Populist Christianity: Part 1

Preface Note:

First, with this article, I do not wish to offend anyone, though I am positive I will, and though I do regret offending anyone, I am not sorry. Second, by Populist, I am not referencing the political party of the United States during the turn of the 19th Century, nor am I referencing the modern political approaches of certain political pundits, but a trend I have observed in Christianity, especially after the democratization of Europe and the West.

Populist Christianity

Populism is simply defined as leaders, particularly those of political association, who “fight” for the common good of the lower man against the powerful elite. With this definition, one could say that in a way, Martin Luther was a “populist” for the common Catholic against the powerful elite of Rome, and that, in its defense of being called a rebellion, Protestantism was truly just a populist movement to stop the Papacy and her “minions” from perverting the principles of Christ and His Church. Though this ideology, the individual becomes the forefront. No longer is the body as important, for the individual is just a part of the body, and therefore, instead of fixing the body, the individual must first be fixed. I grant that, as an explanation of Luther’s theology, this is a gross misrepresentation, and yet, over the years, as the “church” has grown, split, and evolved, this has become an ever increasing position. From Calvin, to the Puritans, to modern day Baptist – and all others in between or around (I do not wish to single any group or persons out), the individual is the key.

Many Christian and world historians would argue that this began in Rome, culminating obviously with the Inquisition, etc. Obviously this is true, but the practice of focusing on the individual has hence been dominated by the Protestant tradition. One can turn on the television on any given Sunday and here how the judgment of God is being dealt to individuals and nations due to sin, or go to any random church in the southern United States and either here, a) Some sort of sin focused on and the sinner condemned, b) If you sin you are condemned to Hell (unless repentant of course), c)The rapture is near (please explain…), and d) etc, etc, etc. True, I will agree, sin is death, death leads to the grave, and un-repentance brings a curse. Yet, it seems, that, with the focus on the individual, the emphasis is lost on the sin itself, but is placed on the sinner.

Let me be clear, I do not want to seem to be over generalizing this issue. Nor do I have any respective references, or canons, creeds, documents of faith, etc, only my experience from what I have seen, and what I have been told. In defense against this experience, it is quite plausible hat what I have seen or been told was simply out of guilt by myself or other individuals, and yet, at the same time, I am quite confident on the Gospels that I myself am forgiven, and that my sins have been washed away and God remembers them no more. And though I have remembrance myself, and at times experience regret and remorse for the pain I may have caused myself and other, I do not feel guilt.

Condemnation Theology is wrong. If I was to say that anything in the world today is the Anti-Christ, it would be the preaching of condemnation. It is false religion, and in a way, it is idol worship – paganism. For, by putting the focus on the individual, and the sin as well, we begin to worship the sin. Sin has become an idol, an Icon if you will, of both why evil persists in the world, and why the world it self is so “messed” up. In any given message you may hear that, if you drink an alcoholic beverage, you are going to Hell, if you smoke a cigar, Hell has opened up her gates to you. These things may seem trivial, but I promise you there is someone out there who thinks, because he or she may suffer from an “Addiction” – or better yet a “disease” (I’ll come to that at some other time), that they are going to Hell. Yet, it gets worse.This Sunday, someone pastor – a supposed father and shepherd to his people, will stand in his pulpit and preach that if you have ever had an abortion, or ever paid for an abortion, or told someone to have an abortion, you are condemned to Hell. Even more, God is mad at you, and they might even go even further and say that God hates you for what you did. Homosexuals, going to Hell. Murders, going to Hell, etc etc, and the same tags apply to all other sin that is out there. Granted, they would admit that if you repent, God will forgive you, and many even offer healing counseling etc, but who wants to listen to someone who will use you and your sin as an example from the pulpit, and until you actually “publicly” repent, looks down on you and thinks you less then human. OR better yet, sees himself as better then human. As a note to this, I know, again, that this is not every Christian, or every church, and it may not be a majority, and yet so many times the reasons you hear for people leaving the church, or for losing faith in God is because they do not believe they can truly be forgiven, and because of the condemnation they felt from fellow Christians, and worse, Christian ministers.

