I dont post here a lot. I think this might be my first post in this forum, so I apologize if it has already been discussed.

Jordan B Peterson, author of "12 Rules for Life: An Antidote for Chaos" has a new book coming out this Thanksgiving timeframe called "We Who Wrestle With God".

Quote:

---

In We Who Wrestle with God, Dr. Peterson guides us through the ancient, foundational stories of the Western world. In riveting detail, he analyzes the Biblical accounts of rebellion, sacrifice, suffering, and triumph that stabilize, inspire, and unite us culturally and psychologically. Adam and Eve and the eternal fall of mankind; the resentful and ultimately murderous war of Cain and Abel; the cataclysmic flood of Noah; the spectacular collapse of the Tower of Babel; Abraham's terrible adventure; and the epic of Moses and the Israelites. What could such stories possibly mean? What force wrote and assembled them over the long centuries? How did they bring our spirits and the world together, and point us in the same direction?

It is time for us to understand such things, scientifically and spiritually; to become conscious of the structure of our souls and our societies; and to see ourselves and others as if for the first time.

Join Elijah as he discovers the Voice of God in the dictates of his own conscience and Jonah confronting hell itself in the belly of the whale because he failed to listen and act. Set yourself straight in intent, aim, and purpose as you begin to more deeply understand the structure of your society and your soul. Journey with Dr. Peterson through the greatest stories ever told.

Dare to wrestle with God.

---

I have read 12 Rules for Life 3 or 4 times, and it is thought-provoking, slightly uncomfortable (a good book should be), but extremely meaningful.

I am a confirmed Catholic that has been non-practicing for almost 10 years now. I am curious to read this. Anyone else?

I guess my opine is that: I've always felt that the Bible's main instruction was to teach believers right from wrong. That's what I got from the Church. The more people who hear this message about what people should and should not do for a peaceful and productive society, the better. It moves us forward.

Do I believe that every single thing in the Bible happened as it was described? No. Is it still valuable instruction for people building a peaceful civilization that serves to somewhat tamper down on the parts of human instinct that would be counter to this? Yes.

Welcome, always good to have new blood here.

I am not Christian, but my suspicion is that many Christians would take some exception to your account of the Bible's main instruction. I think many would describe the purpose of the Bible, or God's revelation more generally, as having to do with the revelation of God's nature or God's message and plan for humanity's salvation. 'Right and wrong' is a part of the Bible, but I think they are almost secondary to an instruction to place trust, faith, and love in God.

Anyway, the real reason I'm replying is just to say that this feels like a very utilitarian description of the purpose of Christianity. I certainly agree that Christianity can have the affect of encouraging certain behaviors that promote 'civilized' behavior, but so does every other religion. Now, religions may differ in what they consider to be civilized, but without any means of validating these claims, religious moral differences seem almost indistinguishable to me from any other cultural difference. At least in many instances.

My question to you is, If the objective is a peaceful civilization, is Christianity the best tool for the job? Is religion the best tool for the job? Unlike secular philosophy, religion offers the potential for positive reinforcement for doing good and the potential threat of negative reinforcement for doing wrong. And in that respect, it certainly has an advantage for people that are motivated by those possibilities.

But I think that religion has some powerful 'points' in the 'counter to this' column as well. And ultimately this is why I disagree with Christianity has a utilitarian approach to promoting peace and civil behavior. Here is what I mean by those negative points -

If you were to be commissioned to create a brand new religion or philosophy with the purpose of promoting a peaceful civilization, what would be in it? Instructions on how to beat your slaves, genocide, the glorification of the destruction of different religious people, rape, murder, threats of eternal punishment, religious tribalism, and of course the assurances that God is on your side and any terrible act you commit can be justified? Of course, every Christian reading this is rolling their eyes at me right now. . . and I know that none of the Christians here support these behaviors.

But lets not pretend these things are not openly and unapologetically in the Bible and lets also not pretend that those Bible passages have been openly and unapologetically incited to justify terrible actions. And I'm only picking on Christianity because I know the most about it. What I know of other religions does not make me think they are any better. Certainly, some seem worse.

