Justice.
It is clear I have a narrower sense of justice than you. For me, justice, while it is doing what is right/good, it does not exhaust right/good action. Doing what is right involves wisdom, and wisdom goes deeper than justice, even as justice is an ‘arm’ of wisdom. Wisdom also involves forgiveness, consolation/comfort, patience, charity, etc, none of which are easily accounted for in/by justice. (Indeed, treating others how we want to be treated means acting wisely, not justly, for it involves doing such things as offering forgiveness, charity, comfort, etc, which are not moves of justice, at least not in my narrower sense of the word.)
So while you worry that I am narrowing God in my narrowing of justice (you say “God is much broader and so should the ideas we associate”), in truth I am trying to describe God’s action in a broader term than justice, namely, wisdom (which I intimated is my preference over grace or love even). And while I am worrying that you are confining God’s action to justice, in fact justice is a broader term in your mind, and incorporates the very things that I am afraid might be lost (forgiveness, patience, etc).
Our critiques of each other make sense given our presuppositions/definitions of justice. I think we may be saying the same thing about God. What we are arguing about is the range of justice.
Satan/the satan.
The problem is that it is neither Satan nor the satan in Genesis. Rather it is the serpent. So it is not simply a distinction between the satan and Satan that you conflate, but also the serpent. While I can understand why you disregard or would minimize my distinction between the former two, I cannot understand the latter, or equating the serpent with Satan.
How would you reconcile a statement from Jesus that we are to be as wise as serpents for instance?
To compare our moves, you take the clearer definitions of Satan from the NT and then apply them to the predescessors the satan and the serpent, assuming the same character to be active throughout.
I, on the otherhand, would see a development, or degradation, at work, where the serpent as a wise creature degrades to the satan who is still faithful to God but has lost faith in humankind to Satan who has indeed rebelled against God.
Indeed, this is a conversation we had before. Which makes the most sense? A steady Satan character throughout or a Satanic development? We would both have a heavy burden of proof placed upon us. Interesting conversation. We certainly don’t need to rehash anymore than we already have.
Natural evil.
Fair enough. I would opt for the weak reading. But let me qualify that by saying I would also maintain the omnipotence of God. Maybe a distinction would be helpful?
If we rule oppressively, is that true authority or rulership? Or if we serve purely out of self interest, is that true obedience? And finally, if our power is not exercised in true authority or obedience, is it true power?
All true power is God’s. God is omnipotent. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t ‘power’ out there in a fallen form. ‘Power’ that isn’t really power at all, even though it can pack a punch. Power without power so to speak.
So yes, in a very important sense God is weak. A lot of ‘power’ has been alienated from God (or has never been reconciled to God) and is no longer (or never was) true power.
Maybe you won’t like this distinction however. Either way, it doesn’t answer the question of natural evil. Rather it aims again at the idea that it is on us to reconcile all ‘power’ to God, which presupposes forces at work that are not. It is up to us to restore all power to true power. And as you say, can be construed as an answer to the POE.
Wildness.
I’m glad you don’t see Satan as an emanation from the original wildness. Satan is a force of evil. The wild, while they can become evil, they can also possess wisdom, and can be learned from, even as they need to be subdued, or even as they are ripe for further culturation.
For instance, the serpent you would call Satan is described as “the wisest of wild creatures”, indicating that we can learn from those who are wild and that they are not to be thought evil as dangerous as they may be. (But no doubt you would render it “the craftiest” or “most devious”!)
Also, while I want us to be subdued by wisdom, I would never want to quench that inner wildness. I don’t think God does either. God doesn’t appeal to Behemoth and Leviathan for their culture or calm, but for their unwillingness to be subdued. I think we are on the same page on that front, i.e., where you say there is something in us “that is wild” and that “it should be tempered by reason, yet not eliminated compleately by it,” I agree wholeheartedly.
Again, to me ‘wildness’ is a better term than ‘freedom’. It needs to be subdued by wisdom, yes, but never oppressed or subjugated as you put it. That ‘natural brio’ is crucial, and is what I’ve been arguing for all along (I believe that Job loses his, and God has to restore it, which God does by encouraging Job to stand up to God like a geber, i.e., a virile male).
Thanks Omar. We still have our differences clearly but I think on the most important points we agree.