One Protestant attack on both Roman and Eastern traditions is the appearance that one ay sin as much as they want, and all they have to do is go to confession. Though this may appear to be true, they forget to mention the fact that in the confession rite the priest also asks if that person intends amendment of life. Also, it must be recognized what Paul said, “We are all sinners and have fallen short of the Glory of God.” Once we believe, we do not stop being sinners, the difference is that God has redeemed our life from the grave. Because of this redemption, we are enabled, by the Holy Spirit, to enter into the Life of God and His promises. We still sin. Whether you argue that it is human nature, or a by product of free will, the fact is we are still sinners, redeemed yes, sinners still. If not, we would never have to confess our sins, there would be no need for prayer and confession. We would not need the Holy Spirit to be sent to us as a Guide. Jesus never preached a message of condemnation to the people, in fact, the only two groups he condemned were the religious leaders of the day – Pharisees and Sadducees, and the money changers at the Temple. Why only these? For it is better for one to tie a millstone around one’s neck and through himself into a lake then lead a child of God astray – these men were leading the children of God astray, either by manipulating the Law, or through economic gain, AH, the crux of the Protestant argument – Purgatory and Indulgences – and yet, instead of remaining in the Body, and working to correct (as impossible as it may have seen), they decided against reformation – which by the way had already begun 500 years prior – and was still in the works, and amazingly enough was still a recognized necessity by many. The decided to secede from the Church and form there own, in which it now began to be possible to focus on the individual – because obviously it was impossible to fix the Body – and by doing so, the “Reformation” abandoned Catholics world wide. Which is the greater sin? I dare not judge, but I believe both sins are wrong.

Jesus preached a message of love. Condemnation is not love… nor can it be presented as “tough” love. Tough love is what Christ did as He hung on the Cross… He sacrificed Himself for the world. We claim – both Catholics and Protestants – to be Christians. To me this is absurd, we are no more “Christ-like” then the non-believers who wish to help humanity. We prefer to condemn and focus on sin instead of doing what was commanded of us, to love out neighbors as ourselves, and to love God with all of our hearts, souls, minds, and strength. Maybe therein lies the problem, maybe these people who condemn so many people honestly do not simply love themselves. Maybe they feel guilty about their past, or worse, their present. There is no seeming end to the scandals that have rocked the Church as a whole, and I am sure there will be more. And to those men and women who are part of the body of Christ, do not condemn these leaders, but love them, as Christ has loved us. Be willing to, instead of judging them, lay down your life – time, money, effort, etc ,etc – for them. Because if you cannot cast aside your judgments, and love, then I encourage you to re-evaluate your faith and your claims of Christianity.

Moon – March 19, 2008 (Athens, GA)

 

Moon tonight from Athens… after afternoon thunderstorms… last moon before spring, and last moon while I am 27 yrs old

The “Value” System…?

Obama’s values… thanks to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright

 

