Week Two BookClub Notes -- Pages 18 - 40

Chapter 2 -- HOW COULD A GOOD GOD ALLOW SUFFERING?

1. "Rob" is quoted (p. 18) as saying, "I won't believe in a God who allows suffering ......." Another person, a reporter, said after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami which killed 250,000+ people, "If God is God, he is not good. If God is good, he's not God. You can't have it both ways ......." (See the Epicurus quote under #1 on page 202). How would you respond to those assertions?

2. What is the "major flaw" (p. 19) in the reasoning which says that the very existence in a violent, evil world of a good and omnipotent God is a logical inconsistency? ("Some other god or no god may exist, but not the traditional God." -- p. 19) The flaw in this reasoning can be expressed in the "hidden premise" mentioned on p. 19.

3. Although it is decidedly a mixed message, what does experience (and logic)-- illustrated by the life of Joseph -- tell us about the good that exists in evil?

4. What is Keller's point on p. 20 -- "Indeed, you can have it both ways."?

5. It can be argued that if evil and suffering are evidence of anything at all, they are evidence for -- not against -- the existence of God. "Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple" (C.S. Lewis). "It (the problem of evil and suffering in the world) is at least as big a problem for nonbelief as for belief"). How so? (Hint -- "A secular way of looking at the world has no place for genuine moral obligation of any sort" -- p. 22).

6. "Why was Jesus so much more overwhelmed by his death than others have been, even more than his own followers?" (p. 23. In what sense was Jesus's death "qualitatively different" (p. 24) from any other death?

7. Chapter 2 closes with this statement: "This is the ultimate defeat of evil and suffering. It will not only be ended but so radically vanquished that what has happened will only serve to make our future life and joy infinitely greater." What does that mean?

Chapter 3 -- CHRISTIANITY IS A STRAITJACKET

1. In what sense does Christianity seem to many to be "an enemy of social cohesion"? (p. 29)

2. ".......many say that all truth-claims are power plays" (p. 30). What does that mean?

3. Our author argues that "the objection that all truth is a power play falls prey to the same problem as the objection that all truth is culturally conditioned" (p. 30). What is that problem? (Hint: "To see through everything is not to see." p. 30).

4. An oft-stated objection to Christianity is that it is too exclusive, causing it to be "socially divisive" (p. 31). Keller counters that "a totally inclusive community is ........ an illusion" (p. 31). What is the basis of his argument? (Hint: "Neither community is being 'narrow' -- they are just being communities" -- p. 32).

5. How does the author establish his position that, contrary to the popular belief that Christianity "forces people from diverse cultures into a single iron mold" (p. 32), it in truth has been "more adaptive" to (and less destructive of) diverse cultures than many other ........ worldviews (p. 32)? (The text asks the same question: "Why has Christianity, more than any other major religion of the world, been able to infiltrate so many radically different cultures?" -- p. 35).

6. "Christianity is supposedly a limit to personal growth and potential because it constrains our freedom to choose our own beliefs and practices" (p. 36). Keller argues that "In fact, in many cases, confinement and constraint is actually a means to liberation" (p. 36). On what does he base his argument? What is his conclusion regarding what constraints on freedom are necessary for us to be truly free to grow (intellectually, vocationally, physically -- and spiritually and morally)?

7. Note the seeming contradiction in the following statement: "To experience the joy and freedom of love, you must give up your personal autonomy" (p. 38).

8. How do you find freedom by giving up freedom (p. 40)?

5.