God can write straight with crooked lines.

[Physics Guy]

I don't really like the suggestion that God "writes straight with crooked lines" because I can't tell what it means. It doesn't seem to mean anything clearly, if it means anything at all. The closest-sounding thing that I do like is the Parable of the Tares:

Another parable [Jesus] put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared. So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’ But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.” ’ ”

As always there are different ways to interpret the parable, and some elements in the story can just be discarded, because they are only part of the story's set-up, not its intended meaning. In pretty much all reasonable interpretations of this parable, I think, the tares stand for some kind of thing that is bad or evil. The assertion that the tares were sown by an "enemy" is a part I discard; it's such a blatantly vague dodging of the question of why the tares are there that I take it to mean, "Don't ask why the tares are there—that's not the point of this story." The stuff about the enemy is something the narrator reads, as it were, before the curtain rises; the scene opens on a wheat field with tares.

So for me the focus of the story is why the tares are tolerated once they are somehow there. The suggestion is that they are too intimately tangled up with good stuff (the wheat) to eliminate them without losing good stuff. So they are tolerated until the good stuff has matured to a point at which it can be distinguished safely from the bad stuff.

As a parable about why bad things persist in the real world, the Parable of the Tares to me is explicitly other-worldly. The goal of the whole exercise of growing stuff is not to keep the field pure while it grows, but to maximise the amount of good wheat that ends up in the barn at the end of the season. So to me the story says that God has something of the luxury of a fiction author who can write drafts, then revise them, tossing out things that don't work and keeping things that do. As an author you can keep an idea going in a draft, to see where it goes and find out if there's anything good hiding in it, knowing that later you can cut out as much as you need, before the final version is done.

It's not so much writing straight with crooked lines as writing for revision.

[Gadianton]

but to maximise the amount of good wheat that ends up in the barn at the end of the season. So to me the story says that God has something of the luxury of a fiction author who can write drafts, then revise them, tossing out things that don't work and keeping things that do.

Obviously, MG isn't being really clear about what he means, and so putting myself at great risk of angering Whiskey, I must try and discern what he means. And I think what he means is pretty clear. I think MG means to say he's a "looking through glass darkly" guy. In my opinion, that's only because he wants to justify Mormonism in the face of any and all possible evidence but...let's ignore that for now. I do also think he believes in the principle in general.

I think your drafts example works as long as we emphasize that the story might totally change. In the first draft of my story about the ultimate heist, I ended up with a ton of absurdities that revealed my limited understanding of security systems and law enforcement. By the time I was done, I came to realize that I was never going to know enough to write the ultimate "master plan" drama, that some of these reddit people would find holes in whatever I came up with. Fortunately, I had discovered in the writing process, that the thief and a female cop had a little something going, and they end up together, and so that allowed me to save face should there be too many holes in the technical details. And funny enough, the book made way more money than the guy's who got acclaim for technical accuracy because more people are into sappy romance. But actually, that's not what happened, the publisher rejected the book 27 times. But in the book, the jewelry thief was based on me, and I realized the entire effort was really a struggle to come to grips with my father, who I called after the last rejection. We hadn't spoken in 20 years. We spent his final week together patching things before he died. Quite a plot twist, eh?

So I think we must, at least in principle, be able to differentiate between a very complex plan with crooked lines, and drawing the target around the arrow.

(edited to ditch plantinga for now)

[MG 2.0]

Another thing to add to the mix:

God can use very uneven (crooked lines), sometimes painful or chaotic events—including sins, failures, injustices, and accidents—to advance a coherent, good purpose (straight path/result) that is not obvious from inside the mess.

This might be related to a 'power law distribution'...meaning that outcomes are highly “lumpy”...a few outliers such as a catastrophic setback, periodic 'sin', questions about reality, etc., matter far less than the countless small, everyday steps towards goodness/perfection and increasing in knowledge without becoming complacent or angry.

God can write straight with crooked lines.

I'm enjoying the discussion folks are having with each other and discussing ideas/concepts rather than people, organizations, per se.

Regards,
MG

Actually, this reminds me of some of J.R.R. Tolkien's ideas in his magnificent Legendarium! How interesting bringing it up MG......

I've read Tolkien's Rings series but I'm not familiar with Legendarium. Care to share more?

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

I agree, Gad, this is an interesting thought experiment, and while I “bowed out” earlier, the reason was because it was difficult for me to not identify a personal reason for introduction of the thread topic. I couldn’t help wondering whether the appeal of “crooked lines” was functioning as a way for MG to discipline himself not to name certain experiences as injustices—especially when doing so would be painful or destabilizing (I’d also request lenience for attempting to discern meaning). But if God is good, it shouldn’t be necessary to deny that something was truly wrong in order to trust that God is not defeated by it.