THE BLACK VALUE SYSTEM

Trinity United Church of Christ adopted the Black Value System, written by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee, chaired by the late Vallmer Jordan in 1981. Dr. Manford Byrd, our brother in Christ, withstood the ravage of being denied his earned ascension to the number one position in the Chicago School System.  His dedication to the pursuit of excellence, despite systematic denials, has inspired the congregation of Trinity United Church of Christ.  Prayerfully, we have called upon the wisdom of all past generations of suffering Blacks for guidance in fashioning an instrument of Black self-determination, the Black Value System. Beginning in 1982, an annual Black Value System – Educational Scholarship in the name of Dr. Byrd was instituted.  The first recipient of the Dr. Manford Byrd Award, which is given annually to the man or woman who best exemplifies the Black Value System, was our brother, Dr. Manford Byrd. These Black Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered.  They consist of the following concepts: Commitment to God.  “The God of our weary years” will give us the strength to give up prayerful passivism and become Black Christian Activists, soldiers for Black freedom and the dignity of all humankind. Commitment to the Black Community.  The highest level of achievement for any Black person must be a contribution of strength and continuity of the Black Community. Commitment to the Black Family.  The Black family circle must generate strength, stability and love, despite the uncertainty of externals, because these characteristics are required if the developing person is to withstand warping by our racist competitive society.  Those Blacks who are blessed with membership in a strong family unit must reach out and expand that blessing to the less fortunate. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education.  We must forswear anti-intellectualism.  Continued survival demands that each Black person be developed to the utmost of his/her mental potential despite the inadequacies of the formal education process.  “Real education” fosters understanding of ourselves as well as every aspect of our environment.  Also, it develops within us the ability to fashion concepts and tools for better utilization of our resources, and more effective solutions to our problems.  Since the majority of Blacks have been denied such learning, Black Education must include elements that produce high school graduates with marketable skills, a trade or qualifications for apprenticeships, or proper preparation for college. Basic education for all Blacks should include Mathematics, Science, Logic, General Semantics, Participative Politics, Economics and Finance, and the Care and Nurture of Black minds. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence.   To the extent that we individually reach for, even strain for excellence, we increase, geometrically, the value and resourcefulness of the Black Community.  We must recognize the relativity of one’s best; this year’s best can be bettered next year.  Such is the language of growth and development.  We must seek to excel in every endeavor. Adherence to the Black Work Ethic.  “It is becoming harder to find qualified people to work in Chicago.”  Whether this is true or not, it represents one of the many reasons given by businesses and industries for deserting the Chicago area.  We must realize that a location with good facilities, adequate transportation and a reputation for producing skilled workers will attract industry.  We are in competition with other cities, states and nations for jobs.  High productivity must be a goal of the Black workforce. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect.  To accomplish anything worthwhile requires self-discipline.  We must be a community of self-disciplined persons if we are to actualize and utilize our own human resources, instead of perpetually submitting to exploitation by others.  Self-discipline, coupled with a respect for self, will enable each of us to be an instrument of Black Progress and a model for Black Youth. Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness.”  Classic methodology on control of captives teaches that captors must be able to identify the “talented tenth” of those subjugated, especially those who show promise of providing the kind of leadership that might threaten the captor’s control. Those so identified are separated from the rest of the people by: Killing them off directly, and/or fostering a social system that encourages them to kill off one another. Placing them in concentration camps, and/or structuring an economic environment that induces captive youth to fill the jails and prisons. Seducing them into a socioeconomic class system which, while training them to earn more dollars, hypnotizes them into believing they are better than others and teaches them to think in terms of “we” and “they” instead of “us.” So, while it is permissible to chase “middleclassness” with all our might, we must avoid the third separation method – the psychological entrapment of Black “middleclassness.”  If we avoid this snare, we will also diminish our “voluntary” contributions to methods A and B.  And more importantly, Black people no longer will be deprived of their birthright: the leadership, resourcefulness and example of their own talented persons. Pledge to Make the Fruits of All Developing and Acquired Skills Available to the Black Community.   Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions. Pledge Allegiance to All Black Leadership Who Espouse and Embrace the Black Value System. Personal Commitment to Embracement of the Black Value System.  To measure the worth and validity of all activity in terms of positive contributions to the general welfare of the Black Community and the Advancement of Black People towards freedom.

http://www.tucc.org/black_value_system.html

Moon – March 14, 2008 (Thomaston, GA)

Moon #1  Moon #2  Moon #3  Moon #4  Moon #5 

Okay… these are some of the best pictures I have ever taken. Taken through my 6″ scope, with a 32mm eyepiece w/ a light pollution filter, Canon A75 point and shoot digital. Some of the pics have some digital noise due to me running a high sharping effect on them, but Moon #1 is the most favorite picture I have ever taken. Click to view (duh! – but I had to put that on the for Big Brother)

More Astronomy Pictures…

     

More from the other night, click to enlarge.

Orion, Seven Sisters, & the Big Dipper

         

Here are some pictures I took tonight, all but the first one are with my Canon EOS DSLR, the first Orion picture is through my Canon A75. All from a tripod. Not great, but its a start! Click on them to see the full size.

God and Evil

 God and Evil          

Evil is an enigma. To most, evil is a bad, and even wrong, entity. Yet, it remains to exist in the world today, and has existed throughout the world’s known history. There are many arguments concerning the nature of evil and God. There are those who argue that evil is necessary, and those who argue that a good God cannot exist in a world where evil exists. Two trains of thoughts are that evil cannot coexist with a God that is all good, or that evil is necessary to man’s existence as we know it.         

