TLR Looks Back At 2022 Reader Comments (Part 2) Martin Luther, The Problem Of Evil, Tolkien, And Women’s Existence

If you take time out of your busy day to read by blog—thank you!

I dedicated this article to all my readers, whether you comment or not. If you have yet to comment, please feel free to do so at any time. I promise to do my best to reply in a timely manner. We all desire community, even the irreligious. If I provide a small slice of community here on the internet, what a blessing!

Please enjoy more reader comments. Also included are my responses to those comments and further commentary, if needed. God bless!

By Martin Luther the Church Falls

Comment:

So when God says that He is a jealous God, He does not really mean it? If He says one thing He does not actually mean, maybe a lot of the things He says in the Bible He does not actually mean. How are we to know what He really means and what He doesn’t really mean?

TLR Response:

God does not mean it in the petty, needy, or greedy way as is common in human jealousy. God loves us and this “jealousy” is borne out of that love. He wants us for Himself because that is what we were made for. To give ourselves to other “gods” is to hand over to another what is properly due God. God wants me. That is how I see it.

Follow Up:

Furthermore, God know our hearts. He knows our true satisfaction rests in Him alone.

You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they rest in You. –St. Augustine of Hippo

The Innocent Who Suffer: Where is God in the Pain?

Comment:

I’ve never commented here before, sorry to start so contentiously.

So… all the suffering of humans and other animals is due to the sin of two people, without which none of that suffering would have occurred. And the omnipotent God could find no better way to get things back on track than to incarnate and die a few milennia later. Which didn’t even stop any of the suffering anyway. In Catholic doctrine, didn’t God cause Mary to be born without original sin? Yet that wasn’t something he thought to do for oh, I dunno, Eve’s children? There, problem solved.

Not to mention that God’s supposedly the one who set the whole thing up in the first place, so that one misstep could wreck it. Every competent parent knows to not put the dangerous thing where the kid can get it. So God’s either a bungler or he did all this on purpose.

Also, God’s answer to the anguish of, oh, let’s say a child being raped by a priest, is that this anguish is beautiful if accepted in obedience to God’s will? Appalling.

This makes no sense. In contrast, “we are evolved beings in an uncaring universe” explains things quite simply. Why do the innocent suffer? Because there’s no inherent reason why they shouldn’t, and no one to prevent it but us.

If you don’t approve this comment, I hope you’ll think about it.

TLR Response:

God created humans with freewill. The first humans used that freewill and fell. We now suffer the consequences of that choice. We have suffering because we have freewill. Also, God would not interfere with our freedom. To do so would make us mere robots. Furthermore, Mary still suffered from other’s sin, especially when this sin was committed against Jesus. She was also a special case in preparation for the Incarnation. The Incarnation is key here, as we have a God who suffers with us and knows our pain, not an uncaring and indifferent universe that offers no reason and meaning for it.

God created humans with freewill and the ability to do great good or great evil.

I did not say that the anguish over being raped is beautiful. What I wrote is that God reframes suffering in the cross. A child who is raped has suffered a great evil. The beauty is in the fact that suffering and death have been overcome by grace. We have been saved through Christ’s suffering and death. He then rose again. This too is our hope.

What is suffering in an “uncaring universe”? What is an “innocent” in an “uncaring universe’? Can we even say that suffering is wrong in an “uncaring universe”? I do not see how this makes any sense or offers any sort of comfort to those who suffer.

Follow Up:

This article received many great comments and spawned many discussions on The Problem of Evil. I encourage anyone reading this to click on the link and read the dialogues in the comment section. I learned a ton in those dialogues.

The Lord of the Rings: the Universal Appeal of a Catholic Work

Comment:

Thank you for this perspective on Tolkien’s work — one I did not have before!

FWIW, when I read, “[T]he imagery of the humble servant’s willingness to sacrifice for the greater good” I immediately thought of Samwise Gamgee, who willingly sacrificed as much as Frodo (or more) with the expectation that his sacrifice would do less for the greater good than did Frodo’s sacrifice.

Sam never saw himself as the hero of an epic, but he was as ready as Frodo to sacrifice as much, for the same end. (And, in the end, he, too, sailed across the sea as a ring bearer, albeit after a long and rewarding life, and the death of his wife, Rosie Cotton, and handing the Red Book off to his daughter, so that the story of the ring would not be lost).

TLR Response:

Regarding Sam, I totally agree. I think Peter Jackson perfectly captured this in the scene where he literally carries the quest on his back!

Follow Up:

Oh, the writings of JRR Tolkien and Peter Jackson’s cinematic masterpiece The Lord of the Rings Trilogy… Through these works, the spirit of Catholic thought found its way into the broader culture, most times unknowingly. Hopefully, I added a little something to the reading and viewing experience of Tolkien fans everywhere.

It’s Not What You Define, but Who Defines It: The Truth Behind Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Refusal to Define the Word “Woman”

Comment:

The article is nonsense. The judge said she was unable to define “woman” in the context of Blackburn’s question because the Senator was asking a question that could only be answered by a biologist (and even biologists are not in complete agreement). Although I am not a biologist, we know from modern biology that there is a spectrum between male and female, where delivery room doctors are challenged to assign the sex of the newborn in binary fashion. But life is not binary. Additionally, there is no true assault on women’s sports. First, the issue is a 1st World issue and not really that important. Second, it wasn’t fair to me, a male, that I had to compete against Tom Brady, who apparently exists off the scale in regards to male athletes.

TLR Response:

No, the context was legal, not scientific, so as a Judge, she could have answered it.

Also, there is no spectrum between male and female. There is only one way humans procreate and that is by the procreative act between a man (male) and a woman (female). Sex is not “assigned” at birth. Humans, like other mammals, are born either male or female. This way, when these two types of mammals reach maturity, they can procreate and ensure the continue propagation of the human species.

What proof do you have there is no assault on women’s sports? I am not sure if you are aware, but a taller, stronger, faster man just took an NCAA championship away from a woman recently.

We agree this is entirely a 1st World problem, as those in the developing world have more common sense.

Follow Up:

Moreover, this article too received many comments. The comments highlight the confusion over a very simple word: woman. When I brought up the needed binary for procreation, many critics appealed to genetic abnormalities as a counter argument. Again, the fact that variation due to genetic mutation or abnormalities exist, does not mean that a typical binary does not exist. The binary exists and all genetic variations, no matter the cause, branch off of this fact.