Higher Than Your Ways

We stated in the last page that there may be a third category of commandment, the simply - "because I told you so". If these are without distinction as to separate the people of God from all others, and serve no purpose in limiting evil and showing the nature of Christ's character, then we may posit that this third category may contain a subset of "quasi-positive" properties only applicable to God that private even Him of virtue.

However no matter the positive property, if it is positive then it may be considered perfectable. Whether virtue is lost or recovered by a particular set of virtues found in the transforming of the trinity, L(G) will always allow God to recover a set of virtues as He desires. There is no arguing with those virtues such as L(G) that are universal: there is also no arguing that one set of virtues is mathematically more aesthetic than any other. There is no demand on God to be dissatisfied with a choice of virtues in His Son that He finds Himself well pleased with.

We are approaching the justification that God is not required to obey His own laws, on the basis that the virtues He finds pleasing in us are subject to a higher set of standards when applied to Himself. That is, that God would do "evil" so in a manner that is perfect, whereas in our case, with our imperfections the result would be an utter catastrophe of evil.

We can consider that L(G) would allow God to choose any system of virtues that would not private any permitted positive property in the system, and that by its nature the choice of such a system is arbitrary and essentially aesthetic only in its perceived positive qualities. We could also consider that our experience of existence is subject to such a system, a result of what God finds pleasing for creations under these particular laws of nature. However, we ourselves are a poor measuring rod to hold against a creator whom may do such as has been said so far. So rather, we will not consider the "all possible worlds" case because we posit a set of universal virtues such as L(G).

If there are universal laws it would be that L(G) is universal foremost and that every system of "laws" are tailored to the satisfaction of our creator in His perfection, rather than us making God into one altogether such as ourselves. It is clear the lion does not worry about "thou shalt not kill" when he kills the cubs born from a former sire in his pride, and neither do bonobo monkeys worry about adultery.

The alternative is that only we as God's people are made in the image of God to which God has ensured to us promises for salvation if we keep His commandments. This latter statement would infer that since we are made in the image of God, then there are qualities in us that are pleasing to God and also found in Himself, so much as to state that God is "human enough" to be "our God".

But as to keeping the law, does God in His perfection require Himself to create evil? Well, yes, if we are to know what is meant by "higher than your ways". We could assume that evil is the finite end result of a co-finite and infinite amount of good. What may be perfect "Almost everywhere" except the "here and now" is a simple statement - but evil has its use in finding itself subject to what is ultimately good.

The promises of God may seem to be fairy tales or simply wishful thinking to the non-believer in this day and age - but it is truth that creation is overall, a positive thing (if one removes the perception of evil): Then the (positive) method by which evil is removed may or must engender its presence in a "small" subset of eternity. We should be able to place our trust on the promises of God, rather than the seeming conflict between we, (who are made in His image) and the creation and its wild creatures, which are not.

Then if evil in creation appears to private even God of all virtue, there is the distinct possibility that God is exercising His own virtue in removing evil from eternity whilst placing it only in this world that he created "In the beginning".

So if there are "quasi-positive" properties that may private God of virtue, we have a defining statement that the commandments of God are present for those cases wherein we lack virtue: Likewise if God lacks virtue in an action it does not mean He is unable to do it: Rather that it is still a possibility. We could state that an action that lacks virtue can not be positive: but if it is positive when perfected, does it require then that as a perfection it is only positive when done perfectly? We may search for an example of such a case:

There is no virtue in aborting a foetus, yet miscarriages happen. Why? Was it God's intent? If it was done perfectly somehow, (even though we can not understand the form that "how" would take) can we be comforted?

There are many such statements, and it is near impossible to see how occurrences of virtue-less events could appear throughout creation made by a just and loving God. We could ascribe all of them to "God's will" or "God's plan", but we dont know or can not understand what something "perfect" is when it completely conflicts with every fibre of our being. I wish I had an answer; but God would state that His ways are higher than ours, and that such cases do not make creation evil because there is evil in it.

In all these events, we ascribe virtue to God when we see a blessing and ascribe blame where we see fit: but creation at least does not lie to us about the violence in the food chain or the nature of storms and earthquakes etc. Whilst nature is full of suffering, how much is due to God, and how much is necessary in this creation for creation to accomplish its purpose?

I can only assure myself that evil is up to the definition of the reader. As far as Jesus' definition went, evil was "sufficient to the day thereof" and never more: it was like natural "background radiation" in God's creation (as creation originally intended for good), as if from the setting off of an atomic bomb.

If a virtue-less act can only be positive when it is perfected; does that mean that God would choose rather to not do that thing, or is such an act only perfected in never being performed? If in the case of the foetus above we would place God's hand in action would we then remove God from making the decision and let him pick up the peices? Could events happen as part of that "background evil" and God only steps in to wipe away the tears after His judgement? We would have to remove God from causing every event in the creation, so that it could exist apart from Him (not an issue):

So then, even if evil is just due to the mechanism of creation turning, we should realise that God has left creation mostly absent of interference, and has provided in the manner He deemed fit. If he was willing to suffer and lay his own life down, should we not be willing also? That may seem like a cop out and it is, or will seem so to most.

However God is ultimately patient, and ascribing evil to temporary finite existence, or containment in an eternity with good "almost everywhen" shows just how much evil may be permitted: It does not last forever; unlike the works of God which may only be justified when the final tally is made and the result is then only positive.

One would ask rightly "why permit thousands of years worth of evil?" and the answer is never more than "you only saw 80 or if you're lucky, 100 years of it." 100 years of evil perceived in the eyes of a God (to whom every man is alive at the same time) followed by an eternity of peace and thanksgiving for those that sought it is enough of a balance for my own beliefs: 100 years in an eternity is not too much to ask. For those that were cheated out of life early, I can only state that there is no such thing as "fairness" in nature: rather we find what is fair in ourselves (and if we accept our creation, in God also.)

Continue To Next Page

Return To Section Start

Return To Previous Page