larger view larger view

I've always been intriqued by  the battle between good and evil. When I was younger, the utilitarianism of collectivism appealed to me.  Yet I instinctively knew that Communism had much evil in it, and I wanted to know what made Communism tick. It seemed so seductive for so many brilliant men and women, such as Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky. Surely, as brilliant as they were, they should have seen through the evils in the Communist system- such as denial of personal freedoms, particularly religious freedom and freedom of expression.

I'm still curious about the great war between the forces of good and evil. and I'd like to put forth some ideas here for discussion. If anyone would like to comment or discuss, feel free to bring up your questions.

Why is there evil in the world, and why do bad things happen to supposedly good people? 

In Peter Kreeft's book, Handbook of Christian Apologetics, he covers these points in a very credible way, IMO.The following points are taken from this book.

First, evil is not a being, thing, or entity. Things are not evil in themselves. For instance, a sword is not evil. Even the stroke of a sword that chops off your head is not evil in itself- in fact, unless it's a "good stroke" it will not chop your head off.

Where is the evil? It is in the will, the choice, the intent, the movement of the soul, which puts a wrong order into the physical world of things and acts: the order between the sword and an innocent's neck rather than a murderer's neck or an innocent's bonds.

Even the devil was good in his being. He is a good thing gone bad- in fact, a good thing gone very bad. If he had not had the greatest ontological goodness (goodness in his being) of a powerful mind and will, he could never have become as morally corrupt as he is. "Lillies that fester smell far worse than weeds." To be morally bad you must first be ontologically good.

St. Augustine defines evil as disordered love, disordered will. It is a wrong relationship, a noncomformity between our will and God's will. God did not make evil, we did.  That is the obvious point of Genesis 1 and 3, the stories of God's good creation and humanity's evil fall.

The origin of sin is human free will. Because of the sin of Adam and Eve, our souls were alienated from God, and thus our bodies as well. Because of the original sin, spiritual death (sin) and physical death and suffering go together because our souls and bodies go together.

To the question of why bad things happen to good people, Socrates replies that they never do!  Christianity disagrees.  Its answer is that there are among us no "good people," that is, innocent people. We are involved in a physical world with our evil, which is like a stone tossed into the pond. The two great mysteries of solidarity, orginal sin (solidarity in sin) and vicarious atonement, (solidarity in salvation) mean that even the "innocents" among us, our small children, are involved in this double drama. (Kreeft, pp. 122-136)

If God is all-loving and all-powerful, then it would be a contradiction to say that God created evil.  I think Kreeft's explanation of evil in the world answers many questions that we can have answered this side of eternity. Certainly, God allows evil, but that is far different from creating it. 

larger view

Obama has very many charismatic qualities- he's a good speaker, he has a rich, pleasant voice, and he's quite cheerful. Some also admire him for his position on the war, the economy, and social issues. 

I have to admit that he's seems like quite a likable guy. But some things about him bother me, such as the entire saga with his pastor. How can someone attend a church for 20 years and not WANT to hear the message the man is speaking, then turn around and repudiate parts of the pastor's message?

Sounds like a lack of judgment to me.

Another issue that I disagree with is Obama's abortion record. As a senator in 2002 in Illinois, he was instrumental in defeating a bill which was designed to give care to children who survive late term abortions  The bill was in large part spearheaded by a registered nurse who had seen baby after baby left to die a pitiful, inhumane death.

I think Obama's record should be dealt with. ALL of his record. When confronted with the facts, I believe that Obama supporters should not blow a gasket, but respond calmly as possible with FURTHER facts, not personal attacks.

According to an essay in Human Events: "Jill Stanek, a registered delivery-ward nurse who was the prime mover behind the legislation after she witnessed aborted babies’ being born alive and left to die, testified twice before Obama in support of the Induced Infant Liability Act bills. She also testified before the U.S. Congress in support of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

Stanek told me her testimony “did not faze” Obama.

In the second hearing, Stanek said, “I brought pictures in and presented them to the committee of very premature babies from my neonatal resuscitation book from the American Pediatric Association, trying to show them unwanted babies were being cast aside. Babies the same age were being treated if they were wanted!”