B. C. Johnson argues that God cannot be wholly good if evil is present in the world. He asks the question of how a God, who is all-benevolent, can allow evil to exist. He uses the example of a baby in a burning house, and says that a “good” person who had the opportunity to save the baby would (Pojman 116). Therefore, if God, being all powerful, has the opportunity to save the baby, why does he not? Why would a God who is all powerful, and all good, allow evil to exist, and since he does, how can God be all good?  He concludes that there are only three possibilities, if God exists, concerning the nature of God’s morality. Either, “God is more likely to be all evil,” or, “God is less likely to be all evil,” or finally, “God is equally as likely to be all evil as he is to be good” (Pojman 119). In essence, he concludes that only the first conclusion can be correct. He concludes that the existence of evil in the world prohibits the existence of a Good who is all good, or who could even have the likelihood of being all good.          

John Hick would make a counter argument, stating that evil is a necessary facet of creation. He claims, because mankind exists in a universe of set laws and functions, it would be impossible for God to interfere with its everyday operation. While Johnson would ask how a all-benevolent God could allow a baby to die in a fire, Hick would counter by saying that for God to always interfere, it would deny the science that God has allowed man to learn (Pojman 116, 124). Hick also claims that evil is necessary for the sake of mankind as a whole. He uses the Judaic-Christian argument of free-will. He writes that God did not create the world as a paradise where mankind could “experience a maximum of pleasure and a minimum of pain,” but rather a place were man can freely, by his own will, have a life of “soul-making” (Pojman 124). He argues, without a freedom of will and the ability to make ones on choices, this would not be possible. Since man has free will, it is possible for man to make the wrong choices, therefore causing evil to happen in the world. Also, Hick would argue that nature itself is a free machine, not affected by “special providences” (Pojman 124). In other words, God lets creation run its course, not meddling in the ebb and flow of how nature operates. Hence, natural disasters are possible, murders are possible, and so on and on. Hick claims that this environment that God has place man and creation gives man the concepts of courage, fortitude, generosity, kindness, and the “agape aspect of love” (Pojman 124). Evil gives man the concepts of ethics, and without the possibility of evil, man would have no personality. Hick’s conclusion is that for God to be wholly good, evil must be allowed in the world. If not, then man would not have the freedom to live a proper life, and the universe would not be allowed to exist in the state that it does now.         

Both philosophies strike a center chord concerning the existence of evil. On one hand, Johnson’s argument that an all good God cannot exist because evil exists makes sense. For if God is all good, why would he allow evil and suffering to be inflicted on man, and if God is all powerful and all good, why does he not do anything to stop it from happening? Hick’s counter argument answers well, evil is necessary for the present existence of mankind. Without it, man would not be free to choose, nature would not be free to exist, and society would have no concepts of personality and culture.         

Johnson’s argument does not account for the concept of the effects on nature that would happen if God constantly interfered. Although Hick’s argument is more of an apology for the Judaic-Christian concept of God in the essence of Classical Theism, he also wisely brings in the concepts of science. One can easily argue the religious side of the argument, claiming, as Johnson does, that an all good God would not allow evil to exist, yet, by bringing in scientific concepts, he draws the attention of his apology off of theology, and more on philosophical practicality and reason.          

For God to allow his creation to function properly, and in order, it must be allowed to function freely. Therefore, by not interfering with the order of nature, God is seen to be all good. For, if God did interfere, as Hick argues, the laws of nature would be turned upside down. As in the example he gives, “sometimes gravity would operate, sometimes not; sometimes and object would be hard and solid, sometimes soft” (Pojman 124). Therefore, because of the fact that God allows these laws and processes to exist and function, he is all good. If he did not allow this, and interfered constantly, He would neither be good or bad, but simply a puppeteer pulling the strings. This would not all man to be man as we are today. Nor would it allow nature and the universe to function as it does. It would mean that knowledge would not exist, and in essence, life itself would hold no purpose or meaning.         

