SECTION VI Chapter 2 - The Nature of God, and the Explanation of Why Evil is Present in this World Quotes of Famous People on God: "I could not say I believe. I know! I have had the experience of being gripped by something that is stronger than myself, something that people call God." --Carl Jung "Our idea of God implies necessary and eternal existence; the manifest conclusion then is that God does exist ... That God has foreordained everything is self-evident." --Rene' Descartes (1596-1650) "If the work of God could be comprehended by reason, it would be no longer wonderful." --Pope Gregory I (540-604) "God loves you. God doesn't want anyone to be hungry and oppressed. He just puts his big arms around everybody and hugs them up against himself." --Norman Vincent Peale "God is the tangential point between zero and infinity." --Alfred Jarry "To believe in God is impossible--not to believe in Him is absurd" --Voltaire (1694-1778) "It is easy to understand God as long as you don't try to explain him." --Joseph Joubert (1754-1824) "Who says I am not under the special protection of God?" --Adolf Hitler "We must be greater than God, for we have to undo His injustice. -- Jules Renard "I don't know why it is that the religious never ascribe common sense to God." --Somerset Maugham "If God listened to the prayers of men, all men would quickly have perished; for they are forever praying for evil against one another." - Epicurus "Concerning the gods, I am not able to know to a certainty whether they exist or not. For there are many things which prevent one from knowing, especially the obscurity of the subject, and the shortness of the life of man." --Protagoras (5th century B.C.E.) "It is fear that first brought gods into the world" --Petronius (d. 66C.E.?) "In spite of all the yearnings of men, no one can produce a single fact or reason to support the belief in God and in personal immortality." --Clarence Darrow "There never was any remarkable lawgiver amongst any people who did not resort to divine authority." --Machiavelli (1469-1527) "Metaphysics is almost always an attempt to prove the incredible by an appeal to the unintelligible." --H.L. Mencken "There are many scapegoats for our blunders, but the most popular one is Providence." --Mark Twain "Many a sober Christian would rather admit that a wafer is God than that God is a cruel and capricious tyrant." --Edward Gibbon (1737-1794) "There are scores of thousands of sects who are ready at a moment's notice to reveal the will of God on every possible subject." --George Bernard Shaw "The Devil would be the best way out as an excuse for God... But even so, one can hold God responsible for the existence of the Devil." --Sigmund Freud "But Messier de Laplace, what about God?" "I have no need of that hypothesis." --Astronomer Pierre Simon Marquis de Laplace explaining his theory of the origin of the solar system to Napoleon. ******************************************************************************* ******************************************************************************** The Famous Philosopher's Paradox on the Nature of God Over the millennium, philosophers have contemplated on the following: 1) God is an all powerful being. 2) God is all good. 3) Terrible things happen in this world. The paradox is this-- Logically, one can pair ANY two of these propositions together, but NEVER ALL THREE! For if God is all powerful AND good, then terrible things should NOT happen! Likewise if terrible things happen--then presumably EITHER God is NOT all powerful, or God is NOT all good! This paradox was known to the ancient Greeks: Epicurus is said by Lactantius to have presented this classical argument as follows: "Either God would remove evil out of this world, and cannot; or he can, and will not; or he has not the power nor will; or lastly, he has both the power and will. If he has the will, and not the power, this shows weakness, which is contrary to the nature of God. If he has the power, and not the will, it is malignity; and this is no less contrary to his nature. If he is neither able nor willing, he is both impotent and malignant, and consequently cannot be God. If he is both willing and able (which alone is consonant to the nature of God), whence comes evil, or why does he not prevent it?" William B. Williamson, ed. DECISIONS IN PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION, 1985, Prometheus Books, p 270;) St. Augustine knew of this famous paradox: "Either God cannot abolish evil or he will not; if he cannot then he is not all-powerful; if he will not then he is not all-good". The philosopher, David Hume, put it this way: "Why is there any misery at all in the world? Not by chance surely. From some cause then. Is it from