The Bible is a book that tells you treat everyone as equals and also tells you to breed your slaves so you can hold their children as hostage to make your slaves work for you longer. It is a book that tells you to kill heretics and to not throw stones. It is a book that tells you not to murder and then to commit ethnic cleansing or to slaughter the men and boys and take women as concubines. It is a book that tells you that God is love, but if you reject Him you will go to an "irreversible" "place of punishment" with a "lake of fire" full of "weeping and gnashing of teeth". A place where "torment goes up forever and ever and they have no rest day and night". But, worst of all, it is a book that tells you that reminds you that "If God is for us, who can be against us?".

I am also told by Christians that the Bible is a book that does not actually promote slavery and genocide and hatred and tribalism. One only needs to become an expert in ancient languages, the Hebrew language, ancient cultures, anthropology, history, archeology, theology, sociology, and philosophy . . . . and then it will be obvious to you who God is. Except for the fact that people that are experts in these things still disagree constantly about what is meant in the Bible.

Lastly, the Bible promotes a system of rules and an objective that is absolute and unquestionable. No amount of new information, new science, new knowledge, life experience, or alternative philosophy can ever be relevant. I think that this makes people 'comfortable'. After all, a set of societal morals that can be changed has the potential to be changed for the 'worse'. But it also allows for change that can be 'good' or for humans to reevaluate our objectives.

TLDR: If the goal is promoting a certain type of productive behavior. . . . I feel like we can do better than the Bible.

And, I don't want this to come off as my poo pooing Christianity. I think the Bible and Christianity were incredibly important in the evolution of human philosophy and morality. But, unless you think they are true, I believe they've outlived some (certainly not all) of it's utility.

BadMoonRisin said:

---

I am a confirmed Catholic that has been non-practicing for almost 10 years now. I am curious to read this. Anyone else?

I guess my opine is that: I've always felt that the Bible's main instruction was to teach believers right from wrong. That's what I got from the Church.

---

I don't think this is what the Catholic church teaches. I'm sure a Catholic poster will be along shortly to correct me.

I left the Catholic Church for over 10 years. I was in your position, more or less. There are general rules for living rightly, and the Bible outlines these fairly well. The leads to the idea that we should overall just be a "good" person and it'll all work out.

What you're running into is the definition of "good". It was a weird journey for me from there but at the end of the day I came to rest on the fact that right and wrong are much more concrete than modern society would like us to believe. Jordan Peterson seems to be on a similar journey. While God may be very merciful and not sentence every well meaning person who is not a Christian to hell (likely due to factors outside of their control) it does not change that the world was created with order and He is Order.

From former lapsed Catholic to current lapsed Catholic: I encourage you to dive deeper. Whatever religious education you received was (very likely) lacking significantly, and that wasn't because your parents/teachers didn't care. Look into Catholic answers, Matt Fradd, Trent horn, etc. you may not agree with my conclusion but you'll quickly come to realize you were not taught the true Catholic faith in your youth and that is in no way a mark against you.

dermdoc said:

---

Almost everything you posted describes the old covenant. The new covenant, as revealed in Jesus Christ, reconciles man to God and therefore should reconcile man to man. The cross completely changed man's relationship with God. We are now adopted sons of God filled with the Holy Spirit.

This allows us to be one with Jesus and Jesus be one with us. Because of this, the law is inscribed on our hearts and we effortlessly follow the Way and produce fruits by being grafted into the vine of Jesus. So we know right from wrong because of the Holy Spirit that dwells in us. We do fall short sometimes because we are fallen humans and still have the flesh but despite that we are reconciled to God and eternally forgiven.

It is beautiful and brings such peace and true freedom. And we get the free gift of eternal life in the presence of God.

And with this freedom comes the stimulation to explore science (which to me simply explains how God does things), arts, literature, etc.

A lot of scientific advancements came from devout Christians. And arts and literature.

Christianity is all about the "new". The new man, new wine skins, everything shall be made new, being born again, renewing your mind, etc. There are countless Scriptures about how the Gospel brings newness.

As far as eternal punishment, I do not believe in it. I believe in corrective kolasis, or pruning to make us what God meant us to be. All for our good.

---

So, why not drop the Old Testament? And maybe drop the parts of the New Testament where eternal torture in a lake of fire is mentioned? What is gained by retaining passages in your holy book that provides instructions on beating your slaves or lists dozens of types of peoples that should be put to death?

