An interesting analysis on the evolution of concept of “Evil” in monotheist religions from  wrath of God to an act of free will by human being. Mr. Kenan touches on why righteous suffer in the world, original sin and difference between natural evil and moral evil.  

“At the heart of the book( of Job  )is an attempt to wrestle with the profound new questions raised by the emergence of monotheistic religions. Why does evil exist? Why do the righteous suffer? And why should one obey God?

In traditional pantheistic religions, such questions had little purchase. Good and evil were woven into the fabric of the universe. The righteous suffered because gods could be nasty, vindictive, brutal and immoral.  One obeyed – or, rather, appeased – gods because one did not wish to make enemies of such powerful, yet often capricious, beings.  It was the irrational, unpredictable nature of the gods that led Socrates, Plato and Aristotle to look to secular reasons for piety and righteousness.

The question of evil had an entirely different character within faiths in which God was seen both as omnipotent and as willing good upon the world. The existence of evil suggests either that God is not omnipotent or that He is responsible for such evil. Since neither view was acceptable to believers, a new kind of explanation was required.

Evil came increasingly to be seen not so much as a rod of God’s anger as the washing through of human moral frailties. It was an explanation interwoven with the developing concept of free will. God, so the argument ran, had created humans as beings capable of making moral choices. Evil was an expression of the kinds of moral choices that humans sometimes made. The world contained evil not because God chose to make people suffer but because humans did, despite God’s best attempts to instill in them moral rectitude. As the twentieth century Christian thinker CS Lewis put it in his book The Problem of Pain, God could only eliminate evil by thwarting every malevolent action, by ensuring, for instance, that ‘a wooden beam became soft as grass when it was used as a weapon’ or that  ‘the air refused to obey me if I attempted to set up in it the sound waves that carry lies or insults’. But for God to do this would mean that ‘freedom of the will would be void’. Evil is therefore the price that has to be paid for allowing morally frail creatures the good of free will.” Click link for full article;

http://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2013/10/13/god-and-evil/

Posted by F. Sheikh

• BY AKBAR AHMED, CRAIG CONSIDINE

The iconic spiritual leaders of our time took decades of struggle and growth before they were formed into the universally recognized symbols that we know and love. Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Teresa, the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Nelson Mandela are universally recognized examples. Pope Francis is an exception.

He comes to us, as it were, fully formed. In terms of his tenure as popehe is in his infancy and yet Francis seems to have hit his stride.

To understand the pope’s approach, method and message, take a look at his visit to the island of Lampedusa. The small island in the Mediterranean has become a battleground of the larger ideas that are in conflict in Europe. It has been visited by rightwing leaders who denounce immigrants in crudely racist and xenophobic terms. The pope’s visit therefore became symbolic of a counter-balancing approach, one that was more welcoming, all-embracing, caring and compassionate.

The pope spoke of the “immigrants dying at sea, in boats which were vehicles of hope and became vehicles of death.” He shared his distress at the “tragedy” which has become like “a painful thorn in my heart.” He felt “shame” at the plight of those who were suffering and the indifference of the world. “The Church” he assured the immigrants, ”is at your side as you seek a more dignified life for yourselves and your families.”

The pope used the plight of the mainly African immigrants to raise larger issues that afflict all humanity in the age of globalization. He condemned what he called “the globalization of indifference.” He berated “the culture of comfort, which makes us think only of ourselves, makes us live in soap bubbles which, however lovely, are insubstantial; they offer a fleeting and empty illusion which results in indifference to others.”

The pope also embarked, again almost immediately, on reaching out to the Muslim world. Relations between Muslims and Christians had not really recovered since the time when his predecessor Pope Benedict XV1 gave a lecture in September 2006 in which he quoted a passage that described Islam as “evil and inhuman.” Even at the time the present pope, then Archbishop in Buenos Aires, registered his disagreement stating, “Pope Benedict’s statement[s] don’t reflect my opinions.” Click for full article;

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/wp/2013/10/08/salam-and-salutation-to-pope-francis/

Posted by F. Sheikh

If this happens, the tables, at least in Henley’s view, would essentially turn. If secularism is a recognized religion, he argues that it would then be theoretically possible for Christians to pursue lawsuits against atheists, humanists and other non-believers for their refusal to allow invocations at government meetings.

See, in this case, Christians, among others, could argue that atheists are using their faith-based beliefs (or lack thereof) to try and hamper others’ free-exercise. Henley continues, noting that it seems as though some activists want to codify their non-belief into a religious structure:

http://news.yahoo.com/pastor-makes-surprising-case-allowing-atheist-military-chaplains-131059122.html