In practice, the “crooked lines” logic is: if something good happens, that’s evidence of God’s guidance; if something evil happens, that’s also evidence of God’s guidance. If someone objects, they are being uncharitable, or lack faith. That’s a closed loop that protects coherence by rendering injustice irrelevant.

By contrast, the biblical model seems to be that evil is identified as evil, the agents that perform the evil are held accountable, and God is justified by opposing injustice, not requiring it.

When MG says God uses “sins, failures, injustices, and accidents” to advance good, he’s shifting from an idea that God can “redeem” from evil, to evil is “fundamentally necessary,” which I see as exposed through canpakes’ murdered child scenario.

If you accept that as your frameplonet (couldn’t resist), nothing can count as an objection, because every injustice is absorbed as part of a greater purpose. If you can’t accept that some events really do count against a system, you’re essentially creating a post-hoc assignment of sacredness to injustice.

What I see canpakes’ comments as doing is forcing MG to choose—something this game is designed to avoid. He must either: agree, and abandon “God wanted this” language, or disagree, and own the claim that injustice is divinely willed.

Maybe there is a view that doesn’t treat the crooked lines as part of a strategy. Maybe it’s as simple as identifying something as evil, believing that those responsible will answer for it, God is present in suffering, and will bring justice and restoration.

if God is good, then evil must be allowed to count as evil, even when it hurts the system to admit it.

[MG 2.0]

Gadianton, thanks for leaving Mormonism out of the picture for now. That is what I was hoping for. The 'picture' is much bigger than one particular religious faith.

This is a good conversation thusfar.

One more thing to add in now:

If God could make a crooked line function as a straight one by redefining the geometry, the frame of reference, or the purpose, how would that enter into the original "God can write straight with crooked lines"?

Is it true that in non-Euclidean geometry, for example, that a "straight line" can curve across a sphere? What looks crooked in one system is straight in another.

Might we consider that a Being with unlimited power could make a crooked line serve the function of a straight one by altering the context in which it is interpreted?

We see crookedness because we see only part of the picture.

God sees the whole picture (think of Monet on one level and the Cubists on another).

What looks bent from our angle may be perfectly aligned from a higher perspective.

I would like to continue watching from the sidelines without directly interacting to any extent except for throwing in some more variables and possible conditions to consider.

The Hoppy Taw is in motion. If we get to the end of the hopscotch grid, do we turn around and come back or draw additional lines?

Regards,
MG

[canpakes]

What I see canpakes’ comments as doing is forcing MG to choose—something this game is designed to avoid. He must either: agree, and abandon “God wanted this” language, or disagree, and own the claim that injustice is divinely willed.

Maybe there is a view that doesn’t treat the crooked lines as part of a strategy. Maybe it’s as simple as identifying something as evil, believing that those responsible will answer for it, God is present in suffering, and will bring justice and restoration.

if God is good, then evil must be allowed to count as evil, even when it hurts the system to admit it.

Perhaps not choose so much as explore. With the question presented by MG, it would appear that he has given the question that I’m adding here (or more correctly, a variation of it) some thought, and that the resulting rationalizations can prompt the premise of ‘writing straight with crooked lines’ (and there are easily a dozen more historical or theoretical examples that can prompt the claim).

That said, I ‘get’ why MG would also like to stay away from pushing his own thoughts on the question into this conversation, preferring instead to let ideas be hashed out between the group, as that keeps the focus on the question itself.

[Limnor]

What I see canpakes’ comments as doing is forcing MG to choose—something this game is designed to avoid. He must either: agree, and abandon “God wanted this” language, or disagree, and own the claim that injustice is divinely willed.

Maybe there is a view that doesn’t treat the crooked lines as part of a strategy. Maybe it’s as simple as identifying something as evil, believing that those responsible will answer for it, God is present in suffering, and will bring justice and restoration.

if God is good, then evil must be allowed to count as evil, even when it hurts the system to admit it.

Perhaps not choose so much as explore. With the question presented by MG, it would appear that he has given the question that I’m adding here (or more correctly, a variation of it) some thought, and that the resulting rationalizations can prompt the premise of ‘writing straight with crooked lines’ (and there are easily a dozen more historical or theoretical examples that can prompt the claim).

That said, I ‘get’ why MG would also like to stay away from pushing his own thoughts on the question into this conversation, preferring instead to let ideas be hashed out between the group, as that keeps the focus on the question itself.

That seems fair to me. I agree this seems less about choosing a side than about exploring.

From where I sit, the discussion isn’t really about whether God can bring good from evil—that’s widely shared—but about whether there is allowance for naming injustice. I agree that letting the group hash that out is a good way to see where the idea holds or if it becomes preservation.

[MG 2.0]

Earlier I mentioned something called, "Power Law'. It is used within the field of economics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBluLfX2F_k&t=665s

This video goes into great depth on the concept.