The Old Testament has been used by Christians to justify all manner of war and torture and slavery and murder and oppression throughout history. I cannot explain to you how frustrating it is when Christians describe their history as all sunshine and lollipops. . . And who can blame those Christians throughout history, didn't Jesus say that he came to fulfill, not abolish, the laws of the prophets? It is not a stretch to read this as an endorsement of those laws.

Its wonderful that the nature of old vs new covenants is plain and obvious to you. Clearly you are a genius and all of the Christians that came before you were too stupid to understand, right? How else do you explain the billions of your processors that held such different moral positions? If you don't answer any other question from my post, as this one.

And we are not talking about Christian radicals in history. We are talking about entire Christian societies and countries and leaders and popes who openly endorsing genocide, war, ethnic cleaning, slavery, and on and on.

I don't intend for this post to be about Christian-bashing. There is zero doubt that Christians has contributed enormously to morality and philosophy and science. . . . I just wish you all had the slightest scrap of humility about Christian history and their role in things.


Scientific advancement has always followed the most successful nations. There have been eras in the last 2000 years where Islamic or Chinese peoples were the scientific leaders. If we consider scientific advancement to be part of our modern societies objectives, then we need to recognize that "God did it" is not a useful assumption. And that is why the overwhelming majority of modern scientists are not religious.

You keep the entire OT because it points directly to Jesus and God's plan for redemption. Without the OT the NT loses a lot of impact.

powerbelly said:

---

You keep the entire OT because it points directly to Jesus and God's plan for redemption. Without the OT the NT loses a lot of impact.

---

Exactly.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Almost everything you posted describes the old covenant. The new covenant, as revealed in Jesus Christ, reconciles man to God and therefore should reconcile man to man. The cross completely changed man's relationship with God. We are now adopted sons of God filled with the Holy Spirit.

This allows us to be one with Jesus and Jesus be one with us. Because of this, the law is inscribed on our hearts and we effortlessly follow the Way and produce fruits by being grafted into the vine of Jesus. So we know right from wrong because of the Holy Spirit that dwells in us. We do fall short sometimes because we are fallen humans and still have the flesh but despite that we are reconciled to God and eternally forgiven.

It is beautiful and brings such peace and true freedom. And we get the free gift of eternal life in the presence of God.

And with this freedom comes the stimulation to explore science (which to me simply explains how God does things), arts, literature, etc.

A lot of scientific advancements came from devout Christians. And arts and literature.

Christianity is all about the "new". The new man, new wine skins, everything shall be made new, being born again, renewing your mind, etc. There are countless Scriptures about how the Gospel brings newness.

As far as eternal punishment, I do not believe in it. I believe in corrective kolasis, or pruning to make us what God meant us to be. All for our good.

---

So, why not drop the Old Testament? And maybe drop the parts of the New Testament where eternal torture in a lake of fire is mentioned? What is gained by retaining passages in your holy book that provides instructions on beating your slaves or lists dozens of types of peoples that should be put to death?

The Old Testament has been used by Christians to justify all manner of war and torture and slavery and murder and oppression throughout history. I cannot explain to you how frustrating it is when Christians describe their history as all sunshine and lollipops. . . And who can blame those Christians throughout history, didn't Jesus say that he came to fulfill, not abolish, the laws of the prophets? It is not a stretch to read this as an endorsement of those laws.

Its wonderful that the nature of old vs new covenants is plain and obvious to you. Clearly you are a genius and all of the Christians that came before you were too stupid to understand, right? How else do you explain the billions of your processors that held such different moral positions? If you don't answer any other question from my post, as this one.

And we are not talking about Christian radicals in history. We are talking about entire Christian societies and countries and leaders and popes who openly endorsing genocide, war, ethnic cleaning, slavery, and on and on.

I don't intend for this post to be about Christian-bashing. There is zero doubt that Christians has contributed enormously to morality and philosophy and science. . . . I just wish you all had the slightest scrap of humility about Christian history and their role in things.


Scientific advancement has always followed the most successful nations. There have been eras in the last 2000 years where Islamic or Chinese peoples were the scientific leaders. If we consider scientific advancement to be part of our modern societies objectives, then we need to recognize that "God did it" is not a useful assumption. And that is why the overwhelming majority of modern scientists are not religious.

---

A quick Google search says 51% of scientists believe in God and about 40% believe they have a personal God.