the intention of the Deity? But he is perfectly benevolent. Is it contrary to his intention? But he is almighty?" How Religious Groups Have Attempted to Reconcile the Above Paradox on God. Basically, all religious groups/individuals have had to confront-- either directly or indirectly, the ramifications of this paradox-- basically CHOOSING TWO of the THREE statements, while compromising on the third. Below are the three possible combinations, along with examples of attempts by various groups to reconcile these items into their religious creeds: I. God is all good and terrible things happen--BUT GOD IS NOT NECESSARILY ALL-POWERFUL. (Items 2 & 3) --Dualists Dualists believe that God is not necessarily ALL powerful to halt all the evil that has spilled over into the world. Instead, they view the world as a battlefield between TWO powerfully opposing forces between the forces of good led by God and the forces of evil led by a powerful Devil-like character. (God is usually seen to be the EVENTUAL winner in this cosmic conflict). Persian dualism influenced first the Jews after the Babylonian captivity, and later Christianity through gnosticism which views the universe as a conflict between good and evil (materialism). Dualism appealed to many early Christians. Even St. Paul appears to have held the view that God is not necessarily all powerful. Consider for example, the following verses by Paul: * "Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power... (1 Corinthians 1:17) * "Christ entered...into heaven itself, now to appear before the person of God for us." (Hebrews 9:24) (In this verse, God is not considered omnipresent, but needs Jesus to intercede between man and God.) Many early Christian fathers saw the universe in dualistic terms, with a powerful Devil pitted against a powerful God. Justin Martyr (c 100-165 C.E.) believed that the Devil was given temporary power over the universe to PUNISH mankind after the original sin of Adam and Eve's disobedience to God. Through Jesus Christ's transfiguration and ultimate sacrifice on the cross, he had weakened the Devil's powers. However, the Devil's powers would not be destroyed until the Second Coming of Jesus. Justin did not know why God had postponed the Second Coming for over a century when he lived--but he suggested that possibly this was because more Christians were needed to die in the faith, so as to fill up the heavenly ranks left vacant by the fallen Angels (who became demon followers to Satan). Other early Christian fathers such as Tertullian believed God created an all-good world. But by allowing mankind Free Will-- this allowed man the option for doing evil. In order for mankind to be given a free will, God could not provide for the good in the world, without also allowing evil. Mankind unleashed evil into the world through Adam and Eve--who using their free will--chose evil (sin) over good. Still, this view implies that God is not completely all-powerful-- because He could have created humans that CHOSE not to sin. By allowing for the existence of a powerful devil who later tempted Eve in the Garden of Eden, this implies that God should have foreseen this event--if He was an all-powerful being. Else if he knew of it, but chose not to do anything, this could possibly mean that He was not all-good. (This doesn't solve the paradox--it merely shifts the issue from one category of the paradox to another.) ---The Ancient Hebrews of the Old Testament Some of the hebrew writers of the Old Testament appear to have held the view that God was not all powerful. For example, in Judges 1:19 we are told that God was not able to help the Israelites over their enemies who had "chariots of iron": "And the Lord was with Judah, and he took possession of the hill country, but he could not drive out the inhabitants of the plain, because they had chariots of iron." ---Deists Deists believe that God created the universe, but is not involved in its day to day activities. Sometimes the analogy is given of God as a Master Watchmaker, who wound up his creation and then let it run on its own. Since God is not omnipresent over his entire Creation (but is busy in some other corner of the universe), then He is not necessarily all-powerful. Evil is therefore a natural condition of the world and not necessarily the handiwork of a supernatural evil being! David Hume argued that just because one saw beauty and power in nature, this did not imply INFINITE POWER. He compared this to seeing a weight of ten ounces being lifted by some superior weight.