“And those pictures didn’t faze him [Obama] at all,” she said."

http://www.humanevents.com/...

It is my opinion that this treatment of children gasping for life, like Obama's debacle with his pastor, shows a character flaw to say the least!

 I do not want a man like Obama who can leave these children in closets to die as my president. I also think ALL the information to be given about candidates.

Why some who seem to be Obama supporters can not deal with an issue is beyond me.

I welcome discussion on this issue. I am not for censorship, intolerance of people's views, personal attacks, or generally totalitarian methods of blogging.

larger view

Militant Islam and ol' fashioned Lenin-style Communism appear to have little in common on the surface, but they both embrace an extremism which is dangerous to the common good of society.

Though they differ so much, they embrace a radical extremism- Militant Islam embraces faith without reason. I proffer that it is not reasonable to strap a bomb to oneself and kill innocent women, men, and children, as well as yourself. Sure, others would say that it's within the bounds of reason. But that's not demonstrated by the fruits of that action.

The fruits of the extremism of this type of faith without reason are fear, hate, death, and more death. Mankind cannot flourish with this type of society. It's not reasonable to live in fear and with hatred that kills.

Other examples also come to mind of those who embrace faith without reason: Jim Jones and his followers in South American who committed a mass suicide, giving poisoned kool-aid to the children; the Heaven's Gate colony who also killed themselves, thinking they would be taken up into heaven in a space ship several years ago

On the otherhand, atheistic communism demonstrates what can happen when mankind tries to radically divorce itself from faith. Suddenly, God is not the giver of rights, but the state is. When the state gives human rights, then the state can also take them away at a whim.

Enter Stalin and his totalitarian practices of sending dissenters, religious people of all persuasions, and anyone else he didn't like to be purged from society. To him and his communist leaders, it was reasonable to get rid of those who disagree with the communist policies. Never mind that they are humans and have an inate dignity. (Can one detect dignity with reason alone?)

These people were either shot, hung, or sent to work themselves to death in labor camps. All told, one historian put the death toll of this extreme form of "reason" at 43 million.

Without faith, hope, or love, the people who died at the hands of the communists were little more than property. Less than Communist Party apparatchiks, but more than cattle. So much for the value of life when human reason alone is at play.

Other examples of radical uses of reason without the tempering of faith, in my opinion, are partial birth abortion, creating human chimeras (human embryos with animal DNA), and the genocide of the Nazis.

This is not my idea, but one theme of Pope Benedict XVI's- that faith without reason is dangerous, and reason without faith is equally dangerous. It is one that he is mentioning on this historic trip to the U.S.

This is quite an interesting topic, and comments or thoughtful discussion are welcome as well as a further exploration of this theme.

larger view

As a member of the JPII generation, I have to express my excitement that Pope Benedict XVI is visiting America. 

 What is the JPII generation? We're the generation of Catholics that grew up primarily under John Paul the Great, who love the Church and support its teachings. From the influence of John Paul II and his World Youth Days, an entire generation of Catholics have a fresh perspective on what it means to be Catholic in today's world. 

The theme for Benedict's trip is "Christ Our Hope" and Benedict is a voice for hope and for peace for America's 65 million Catholics, Catholics throughout the world, for all people of good will.

The Pope's reason for coming to America to begin with is his address to the United Nations on April 18. He will also be talking to the nation's top Catholic university leaders, meeting with the leaders of other religions, including a Passover visit to a synagogue, and having Masses at Yankee Stadium and other venues.

Why do I admire Benedict so much? He's truly a man of God. When a Catholic Archbishop was killed recently in Mosul, Iraq, Benedict called for prayers and peace for all in the region.  Also, I've read some of his writings, and I appreciate his keen insight on matters of the world, such as his statement that "a dictatorship of relativism" is emerging in secular society, and this must be confronted with the reality that there is objective truth- that we can know the difference between right and wrong.

I think his election as pope was providential for Catholics, indeed for the world.

Pope Benedict, welcome to America.