels.”

For over two thousand years, humans have tried to solve the perpetual question of “if God is all- knowing and good, why does he let so many bad things happen”. This question alone has created conflict in society, leading to the argument of “the problem of moral evil”. The people that are against the “free will defense” believe that the process of theology is inconsistent with the original idea about God himself. On the other hand, the people that are for the “free will defense” claim that, it’s not necessarily the case that God allows evil, but more of what God gave to us; moral agency. We would be robots if God didn’t grant us the notion of free agency. Weather one is for the free will defense or not, it all comes down to the withstanding of the perspective. Concepts and ideas about God are handed down to generation, after generation. Each side of the fence must up hold a sense of righteousness, because the denity of God and his powers differs.

I’m very glad that you said what you did because someone really needed to say it. For me being here at seminary as later vocation, I have a lot more experience of life than most these guys. Through life I have been through many hardship and sufferings that at times I brought upon myself and others which I didn’t. Some of these experiences and sufferings are things that I would never wish on anyone, not even an enemy. You mentioned that if God willing we become priests and that if there is ever a situation where someone has gone through some horrendous situation and going through a suffering of some sort, DO NOT give some philosophical explanation in response. And it is true, when you find yourself in so much pain and suffering, the last thing you need is someone to try to justify it or explain in random terms when they can’t relate to what is going on. Sometimes it’s important to be silent in these moments and walk with them in their time of need. Again, I appreciate you saying this because I think this is something that we all needed to hear. Some more than

The Winter's Tale is one of jealousy, betrayal and redemption. While this story involves many characters and opens questions of the flaws in human nature and the power of forgiveness, there are two main characters of particular anomaly. The actions of Leontes and Perdita in this play are unique unto themselves. As King, Leontes' every decision weighs heavily upon the court and his country. As we have seen in several other plays by Shakespeare, when the King is in distress, Nature herself is disrupted. The cosmic connection between Leontes and Nature allows for the supernatural forces that are seen late in the play. He has the opportunity to use these forces to accomplish great things. Instead he chooses to let

Good stuff and bad stuff happens, no human is exempt to the trajectory of either the good or the bad. Inexplicable sorrows exist, from large-scale miseries, such as natural disasters, wars, or famines, to personal circumstances that confront each as individuals, for example, cancer, loneliness, or depression. These sorrows, as well as numerous other sources of human suffering, create questions that weigh heavy on one’s soul. Especially questions similar to, “Why did God let this happen to me?” The “why” is a question that Dobson (1993) proposes all people at some point struggle to find the answer.