--Does this, he asked, automatically imply that the OTHER weight is INFINITELY heavy? According to Voltaire in his Philosophical Dictionary (Power, Omnipotence) "You recognize a supreme intelligence strong enough to create you, to preserve you for a limited time, to reward you, to punish you. Do you know enough of this intelligence to demonstrate that it can do still more?" ... "If the great Being had been infinitely powerful, there is no reason why He should not have made sentient animals infinitely happy. He has not done so; Therefore He was unable to do so. "All the philosophical sects have stranded on the reef of moral and physical ill. We can only conclude and avow that God, having acted for the best, has not been able to act better." Rabbi Harold Kushner, in his popular book, WHY BAD THINGS HAPPEN TO GOOD PEOPLE, indirectly implies that God must not be ALL powerful, since He sympathizes with us through our misfortunes, and wants to help, but cannot. Rabbi Kushner's young son died of progeria, a childhood disease where the child rapidly ages in a matter of years. He viewed God as essentially powerless to help his son, although he felt reassured by God's spiritual solace in his time of grief. II. God is all good and powerful, THEREFORE EVIL DOESN'T REALLY EXIST IN THIS WORLD (or alternatively EVIL IS NECESSARY TO BRING ABOUT AN EVEN GREATER GOOD)! (Items 1 & 2). Some Christian theologians and religious scholars (including the medieval scholar Thomas Aquinas in his SUMMA THEOLOGIAE) have admitted that the presence of evil is the best argument AGAINST the existence of God. Skeptics such as David Hume have used the presence of evil in the world to argue against the teleological proof for the existence of God. (See Section VIII, Chapter 1). Therefore some religious philosophies have tried to explain evil away by arguing that EITHER evil is somehow necessary, or that it REALLY does NOT exist! --Evil As a Necessary "Test" Some religious groups (among them Christians and Muslims) believe that life in this world is a temporary "test"--through which one might EARN a heavenly reward through good living. The criticism to this view, is that God must not be necessarily "all-good", if he set up a world whereby the majority of humans were given such difficult tests that this caused them to fail. What about babies for example who are BORN with terrible deformities that prevent their capacity for making moral "choices" (such as severe retardation)? In this case, there is no ability to make moral "choices"? In general, would it not make more sense (ie be far less wasteful) for an all-powerful, all-good God to only create "good" humans? Along a similar line of reasoning, if one assumes that evil and suffering is "necessary" for humans as a "test", WHY MUST ANIMALS ALSO SUFFER FROM EVIL IN THE WORLD? Western religions do not hold that animals are rewarded for living a virtuous life. Yet, much of the evil in the world that afflicts humans also affects animals as well--which includes suffering from disease, genetic disorders, famine, earthquakes, wars, and pestilence. Animals are generally considered inferior to humans because of their lower level of reasoning (relatively speaking). Animals do not appear to have the moral capacity to make religious choices--or to engage in formal religious worship. Some philosophers (notably among them Descartes) declared animals to be unfeeling automata (machines), and therefore indifferent to the sufferings from nature. However, modern animal research does not support Descartes view.-- There have been documented cases where some animals have displayed strong feelings, even being observed to have "cried" at the death of a loved one. To believe that God is "testing" humans-- must therefore mean that animals are not important enough to consider. This in itself, can be taken as a form of "evil". --Evil Is Necessary in Order to Bring About a "Greater" Good. A close variation to the above, is the belief that God MUST always act according to what is best for this world. Gottfried W. Leibnitz argued that when God created the world, He created it as "the best of all possible worlds"! Because God COULD have chosen to have created a world without any evil, but created this world instead-- Leibnitz reasoned that this "world which contains evil may be better than one without evil". He noted that in "mathematics and elsewhere" that it was "clear that an imperfection in a part may be necessary for a greater perfection in the whole." (Gottfried Leibniz, THEODICY: ESSAYS ON THE GOODNESS OF GOD, trans. E. M. Huggard (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1951, p 378). Thus "what little evil there is" in the world is necessary to "provide the full measure of the vast good" that exists throughout. Leibnitz also held the view (argued above) that without evil there could be no development of human intelligence to make moral choices--thus a contest between good and evil