And I am definitely not dropping the OT or the lake of fire.

As mentioned above, the OT is necessary to show the need for Jesus and redemption.

And there are as many interpretations of the lake of fire as hairs on my head.

You dislike the caricature of Christianity portrayed by those who do not actually participate in it. I dislike that also.

powerbelly said:

---

You keep the entire OT because it points directly to Jesus and God's plan for redemption. Without the OT the NT loses a lot of impact.

---

You keep the OT because it is our story and what we participate in, not just some bedtime book we dust off for evening reading. Time is not linear in the church. Christ quotes it plenty and says he came to fulfill the law rather than abolish it; it still applies to us.

powerbelly said:

---

You keep the entire OT because it points directly to Jesus and God's plan for redemption. Without the OT the NT loses a lot of impact.

---

Deuteronomy 17:2-5 instructs us to murder people that worship the sun, the moon, or any forces of heaven, which [God has] strictly forbidden.

How does this point to Jesus and God's plan for redemption? What is the specific necessary positive impact that would be lost by excluding this passage?

dermdoc said:

---

A quick Google search says 51% of scientists believe in God and about 40% believe they have a personal God.

---

Okay, you can strike what I said about the majority of scientists. But, 20 years from now, my statement will be correct.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

powerbelly said:

---

You keep the entire OT because it points directly to Jesus and God's plan for redemption. Without the OT the NT loses a lot of impact.

---

Deuteronomy 17:2-5 instructs us to murder people that worship the sun, the moon, or any forces of heaven, which [God has] strictly forbidden.

How does this point to Jesus and God's plan for redemption? What is the specific necessary positive impact that would be lost by excluding this passage?

---

Because it shows how important Jesus was. And how merciful God is.

Everything changed with the cross.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

powerbelly said:

---

You keep the entire OT because it points directly to Jesus and God's plan for redemption. Without the OT the NT loses a lot of impact.

---

Deuteronomy 17:2-5 instructs us to murder people that worship the sun, the moon, or any forces of heaven, which [God has] strictly forbidden.

How does this point to Jesus and God's plan for redemption? What is the specific necessary positive impact that would be lost by excluding this passage?

---

I haven't backed up to read the whole passage and the cultural context of it so I must ask at this point. Can you please go back and explains to us who those people are and what goes into worshiping these other deities? What sacrifices are they committing (worship always includes sacrifice - one of the things we do well to remember when we read it today)?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

powerbelly said:

---

You keep the entire OT because it points directly to Jesus and God's plan for redemption. Without the OT the NT loses a lot of impact.

---

Deuteronomy 17:2-5 instructs us to murder people that worship the sun, the moon, or any forces of heaven, which [God has] strictly forbidden.

How does this point to Jesus and God's plan for redemption? What is the specific necessary positive impact that would be lost by excluding this passage?

---

And God was talking to a specific group of people, His chosen people the Jews.

One of the recurring themes of the Old Testament is that the Jews were to keep themselves pure from outside culture as a mark to set them aside.

The radical thing about the New Testament or covenant, is that Gentiles were "let in" and made holy not by animal sacrifices or their works but by the blood sacrifice of Christ.

Those laws do not apply to us but as I mentioned are important to show God's mercy and plan of redemption.

dermdoc said:

---

And you paint a very broad brush about Christian theology and what is orthodox and not.

There have always been different Christian theological views of life after death. There have always been different views about war and what is a just war.

And a lot of atheists and non believers have done a lot of horrible things also.

It is fascinating to me that someone who prides themself on their moral relativism is so starkly black and white on Christianity.

Lot of anger and venom to be honest.

Go read some of St. Gregory of Nyssa theology who many consider one of the great church fathers. And many other church fathers.

Go read what the early Christian church actually believed.

---

Remember how I specifically asked you to respond to a particular question in my post and you completely ignored it? I've lost count of the number of times I've been accused by you for dodging questions and being dishonest.

Why are there differences in Christian theology? Isn't the Bible plain and obvious? Are not God's laws written on our hearts? We aren't talking about what differences in opinions of what is a 'just war' or what is orthodox and not. We are talking about things that you would consider to be blatantly wrong. Like 400 years of genocide, slavery, and rape to the continent of Africa. How on Earth can you justify the African Slave Trade, chattel slavery, and the horrific things that were done as 'different views'?

