Good God!

I've been very slothful in my updating responsibilities. I hope those who read this will forgive me, as RA duties/school work/Korean/being sick/club duties/grad school stuff/friendship/relationship/Korean/research have all been in que before my blog has.
A few weeks back (yes, I've been thinking about this for two full weeks), my philosophy professor asked how we can believe in an omnibenevolent God who is also omnipotent if we live in a world with evil. For if God is all good and all powerful, then He should prevent any evil.
To face this challenge, however, we first need to look at what it means to say "There is evil in the world." What do we mean by this? I take it that most of us would agree that by "evil" we mean something that is universally bad. Something might seem unfair, but if it generates net good (in a direct way) we cannot label it as evil. Likewise, even though someone might gain some advantage from some choice of his, if it creates a net negative reaction in a direct way, we might label this as evil. To illustrate this idea: Bill forgets to give his brother Steve the hundred dollars he promised and instead sends it to his favorite charity. Steve might think Bill's action was mean or unfair, but few of us would label a generous act, especially if it was in genuine forgetfulness, as evil. On the other hand: Rich embezzles money from his company. Rich benefits from this, and his workers suffer a bit, but overall we term this as evil.
Even with this sophisticated notion of evil, we haven't yet said anything about its origins. The idea of evil is not one that pervades every society, nor is it one that has been readily available to all peoples. According to Nietzsche, evil is a notion that can be traced directly back to monotheism in general and Judaism in particular. He says that most nations embrace an idea of "good" and "bad" wherein bad is simply "what we are not," and not anything more or less. In this way, something is good because it is widely accepted in society. However, Judaism introduces the idea of "evil" leading to an emphasis in evil over good. In this sense, evil means "what you are" with the you being other nations. Thus the emphasis is not a negative one (what isn't like me...) but a positive one (what is like you...). In this way the idea of evil is one that includes more malice and the idea of good is changed from a positivist spin to a negative one (even now we think of good as being without sin).
Is Nietzsche right, though? In Zoroastrianism as well as sects such as the Macabees and the Gnostics, the view of the universe has been a dualistic one. There is no "good and evil" but rather a "light and dark." This presents a less malicious view of what is seen in a negative light (evil/bad/dark) because by the very nature of dualism, the light and the dark are two parts of one reality. They almost exist in synchronicity, though usually only until the great and final battle where light conquers darkness (though only barely).
Similarly, in paganistic cults there were always gods of the dark arts. Hades is the god of the underworld and is always full of malice. Loki is the god of mischief. Anansi is the spider god who plays tricks on people. Toth is the deceiful god who tries to trick the dead. Cerberus and Fenrir are vicious dogs of godly power. But these figures are also countered by gods with more benevolent tendencies. However, whether it be Olympus or Asgard, the gods always seem to be more morally relative than in any sort of determinate ethical stance.
Hinduism and Buddhism also seems to see good and bad more as pathways through life. Good will lead us to Nirvana. Bad will send us circling around through various incarnations.
Even philosophy only speaks of things in terms of virtuous and vicious.
So we see that the idea of evil is inalterably connected to the idea of a good God. We cannot view there being any evil unless we come from a standpoint where we compare it to the absolute good (God). So we can't even speak of evil from an atheistic standpoint. We can talk of Nietzsche's will to power and people's selfish drives and immoral tendencies, but we can't use evil to describe it. For if we use the term "evil" that denotes that we are comparing it against something, presumably "good." And thus we must have some standard of good, otherwise our view of evil has no real basis. Thus, our standard of good must be the highest good, thus God.
But I have not yet answered the question. All I have shown is that we have locked ourselves into a paradox. With an omnibenevolent God, there should be no evil. However, without an omnibenevolent God we have no standard of good with which to talk about evil. So now I am forced to either answer the question to the best of my ability or remain silent on ethics until I can.
I take Augustine's view on sin and evil. Evil might be equatable to sin, since both are in opposition to God, and none should deny that evil is always sin. Thus, if sin and evil can be spoken of in this instance unequivocally (which I hope to show is the case), then my case might be made. Sin, to Augustine, is simply a turning away from God. If we concede that evil is the opposite of the ultimate good, then it follows as well that evil is a turning from God. Original sin, then was the first turning away from God which introduced sin and evil into the world and stained our human souls. However, original sin is not the subject of this discussion, though it is most certainly a part.
I further hold, as Aquinas does, that in order for something to become it best good (its telos, per Aristotle), it must be fully made through, or perfected. However, something that is created without the ability to reach its best good cannot grow or be perfected. It is a good thing to undergo growth and perfection, thus it is better to develop into the best good rather than be created in it. Thus it would seem that it is better to grow into our telos rather than being created in it. So we can see that humans can derive greater good from being imperfect and growing into perfection.
Part of not being made through, and growing, is the process of making choices. Many choices we make are ethical or moral choices. In choosing something good, we turn toward God. By being able to turn toward God, we must also be able to turn away from God. Thus, a necessary part of our being able to grow is to be able to sin.
If we admit all these things, then it follows that if God is all good, and part of His good is our perfection, then there must be evil in the world. This does not make the reality of evil any easier to understand or to accept, however, it shows that perhaps there is more to what's going on than a simple matter of what we think God should do and what God does. Simply because we see evil around us does not mean that God has abandoned us. What it might mean is that God wants us to help make a difference.