is necessary and inevitable. The criticism regarding the "necessity" of evil in the world (mentioned above) would also apply to Leibnitz's contention that we live in the "best of possible worlds". For example, most people would agree there is a good deal of evil in the world. Even if one assumes that at least SOME evil is NECESSARY--surely a world with a little evil in it would be superior to the one we have that contains MUCH evil. Or to put this another way, if a MINOR amount of evil is necessary, why do we see many instances where evil became the MAJOR influence on one ore more individuals--either because of a natural disaster or due to human cruelty--which destroyed their chances for a normal life? Voltaire was so outraged by Leibnitz's outlook that he wrote CANDIDE as a farcical satire of it. Other critics to Leibnitz have argued that, at best he was "vague"--and that his contention that "somehow" other worlds would be even worse, was never seriously tested by him, but merely ASSUMED. --Stoic Belief in Evil as Necessary to build Strong Moral Character. The ancient Greek Stoics argued that good and evil are BOTH necessary in order to distinguish the one from the other (similar to darkness and light.) For in a world WITHOUT evil, pain, and suffering--a good person would not have the opportunity to confront moral choice. Or to put this another way, by forcing one to actively (as opposed to passively) "choose" between good and evil, this builds strong moral character. Goethe used this theme in his works, when he stated that the strong character is forged in the "sturm and drang" (storm and suffering) of life. Objections to this view, include: (1) Maybe a "little" evil could be justified in this way--But how can such massive evil--say where large numbers of innocent people suffer-- be considered "necessary"? How can the torture of one innocent person to inflict excruciating pain be considered a "necessary" evil? (2) Why is terrible evil ALSO inflicted on children and animals, who do NOT have the capacity to make moral decisions. (3) Cannot good be justified on its own merits?, and (4) What about where our human experience has shown that evil frequently breeds MORE evil--with no moral redeeming value in sight. Recent discoveries in science also indicate that some "evil" might have PHYSICAL causes-- that are beyond the moral control of the individual. Examples include cases where a person becomes violent AFTER falling on their head, or AFTER developing a brain tumor in the area of the brain, believed by scientists to be the center of aggression. (See Section VIII, Chapter 6 for examples.) --Evil as an "Illusion" There are other variations, other than the above. Some have argued that "evil" is an illusion, or an "error of the mind". The philosopher Hegel took this position, as he viewed history as a PROGRESSIVE movement of mankind's spirit over the long run. Christian Science also holds the position that evil in the world, is an illusion and therefore NOT real. (See Section IX, Chapter 3 on Christian Science.) One critical response to the view that evil is NOT real, is to argue that even "if" evil were some illusion or dream-- the fact that it is experienced (even in this state)-- is a form of "evil". --Evil as Sublime Goodness That Cannot be Fathomed by Mortal Minds. Another variation argues that what may APPEAR to be "evil" by our finite minds may be sublime "goodness", according to the greater understanding of an all-powerful God. The theologian, Paul Tillich, for example, placed good and evil on another plane of existence, and therefore stated that it is not proper or logical to even discuss these in our dimension of existence. Again, critics respond that, because terrible suffering is still present in the world--this is not a satisfactory explanation for many people. For example, try to explain to a mother whose child has just STARVED to death, or otherwise died after terrible suffering, that this is somehow sublime goodness on another plane of existence. One could argue that the SUFFERING and EVIL that one sees about us in the world, is what one would expect if there were NO all-powerful and all-good God, instead of the other way around. Many Christians today, while acknowledging that there does appear to be a paradox on the surface of things--assume that evil in the world is somehow a part of God's "Divine Plan", and that humans are just to weak and feeble to understand His Ways. The popular response given to the famous paradox thus becomes: "There are just some things we can never know". This argument is emotionally very powerful--for with it ANYTHING can be justified --and NOTHING either proved or disproved! Note, this argument does NOT attempt to "solve" the Philosopher's