With an all-benevolent God, evil acts as a balancer within creation. For man to have free will, man cannot just make good choices, he must be able to make bad choices as well. If mankind could only make choices that benefited everyone, then his will is not free, but restrained. A man might desire to make all good, or right, choices, but he is not bound by that desire, and even within that desire, the choices he makes might be wrong, or, even to the extreme, evil. Also, within nature, the freedom, as well as order, is also seen. One might, for example, contend that the wildfires in California are a bad, or evil, situation. One might think, “Why would God, if, being all good, allow such a thing to happen?” At the same time, however, by nature’s standards, fires have been necessary for purification, of both land and wildlife, and therefore the fires, as seen from nature’s standpoint, are not evil, but good and necessary. Also, take Hurricane Katrina for instance; millions of people killed or displaced by a terrible storm, truly a tragic event. By the same token, however, hurricanes have served nature’s purpose of stirring up life within the oceans and beaches. Lastly, by human element, and returning to Johnson’s question of the baby in the burning building, the fire could have been caused by many reasons. (A) Faulty wiring due to the incompetence of the electrician, (B) someone left the stove one, (C) lent build up in a dryer, and so on and so on. Although there are many reasons, some containing the human element, and others that may not, the possibility that someone may not make a mistake because something evil, or tragic, could happen does not stand up to the idea that man has a free will.         

On the first two possibilities, the fires and Katrina, the free will of man also is involved. True, man did not cause the fires – per se, though it is possible – or the hurricane, the people in those two areas choose freely to live there. In the first case, it is well documented that Southern California is plagued by earthquakes, mudslides, and fires, yet, there are people who still choose to live there. In the second case, it is also well documented that in the Gulf of Mexico, as well as with the coast of the Eastern United States, multiple hurricanes land each year. Yet, people still choose to live there. On top of the documented hurricanes, New Orleans, as well as much of Louisiana, is below sea level, causing the damage of Katrina to be much worse. In both cases, man choose, not God for man, to live in these two hazardous areas. If God, for the sake of mankind, did not allow man to live there because he knew that man would suffer, it would be hampering the free will that mankind shares.         

On the final scenario, although the fire is a tragedy, it is possible for it to have been avoided without the aid or assistance of God. Granted, a natural occurrence could have started the fire, as in the situation in Southern California, but it is just as likely, due to a choice or an individual, that the fire was started. As said before, an electrician could have been lazy and decided not to double check his work, or even as seen in W. K. Clifford’s essay on the ethics of belief, he simply could have assumed that, because he had never seemingly made a mistake in prior situations, that he did not make a mistake this time, and therefore there would be no problem (Pojman 130). This ability to be lazy, or assume, is a product of free will. This is of course only one reason or scenario of how free will can cause tragedy or evil to occur.         

Of free will and evil, however, one could argue that by giving man free will, and knowing that evil might or would occur, God therefore ultimately is responsible, and therefore is not all-benevolent. However, does a parent, who knows that there child could possibly get hurt once they grow up and leave the house, entering the world by them selves, stop them from doing so? The idea is ludicrous, and society looks down upon those who seemingly attempt to do so. Likewise, it may be said that, God, as the ultimate “parent,” allows mankind to have free will, and to make his own choices. God allows for man to be guided by him, but does mandate that man must obey or even follow a proper course. By doing so, this allows for the free will of an individual, thus allowing for evil, as well as good, to exist in the world.         

The argument that evil cannot exist in a creation by a God who is all-benevolent is an attempt to take the responsibility of someone’s actions and place them into the hands of God. If man was not capable of choice, therefore free will, this argument would not even exist. Although God created the world, he did so to create an environment where his creation could both flourish and evolve freely, not so mankind could have a perfect existence, blind to reason and logic, but so that mankind could be open to the completeness of creation through study, research, and discovery. To not allow for free will, meaning, not to allow for evil to exist, would cause these purposes to have no meaning. To not be able to experience pain, would mean not to no the pleasure of joy; to not know hate, would be not to know love, and this would truly be tragic, therefore truly evil. As said before, evil is the balance of good, not its restrainer. For in evil and tragic times, it is possible for good, like a phoenix rising out of the ashes, to flourish and shine through.    

Bibliography

Pojman, Louis P. “Philosophy: The Quest For Truth.” 6^th Edition. Oxford University

          Press. New York. 2006

 

The Question of Evil

The Question of Evil 

            Today, many people question and debate the necessity of evil. Why does is exist? Does it have to exist? These are the questions that many classical, and modern philosophers alike, have asked. I would say that the truth behind evil, whether one believes it’s from divine origins, or came about on some evolutionary timetable, must be explored, and the questions of this truth answered.

