 |
| Bertinoro, Italy-Facebook |
April 19, 2013
Some brief comments on the Boston Terror issue.
My prayers go out to all the victims.
I have been watching some of the coverage on television and following some of the stories online. I reason the coverage via the Seattle CBS affiliate KIRO that is simulcasting with WBZ seems to actually be often more informative and less repetitive than CNN. I have found this with other major news stories as well that the local broadcasts are often more informative.
I like many others of course assumed the terrorists would have some connection to Islam. I do realize that technically there are what are described as moderate Muslims that will not commit such actions. Yes, I have met them, and know them. It is not a personal issue.
But, I would not fault Western governments for taking measures to profile in order to attempt to prevent such terrorist acts from possibly occurring again. And this would include documenting the ethnic origin of where persons are from, in this case Chechnya, Russia, and the religion associated, in this case, Islam, as long as basic rights and freedom were maintained based on Western democratic values.
There is a balance between security and freedoms. I lean toward more personal freedoms for citizens especially and the ability to have personal rights to protect self, but realize the State as in Romans 13 does have the God-given mandate to maintain law and order.
End
During my Doctoral work Dr. Mesle was kind enough to personally reply to my requests for assistance and have his assistant send me photocopies of his out of print work which was useful as commentary on the works on the now late Professor John Hick.
Please note I have presented two posts in
regard to the Gratuitous Problem of Evil, where I state I do not hold to
gratuitous evil:
Genuine Evil? (PhD Edit)
Robert Mesle (1986) states that Hick’s
approach has the same problem as every classical theistic concept, that being a
denial of genuine evil.[1] He notes that Hick risks
making God into a devil as he has God ultimately responsible for evil,[2]
and if Hick denies that God can prevent evil, he ceases to be a classical
theist.[3] Mesle writes that Hick’s position
would be stronger if he admitted that not every evil led to something good
occurring.[4] He thinks that much of the
evil in existence is unredeemed and can be called gratuitous evil which is unnecessary evil,[5]
and is more harmful than good for humanity.[6] Gratuitous evil, as an
argument, is also known as the evidential argument for evil[7]
and has been presented by atheistic philosopher William Rowe (1990) on more
than one occasion. He presents an
argument for gratuitous evil[8] in
‘The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism’
in The Problem of Evil.
Mesle (1991) notes that if God was truly
omnipotent and had moral values equal to the best human ones as we understand
them,[9] then there would be less suffering in the world.[10] He states that Hick misses
the point by not acknowledging gratuitous evil[11]
as Hick sees that all evil must play a redemptive role for humanity.[12] Hick answers this objection
within a section of John Hick’s Theodicy (1991)[13]
where he writes that the existence of an enormous amount of evil does not
entail that God cannot work his ultimate good purposes.[14] He comments that evils are
not rendered good, or turned into merely apparent evil by the fact that God can turn them towards a good purpose.[15] It should be stated that
natural evils are not a major concern within Hick’s soul-making theodicy.[16] This is because he thinks
that human beings must exist in a challenging, dangerous environment in order
for human progress to be made.[17] For this reason natural
evils would be a natural means which could assist God in potentially building
souls.[18]
HICK, JOHN
(1970) Evil and The God of Love,
London, The Fontana Library.
HICK, JOHN
(1978) ‘Present and Future Life’, Harvard
Theological Review, Volume 71, Number 1-2, January-April, Harvard
University.
HICK, JOHN
(1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T.
Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.
HICK, JOHN
(1993) ‘Afterword’ in GEIVETT, R.
DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for
God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.
HICK, JOHN
(1993) The Metaphor of God Incarnate,
Louisville, Kentucky, John Know Press.
HICK, JOHN
(1994) Death and Eternal Life,
Louisville, Kentucky, John Knox Press.
HICK, JOHN
(1999) ‘Life after Death’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology,
Kent, SCM Press.
MESLE, C. ROBERT
(1986) ‘The Problem of Genuine Evil: A Critique of John Hick’s Theodicy’, in The Journal of Religion, Volume 66,
Number 4, pp. 412-430.
October, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
MESLE, C. ROBERT
(1991) John Hick’s Theodicy, New
York, St. Martin’s Press.
MESLE, C. ROBERT
(2004) ‘Suffering, Meaning, and the Welfare of Children: What Do Theodicies
Do?’, in American Journal of Theology
& Philosophy, Volume 25, Number 3, September. Lamoni, Iowa, Graceland University.
ROWE, WILLIAM L.
(1990) ‘The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism’, in Adams and Adams
(eds.), The Problem of Evil, Oxford,
Oxford University Press.
ROWE, WILLIAM L.
(1994) ‘The Problem of No Best World’, Faith and Philosophy, Volume 11, Number
2, April, pp. 269-278. Wilmore, Kentucky, Asbury College.
ROWE, WILLIAM L.
(1996) ‘Privation’, in Robert Audi, (ed.), The
Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
ROWE, WILLIAM L.
(1999) ‘The Problem of Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom’, in Faith and Philosophy, Volume 16, Number
1, January, pp. 98-101. Wilmore, Kentucky, Asbury College.