Paradox. Instead it tries to imply that humans are NOT capable of rationally resolving this paradox-- and therefore should not try! (This is often combined with the argument that if belief makes people happy and gives them "hope" for a better life in heaven, then it is not really important whether the philosopher's paradox can be "rationally" explained, or not.) III. God is all-powerful. There is evil in the world. MAYBE GOD IS NOT ALL GOOD. But, who are WE to judge if God is all-good. After all, God cannot be judged by mere human standards of goodness--for He is the Creator, and we are the created! The ancient Greek mythologies of Homer described gods and goddesses with great powers, but whose characters contained good and bad in them. Because evil could be explained due to individual petty actions between the gods (such as Zeus being jealous and therefore hurling a thunderbolt), this explained the existence of evil in the world. As such, it was not necessary for these Greek mythologies to postulate the existence of a Devil god, who was the source of all evil in the world. Interestingly enough, the OLDEST BOOKS in the Old Testament contain verses that indicate that God was perceived as the source of BOTH good and evil.-- That is, within the OLDER texts within the Old Testament, there are verses that indicate that at least SOME of the hebrew writers did not believe that God was necessarily ALL-good! Believing in ONE God, these writers implied that God MUST have created BOTH Good and Evil in the world. (That is, they believed that attributing such great powers to a Devil would, in effect, make him a SECOND God--and of course there could only be ONE God!) That God was believed to be BOTH the source of good and evil, can be seen in the following passages in the Old Testament: * "I form the light, and create the darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things (Isaiah 45:7 (KJV)--The RSV Bible softens this last sentence somewhat, translating it as "I make weal and create woe, I am the Lord, who do all these things) * "And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people" (Exodus 32:14 KJV) God also put "lying spirits" in the mouth of false prophets: * "You see, then how the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these prophets of yours, because he has decreed disaster for you." (1 Kings 22:23, 2 Chron, 18:22) And God deceives: * "And I said, O LORD GOD, thou surely didst deceive this people and Jerusalem in saying, 'You shall have peace', while the sword is at our throats." (Jer. 4:10) God by his silence approves of the deceit by which Jacob secured for himself the birthright that rightfully belonged to his older brother Easu. One of the contributors to THE INTERPRETER'S BIBLE, a compendium of biblical analysis and interpretation, attempts to absolve Jacob by pointing out that it was actually his mother Rebekah who conceived of the plot. "Upon me be your curse", said Rebekah to Jacob as she urged him to go through with the deception. (Genesis 27:28, 29) Psalm 137 ends with "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones". Lot had sexual relations with his two daughters but was never punished for this--nor was he ever admonished by God. Other Views of God -- Other Hebrew Gods Other than Jehovah In the older books of the Old Testament (Septuagint and Judges, Samuel, and Kings) there are references to other gods. The general picture overall is of Yahweh, the supreme or head god over all the forces of nature viz-a-viz some minor gods who exist. This is seen in Genesis when God states in the plural: "Let US make man in OUR image". (emphasis mine.) In the Ten Commandments, God orders the Israelites not to "have any other gods (idols) before me...for I the Lord your God am a jealous God..." (Exodus 20:3,5; Deut 5:9). Some critics have argued that this passage, taken at face value, does NOT have God saying that the other Gods do NOT exist. Instead, for Him to be "jealous" this would imply that other Gods do indeed exist (otherwise, he would be "ANGRY" at the worship of FALSE gods--instead of "JEALOUS"). --God, as a Trinity Judaism has NO concept of a Trinity, and indeed considers such a concept as a direct violation of their central tenet of ONE and ONLY one God. There is NO reference to the concept of God as a Trinity anywhere within the Old Testament! Yet, the concept of a trinity of gods was very common among many of their pagan neighbors. For example, the concept of a Trinity appears in the mystery religions that surrounded the Egyptian deities of Serapis, Isis, and Horus. "Thus from one god I became three gods", says Osiris in describing his creation in a papyrus that has been dated twelve years after the date of Alexander the