Yes, atheists have done terrible things. Unlike you, I don't make excuses. I believe that we should own our history rather than white wash it.

Why are you bringing up moral relativism? You are the moral absolutist and I'm asking you to be consistent.

Its not anger, its frustration. Your post above ignores my entire post and offers distractions and 'whataboutisms'.

And I'll make you a deal regarding St. Gregory . . . I'll read a book of your choosing if you read a book of my choosing. There are some great books about there describing the terrible things Christians have done.

dermdoc said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

powerbelly said:

---

You keep the entire OT because it points directly to Jesus and God's plan for redemption. Without the OT the NT loses a lot of impact.

---

Deuteronomy 17:2-5 instructs us to murder people that worship the sun, the moon, or any forces of heaven, which [God has] strictly forbidden.

How does this point to Jesus and God's plan for redemption? What is the specific necessary positive impact that would be lost by excluding this passage?

---

Because it shows how important Jesus was. And how merciful God is.

Everything changed with the cross.

---

Where is the mercy?

Murdering people for worshipping the wrong God is merciful? Or that God no longer instructs us to murder those that worship the wrong God is merciful?

AGC said:

---

I haven't backed up to read the whole passage and the cultural context of it so I must ask at this point. Can you please go back and explains to us who those people are and what goes into worshiping these other deities? What sacrifices are they committing (worship always includes sacrifice - one of the things we do well to remember when we read it today)?

---

The specific passage is not the point. The point is that I feel it is problematic for a God to ask that His followers be experts in that cultural context in order to understand the message. The result of passages like the one I pointed to is that some people with interpret it as a green light to kill non believers.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

powerbelly said:

---

You keep the entire OT because it points directly to Jesus and God's plan for redemption. Without the OT the NT loses a lot of impact.

---

Deuteronomy 17:2-5 instructs us to murder people that worship the sun, the moon, or any forces of heaven, which [God has] strictly forbidden.

How does this point to Jesus and God's plan for redemption? What is the specific necessary positive impact that would be lost by excluding this passage?

---

Because it shows how important Jesus was. And how merciful God is.

Everything changed with the cross.

---

Where is the mercy?

Murdering people for worshipping the wrong God is merciful? Or that God no longer instructs us to murder those that worship the wrong God is merciful?

---

The mercy is Christ.

dermdoc said:

---

So you can read the future? What if Jesus comes back and all of them are believers?

---

Then I will gladly eat my words.

dermdoc said:

---

And God was talking to a specific group of people, His chosen people the Jews.

One of the recurring themes of the Old Testament is that the Jews were to keep themselves pure from outside culture as a mark to set them aside.

The radical thing about the New Testament or covenant, is that Gentiles were "let in" and made holy not by animal sacrifices or their works but by the blood sacrifice of Christ.

Those laws do not apply to us but as I mentioned are important to show God's mercy and plan of redemption.

---

Have all Christians throughout history understood this to be the case? Or has OT law been used liberally by Christian societies for thousands of years?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

And you paint a very broad brush about Christian theology and what is orthodox and not.

There have always been different Christian theological views of life after death. There have always been different views about war and what is a just war.

And a lot of atheists and non believers have done a lot of horrible things also.

It is fascinating to me that someone who prides themself on their moral relativism is so starkly black and white on Christianity.

Lot of anger and venom to be honest.

Go read some of St. Gregory of Nyssa theology who many consider one of the great church fathers. And many other church fathers.

Go read what the early Christian church actually believed.

---

Remember how I specifically asked you to respond to a particular question in my post and you completely ignored it? I've lost count of the number of times I've been accused by you for dodging questions and being dishonest.

Why are there differences in Christian theology? Isn't the Bible plain and obvious? Are not God's laws written on our hearts? We aren't talking about what differences in opinions of what is a 'just war' or what is orthodox and not. We are talking about things that you would consider to be blatantly wrong. Like 400 years of genocide, slavery, and rape to the continent of Africa. How on Earth can you justify the African Slave Trade, chattel slavery, and the horrific things that were done as 'different views'?

Yes, atheists have done terrible things. Unlike you, I don't make excuses. I believe that we should own our history rather than white wash it.

Why are you bringing up moral relativism? You are the moral absolutist and I'm asking you to be consistent.