My God loves me more than your God does

I believe I've said this before, but perhaps the hardest thing for me about becoming Catholic was the idea of Saints. It's not that I think these people weren't great, I just have never been comfortable with the idea of praying to them. I have never really been able to fully reconcile the idea of praying to somebody who I think will relay the message on to God because their voice is better, but as I believe I've also stated before, praying to saints is more of an act of working as a community than anything else.
What I do find to be also problematic is what Peter says in Acts 10:34, that "God is no respecter of persons." If the Saints were to have more sway over God than we do, then God automatically plays favorites. Here we have to ask ourselves if this is really the case.
The Romans and Greeks believe their gods to be favortists. Aeneas had the favor of his mother Aphrodite. Odysseus angered Hera and Callisto, but had the favor of Athena. Apollo was often invoked before war in both epic and tragedy, and Zeus was often found meddling in the affairs of mortals as well.
But we are not Pagans. We do not believe in gods, or a God who plays favorites. We believe in a God who does not respect people. This does not mean that God doesn't care about His children. What this does mean, however, is that God doesn't give precedence to anybody simply because of piety, status, wealth, achievement or even righteousness.
We believe our God to be a fair God. We believe, as Barth says, that Christ's death saved not only the Jews, but also the Gentiles. We believe that no people are damned simply for being who they are. From the Catholic perspective, we don't even believe that any specific people will be going to Hell (with the notable exception of Dante's Inferno, in which he lists people who are in Hell).
In fact, we as Christians explicitly state that Deus Caritas Est (God is love). What this means from a Christian perspective is that our God embodies love. If there is anything that is love, it is of God. If there is anything that is hateful, it is most certainly not. As St. Paul states, "And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing" (1 Corinth. 13:13). It is very much against the nature of Christianity (in its purest form) and the way we view our God to even endulge malicious feelings for other people.
So as part of this, Vatican II recognized that all people who lived righteous lives, regardless of their faith, were likely going to be saved. After all, if God truly doesn't afford privelege based on creed, then why should Christians be saved while all others are damned, especially those living in remote areas of the world where Christianity is not a viable option? To me, this is what it truly means to say that God is love. God loves the Buddhist who worries that he may be walking on his ancestors as much as He loves the Christian who decorates evergreen trees in the winter time as part of some heathenistic tradition Christianity adopted hundreds of years ago. God loves the Muslim who prays to Him five times a day as much as God loves the Hindu who prays to many different gods, and countless avatars. God loves the Jew who will not eat pork out of respect as much as God loves the Mormon who won't drink coffee out of respect, or the atheist who parties all night with no respect.
Our perspective is radically shifted when we start to believe that we worship love. How can we afford to cast judgment on other people? How can we condemn other people's religious choices when God loves us no more than He loves them? How can we praise and glorify war if war is not a love-born response?
Furthermore, this should also put into perspective what lots befall us in our lives. Some believe that living righteously yields blessings while wickedness only renders sorrow. However, joy falls to the good and bad, as do the sorrows. Many people blame God when something bad happens. How can we blame God when we know that when bad things happen to us, it isn't a sign of disrepect for us, but possibly a chance for us to truly be in solidarity with others, or better yet, a chance for some great thing to come about from it? Furthermore, how can we gloat and boast of our fortunes when God could have easily and can still easily take them away?
We are at the mercy of an unbiased God. However, this should be a comfort to us. We believe that God is merciful. If God will reign down His mercy on us, as we believe, then He will also be merciful to the wicked or unjust. We are God's children, and with the parental metaphor comes the parental love that God exhibits for each of us. We may not have VIP seating in heaven, but if we're all at the same place, what is wrong with sitting with a Hindu, or a Taoist, or an agnostic? If we truly believe that Paradise is a utopia, then why would it lack diversity when the world that God created (which was good) is so full of different kinds of people?
So now we must ask, "Why Christianity?" I am reminded of the motto of the Congregation of the Holy Cross, "Ave crux, spes unica" (Hail, the cross, our only hope). As Christians, we have the unique theology of a universal redemption. We believe that our God took on the sins of all mankind in order to save all mankind. Thus, in my opinion, it makes more sense to posit faith in a belief system that theortically, and becoming ever more practically, openly embraces other faiths. If we can learn to look on all the people of the world as brothers and sisters, as Thomas Merton did, then perhaps we can all live in peace and harmony. With Christianity, we are able to look on others in love and acceptance. If we truly understand what love means, this means we pray for those who believe not as we do, not that they convert, but that we will all be together after this life in a happier state of existence.