Great. (Budge, "Payrus of Nesi-A,si." p 442) The Babylonians had a powerful Trinity comprised of a father, mother and messiah child. In Brahmaism, the highest God Brahm is conceived of as a Trinity consisting of Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva. Brahma was considered the creator of man. He produced the soul first, taking it out of his same being. Then he clothed it with a body. (This is in reverse order from the Hebrew account, where God forms the body first, and then secondly breathes the breath of life into the body, creating a living soul.) In Buddhism, there is reference to the three jewels representing the Buddha himself, the good law, and last the Buddhist brotherhood or Church. Gnostics perceived God in the form of a Trinity. As gnostics began to convert into Christianity, their earliest views of a Trinity consisted of a father, mother, and child. The gospel of the Egyptians found at Nag Hammadi speaks of a Trinity composed of a Father, Mother, and Son. One reference prays to both a divine Father and Mother couple: "From Thee, Father, and through Thee, Mother, the two immortal names, Parents of the divine being, and thou, dweller in heaven, humanity, of the mighty name." (Elaine Pagels, GNOSTIC GOSPELS, p 59) The Gnostic leader Valentinius, taught that while the image of God was indescribable-- that it could be imagined as the Primal Father (symbolized as the Ineffable, the Depth), at the same time as the "Mother of the All" (symbolized as Grace, Silence, and the Womb). (Ibid) The mother member of the Trinity was referred to under various names by gnostic groups-- including the names of Sophia, Pneuma, and Logos. Members prayed to her as the "mystical, eternal Silence." (Ibid). One gnostic writing, the GREAT ANNOUNCEMENT, (as quoted by Hippolytus in his REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES), describes the universe in dual male/ female terms. From the depths of silence appeared: "a great power, the Mind of the Universe, which manages all things, and is a male...the other...a great Intelligence...is a female which produces all things." (Ibid, p 60.) In early version of the GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THE HEBREWS, Christ spoke of the Holy Ghost as his Mother. Both Origen and Jerome have quoted the famous passage that reads: "Just now my mother the Holy spirit took me by one of my hairs and carried me off to the great mountain Tabor." The same text also takes an especially puzzling gospel saying of Jesus -- "Whoever does not hate his father and his mother cannot be my disciple". The same passage goes on to declare that Jesus meant by this that it is "my (earthly) mother [who gave me death], but [my] true [Mother who] gave me life." (Some scholars have suggested that the language of the writers may have influenced the gender of the Holy Spirit.--As the word for spirit or "ruach" in the Semitic languages is feminine--whereas in Latin the word "spiritus" is masculine, and in Greek, "pneuma" is neuter.) Gnostic teachers seemed split over the exact sexual metaphors describing God. Some viewed God as embodying both male AND female characteristics. These authors speculated who God was referring to when he said in Genesis 1:26, "Let us make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness". They noted that the next verse states that humanity was created "male and female". Other gnostics claimed that God was neither male nor female.--Instead God was described using such imagery to aid the believer in comprehending sacred concepts. During the early development of the Christian church, the concept of a mother God member of the Trinity was rejected. The term Logos was identified with the son member of the Trinity, and the term Pneuma or Holy Spirit was retained for the third person (usually held to be of "neutral" sex). The Eastern version of Christianity appears to have retained the concept of the Trinity as a divine unity of Father, Mother, and Christ-child longer than the Western Christians (centered in Rome). The Koran which referred to the concepts of Christianity taught in the East, represents the Christian Trinity as one comprised of God, Christ, and Mary. This Gnostic tradition proved strong enough to add the devotion of the Mother Mary within the Roman Catholic Church, almost on an equal footing with the worship of the Trinity itself. In the minds of some adherents, the power of Mary's personage replaced the Holy Ghost element itself as the third member. Belief in the Holy Spirit as a distinct and equal member of a three-personage God was NOT declared an article of Christian faith until the Council of Constantinople in 381 C.E.. It was at this council that the following words were added to the Nicene Creed: "... I believe in he Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, Who with the Father and Son together is worshipped and glorified. Who spake by the prophets." This orthodox view, looked to John 5:7-8 for its official definition of the Trinity: "For there are three that bear record (in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and the water and the blood; and these three agree in one". Interestingly, this verse is missing in the earliest Greek mass, and most biblical scholars believe that this verse is an interpolation. For this reason, these verses are omitted in the Revised Version of the Bible. None of the synoptic gospels even mention the "Trinity" with one exception: Matthew 28:19, quotes Jesus as saying: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Many scholars believe the difference in tone and style of this passage makes this also to be a possible interpolation by a later Christian editor. According to Acts 2:38, the early Christian baptismal formula was "in the name of Jesus the Messiah". Also, when Eusebius (third century C.E.), quoted this verse by Matthew, he wrote "make disciples of all nations in my name." (Randel Helms, "Resurrection Fictions", FREE INQUIRY, (FALL 1981, Vol 1 No 4 p 39) It was during the Enlightenment, as individuals began applying the scientific method towards the gospels, that the doctrine of the Trinity began to become seriously questioned. Interestingly, the famous scientist and mathematician Isaac Newton also dabbled in the history of Christianity. During the 1670's, after studying the theological history of the doctrine of the Trinity, Newton (who was a deist) declared that he was convinced that Athanasius and his colleagues had forged the gospel verses on the doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation during the fourth century C.E.. Newton believed that Arius' doctrine which held that Jesus had been born a man instead of a God, was the correct one. Of course, this position, cannot be directly proved (just as the doctrine of the Trinity cannot be directly proved). Today, most mainstream Christian denominations have continued to stress the importance of the doctrine of the Trinity--as one of their most cherished and inviolate doctrines. Karma It is always fascinating to study how different cultures have explained away "WHY" good AND bad individuals both typically suffer in life. In Western Christendom, St. Augustine explained that the good suffered, because of mankind's inheritance of "Original Sin" from Adam and Eve. Because all babies are procreated through the sexual act, this is the mechanism through which the "Original Sin" is transmitted to all mankind. (See Section V, Chapter 5). Only Jesus, being born of a virgin, was spared this ignomy. (In the nineteenth century the Catholic Church claimed that Mary was ALSO born of a virgin-- and therefore not tainted with "Original Sin".) In the far Eastern religions, an entirely different concept--the doctrine of karma-- was developed by Hindu philosophers to explain "why" the good often suffered in this life, if the universe is to be somehow "just" and "fair". The doctrine of karma holds that, because the universe MUST be JUST, then a person's suffering is NOT due to random chance, but has a CAUSE. Adherents of karma hold that INJUSTICE in the present life of an individual is a direct consequence of the evil done in a PREVIOUS life (either human or otherwise)! This doctrine has been used throughout India to justify the presence of a caste system, whereby if a person is born into their station, that they then have no hope of ever improving their social status. Even helping a person in this life, could be interpreted as sinful for "interfering" with the "just" mechanism of karma. Gautama Buddha rejected the Hindu version of karma because it allowed for no chance of improvement for individuals DURING THIS LIFE! He personally did not believe in reincarnation (although this doctrine was later taken up by many of his followers). He rejected the Hindu view of karma as too PERSONAL and simplistic. Instead, he viewed the law of Karma as the mechanism through which individuals could tap into his philosophy to find bliss. According to the Buddha's philosophy, we human beings are bound together in a kind of COMMON karma of humanity. Each of us has a responsibility to be kind to every creature on earth.--There is a chain of cause and effect that arises-- because each of us has been affected by those who have lived before us. This cycle will be repeated whereby our lives, in turn, will affect those who live after us. That is, only the deeds, not the doers, continue on from one generation to the next. (See Section III, Chapter 1, for a brief background of Buddhism).