            For one to know love, one must know hate. The pattern of knowledge is a paradox. For one to know something, one must know that objects opposite. For example, for one to know hot, one must know cold. For if one does not have a conception of cold, then heat simply does not exist as a state to that person. Granted, it may be getting hotter, he or she may be sweating more, but that individual truly has no distinction of understanding beyond the fact he is getting more wet. However, in wetness, another enigma, for one most know what it is like to be dry to be wet, and so on and so forth until the cycle swings back around again.

            B. C. Johnson would contend that an all-benevolent God cannot exist since this God allows evil to exist and remain in the world. On the contrary, John Hick contends that evil is necessary for not only the order of the universe – i.e. God cannot intervene, etc unless the laws of nature are made relative, but also for the ability for mankind to understand concepts of love and kindness and the like. If one never new fear, could one know courage? I think not, for if fear had never been felt, then no one would have had to step up with, or above, the rest. Likewise, if I do not have any knowledge of hate, can I have knowledge of love? One might argue of course, for you can like someone in varying degrees. Yet, would I truly know what love is if I have never experienced hate? I dare say not, for though I may know “liking” someone,” I do not believe I can say I love that person, for how, if I have never known hate or anger, can I know forgiveness, therefore never knowing true love. I may smile and say nice things, but if I have never seen hate, I would do that to any, and everyone, therefore, that “love” would carry no meaning.

            The argument of whether or not God is all-benevolent, to me, is non consequential. God is God that God is God; therefore, his benevolence is no concern to me. I only feel that evil, in its essence, for ones current existence, is necessary. However, for the sake of rhetorical argument, I will discuss the all-benevolence of God.

            The Classical Theist view of the all-benevolent God is skewed based upon human perspective. Know matter ones belief of the origin of sin and evil, one must understand that God, being all knowing, has a higher “intelligence” then mankind. Therefore, His knowledge of good and evil, though we may have it, is understood far better by God then any human could ever hope to. Saying that, nature has order because God has order, and yet there seems to be a certain chaos to nature’s tides. One might say this is caused by the fall of mankind, I propose, however, that what we see as chaos, is truly order. Fires on the earth purify the land, and yet leave many homeless. Storms rise up and stir up life within the oceans, and yet, we blame God for such “tragedies” as Katrina. Yet, if no one had moved and dammed up an area far below sea level, prone to massive hurricanes, then no one would have died, let alone be hurt, therefore, if anything is to blame, it is the free will and audacity of man. Do not get me wrong, the countless deaths and displacements are extremely unfortunate and tragic, yet, to blame God, and questions His benevolence is a test I never wish to give. Then again, one could always blame global warming, and then again lays a problem; the ice caps are getting thicker. God bless science.

            Even with these issues, in nature, one can see the necessity of “evil.” Are the fires, or the storms truly evil? One would say that the destruction caused by such events are, and yet, nature has always kept this same cycle for eons, therefore, one might conclude that it is the invasion of mankind into this cycle which is truly evil. If that is the case, then man himself has brought the evil – the destruction, and so on, into the world. Was it a storm that brought Hitler? I think not, but one man’s “brilliant” insanity caused countless innocent deaths across Europe, both Jew and European alike. I realize, to bring up Hitler and a natural event is unforgivable… but is it? Do we blame God for Hitler like we blame God for Katrina? I think not, we have psychologist who specialize in the demented an Austrian psyche – I can say this, I have Austrian blood – who pour over notes, diaries, logs, reports, eye witness accounts, and so on, until, beyond a shadow of a doubt, one can say, Hitler was crazy. Did God make him crazy? Or maybe it was original sin… or maybe, something happened to him, someone else did an evil act, and it caused him to be evil, maybe, but it still remains the course of nature.

            Would it have been better if Hitler had not killed so many innocent people? I would have to say yes, emphatically, and yet it happened. Was this atrocity necessary, most definitely not, but, out of this, a new nation rose up, one that had been lost long ago, Israel. However, even more trouble has been brought about, in the Middle East, and beyond. I bring this up only to show the cycle of nature. The history of man has never changed, kingdoms rise and fall, wars fought, famine, disaster, etc. Through this cycle, mankind finds himself. Through the experience of pain, he finds pleasure, through the experience of fear, courage is found, and so on and so forth. One can argue that evil is terrible, and truly, I agree that it is, yet, without evil, one would not know or recognize the better things in life.

As A note – I have the references for Johnson and Hick, etc… and I will add them to the post asap.