Its not anger, its frustration. Your post above ignores my entire post and offers distractions and 'whataboutisms'.

And I'll make you a deal regarding St. Gregory . . . I'll read a book of your choosing if you read a book of my choosing. There are some great books about there describing the terrible things Christians have done.

---

Where did I deny Christians have done terrible things? But not all Christians have done or condoned terrible things.

That was my point.

And the Bible is not plain and obvious except on a few matters. Like the Gospel. And love God, love your neighbor.
Good wins in the end.

dermdoc said:

---

The mercy is Christ.

---

I don't understand this answer.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

The mercy is Christ.

---

I don't understand this answer.

---

We are sinners and God is Holy. Jesus shows God's mercy on giving us forgiveness and eternal life. And bring us back to peace with our Creator.

And I actually kind of answered your question when I talked about how not all Christians believe in the things you talk about. And frankly, some of the things are not Biblical at all.

I will read anything you want me to. I even read pro Calvinist books as I like to learn even though I do not agree with some of the theology. And Calvinists are definitely my brothers and sisters in Christ. Great Christian folks.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

I haven't backed up to read the whole passage and the cultural context of it so I must ask at this point. Can you please go back and explains to us who those people are and what goes into worshiping these other deities? What sacrifices are they committing (worship always includes sacrifice - one of the things we do well to remember when we read it today)?

---

The specific passage is not the point. The point is that I feel it is problematic for a God to ask that His followers be experts in that cultural context in order to understand the message. The result of passages like the one I pointed to is that some people with interpret it as a green light to kill non believers.

---

As Chesterton says, tradition is democracy through time. It's the importance of being a member of a historical church, which I and others would claim as apostolic succession. It's part of why I'm not evangelical anymore; an individual's own reading of the Bible doesn't yield the richness of having a spiritual father shepherding laity and doctrine over time.

The church, as a whole, does not do these things anymore and, for most of its life, didn't. What you find if you look is that the Wilberforces out there also came out of this same church. We have a history of councils to decide major issues and oftentimes opposition over theology is played out in public.

The church reflects people at any given point in time; it's inescapable. You have your own dark periods, I assume, but have come out of them. This is the OT, our story of wayward hearts come close and drifting again, our constant need of Christ. The law stands, though now fulfilled.

dermdoc said:

---

And I actually kind of answered your question when I talked about how not all Christians believe in the things you talk about. And frankly, some of the things are not Biblical at all.

---

Why do Christians believe different things? Isn't the Bible clear?

Trying a different approach -

Assuming Christianity to be true . . . Would we agree that doing good is preferable to doing bad? If yes, can we say that an alternate human history where the African Slave Trade never happens, Christians put an end to slavery in the 1500s, and then start encouraging the rest of the world to do the same - is all preferable to the history we have?

There are follow up questions, but I want to see where we are at this point.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Trying a different approach -

Assuming Christianity to be true . . . Would we agree that doing good is preferable to doing bad? If yes, can we say that an alternate human history where the African Slave Trade never happens, Christians put an end to slavery in the 1500s, and then start encouraging the rest of the world to do the same - is all preferable to the history we have?

There are follow up questions, but I want to see where we are at this point.

---

I agree with you. But I can not re write history.

And I do not think you can ascribe historical bad actions by Christians to the present day church.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

And I actually kind of answered your question when I talked about how not all Christians believe in the things you talk about. And frankly, some of the things are not Biblical at all.

---

Why do Christians believe different things? Isn't the Bible clear?

---

Already answered that.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Trying a different approach -

Assuming Christianity to be true . . . Would we agree that doing good is preferable to doing bad? If yes, can we say that an alternate human history where the African Slave Trade never happens, Christians put an end to slavery in the 1500s, and then start encouraging the rest of the world to do the same - is all preferable to the history we have?

There are follow up questions, but I want to see where we are at this point.

---

When you start to talk about God's providence working through history, it's not clear to me that we can talk definitively about versions of history that can only exist in our imaginations being better than a really existing version of history. Particular evils including American slavery, and the slave trade are objectively evil, and we're made to be in communion with God who is perfectly good. Choosing the good isn't just preferable. It's what we were made for. Choosing the good is just embracing your humanity. I'm not sure this thought exercise is useful.