If life really is governed by something like a power law, then the key moments that shape a life are not evenly distributed, they are sparse, surprising, and often look like arbitrary luck, disaster, or undeserved windfalls. As some here are wont to say, "How would things look anything different if there was no God?"

In this discussion might we also consider that those same outlier events...what look like “crooked lines” statistically...can be the very places where God is at work, turning disproportionate, seemingly random shocks to the system...individually or globally... into turning points for good.

I'm simply adding stuff into the 'system' or discussion. Does the hopscotch grid move only forward or does it go off perpendicularly or some other direction? Up-Down? We might need more than one Hoppy Taw! Maybe a jet pack.

In this discussion we might consider that what looks like pure randomness or luck in a power law world (being at the right or wrong place at the right or wrong time, etc.) can be viewed as the raw material of providence rather than as meaningless noise.

Some of you that are much smarter than I might be able to take this Power Law analogy much farther than I can.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Thank you to those that might normally derail a discussion in one way or another for not doing so. At least, so far. The discussion among yourselves can be much more interesting if personalities and prejudices are not brought in as an overlay.

Please continue to keep on topic. Thanks canpakes for basically encouraging this.

Regards,
MG

[Gadianton]

If we get to the end of the hopscotch grid, do we turn around and come back or draw additional lines?

This is quite relevant to the discussion. Why not just jump around wherever we want, and then draw the hopscotch grids around our footprints? We must find a way to entertain your basic hypothesis without collapsing into relativism.

If God could make a crooked line function as a straight one by redefining the geometry...God sees the whole picture

Same problem, 5d geometry that we don't understand is fine, but it must avoid collapsing into every set of lines being a picture of the same thing. Will discuss this in detail after the Limnor quotes.

In practice, the “crooked lines” logic is: if something good happens, that’s evidence of God’s guidance; if something evil happens, that’s also evidence of God’s guidance. If someone objects, they are being uncharitable, or lack faith. That’s a closed loop that protects coherence by rendering injustice irrelevant.

By contrast, the biblical model seems to be that evil is identified as evil, the agents that perform the evil are held accountable, and God is justified by opposing injustice, not requiring it.

To attempt to make sense of 5d lines, confirmation bias, and physics guy's barn, I'd first distinguish between ontological relativism and epistemic relativism. (note: I just deleted my attempt to frame this in Plantinga and Leibniz due to my own inadequacy) If every logically possible world is equally good, then there is no point in having this discussion. It's like saying every set of lines paints the same picture. Every configuration of lines is the same hopscotch grid by topological deformation. The problem is, God, by definition, exists in all logically possible worlds (def. of necessary), therefore every logically possible conception of events in this world is as much proof of God as any other. God can use straight or crooked lines, doesn't matter. The barn is just as full of wheat in every possible world, but what does it mean to be "full of wheat?" theologians will fudge this until it works out for all possible worlds. God is empirically unfalsifiable, and theologians don't care. They don't care if that means it's pointless to talk about what experiences evidence God (as all do equally, by definition).

For a discussion like this one, we must allow for possible worlds where things would have been different than they are, thus proving the providence of God in this world. That kinda means rejecting God, but let's go with it. In a simplistic world, if I pray, God grants me in a vision the location of my car keys. In MG's 5d geometry, I pray, I don't find my car keys, but I find something of greater value, or I learn a lesson I needed to learn about loss -- or something. But in order for any outcome to verify the hand of God, there must be a host of possible outcomes that are incompatible with God. This, in principle, gets us past ontological relativism (while formally ditching God, but let's go with it). The problem now is epistemic relativism. It might be that there are possible bad worlds that are avoided due to God's providence, but because of our limited knowledge, we have no way of practically distinguishing them.

Being more true to Canpake's example, the murder is committed by a gang. That murder post-hoc definitely will be salvaged for the greater good. A story will be created after the fact. It's possible to me, that in God's 5d lines, that the crime really did work toward the greater good, we just can't follow the math. Well, if that's the case, then why do we think our story after the fact would be the true one? Why would we think the lessons we learn, or think we learn, by experience would line up with the sophisticated math of God? And if our subjective lesson still matters, then why wouldn't it matter independent of God anyway? So the problem with "crooked lines" that evidence God, but beyond the human mind, is that it still leads us with relativism by our own inadequate interpretations. To say there is a meaning in every murder, but it's 5d logic, but then everyone who finds meaning after the murder and copes somehow figured out 5d math, is pretty unlikely.

And my point is that if every last one of them can understand 5d math after the tragedy, then certainly at least sometimes a person will do the 5d math before the fact and welcome gang murders. How the heck am I supposed to know if stopping that guy with a gun is going to net more good in the world after all butterfly effects are calculated by God that I can't calculate?