Christ's sacrafice

[jonfawkes]

by creating good he creates the absence of of good. you can’t have a light without a dark to stick it in.

 

[Inhimthroughher]

by creating good he creates the absence of of good. you can’t have a light without a dark to stick it in.

No the misuse of good towards a incorrect end brings about the privation. God never does that. He allows the possibility of it but does not create it.

A man who marries a woman who later cheats on him. Did he make her an adulteress?

 

[jonfawkes]

without the possibility there is no actuality - he created everything evil is part of that creation.

 

[Inhimthroughher]

without the possibility there is no actuality - he created everything evil is part of that creation.

Yes there can be no evil without good. There can be good without evil. Evil is the misuse of good, it has no being itself. Good is the actuality, evil is the negation.

Would you please answer my earlier question.

If a man who marries a woman who later cheats on him. Did he make her an adulteress?

 

[Sonny69]

Yes there can be no evil without good. There can be good without evil. Evil is the misuse of good, it has no being itself. Good is the actuality, evil is the negation.

Would you please answer my earlier question.

If a man who marries a woman who later cheats on him. Did he make her an adulteress?

That is a fallacy; before creation of any kind there was nothing but good and one day when the Lord comes and rids the universe of “bad”; there will be nothing but good and no bad.

 

[Inhimthroughher]

That is a fallacy; before creation of any kind there was nothing but good and one day when the Lord comes and rids the universe of “bad”; there will be nothing but good and no bad.

What you say is true, but it does not make what I said a fallacy. Please explain.

 

[jonfawkes]

Yes there can be no evil without good. There can be good without evil. Evil is the misuse of good, it has no being itself. Good is the actuality, evil is the negation.

Would you please answer my earlier question.

If a man who marries a woman who later cheats on him. Did he make her an adulteress?

How can you have a front without a back?

I don’t understand the question or the relevance of the cheating man.

 

[Inhimthroughher]

How can you have a front without a back?

I don’t understand the question or the relevance of the cheating man.

Having a front compared to a back is about relation. Good and Evil are not in relation like this. Everything that was made is good. Goodness is a transcendental. Evil is a privation of the perfection a thing was to be used for. Evil is a negation not a relation.

If a man who marries a woman that later cheats on him; the woman is an adulteress. She could not have committed adultery if the man had not married her. According to your logic he made her an adulteress.

This is not true the man gave the woman a good and by violating that good she committed evil --adultery.

this fits with God and man. God gave man being and free will, man chose to misuse his will and commit evil. God no more made evil than the earlier husband made adultery. Each only made the evil possible by the giving of a good which was misused by the other.

 

[jonfawkes]

If she never married she never could commit adultry. So that is part of the equation. It’s not a valid allegory. The husband didn’t create the wife. He didn’t give her her nature.

 

[Inhimthroughher]

If she never married she never could commit adultry. So that is part of the equation. It’s not a valid allegory. The husband didn’t create the wife. He didn’t give her her nature.

It is an analogy to show your flaw.

You don’t seem to have a good definition of evil. You see evil as a contrary to good as a front is to a back. This is incorrect. You can never have a front without a back or a back without a front because they are relations of the same thing. You can have good without evil.

 

[jonfawkes]

It’s a poor analogy - God created man and his nature - it’s not the same relationship. As for evil it exists we have a name for it - it is something - it is the lack of good just as cold is the lack of heat. they are interdependant. You can’t know one without the other.

 

[Inhimthroughher]

It’s a poor analogy - God created man and his nature - it’s not the same relationship. As for evil it exists we have a name for it - it is something - it is the lack of good just as cold is the lack of heat. they are interdependant. You can’t know one without the other.

This is incorrect, you can know good without evil. Good has being as all things are good " And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good" Genesis 1:31
As I have mentioned many times Evil is a privation of the good a thing is ordered to, it has no being itself. St. Thomas explains this very well in the Summa. Below are the two articles that speak to your objections directly
Art. 1. Whether Good is the Cause of Evil.
Art 2. Whether the Supreme good, God, is the cause of evil.
This should help. From the Summa Question 49 art 1 & 2.

It must be said that every evil in some way has a cause. For evil is the absence of the good, which is natural and due to a thing. But that anything fail from its natural and due disposition can come only from some cause drawing it out of its proper disposition. For a heavy thing is not moved upwards except by some impelling force; nor does an agent fail in its action except from some impediment. But only good can be a cause; because nothing can be a cause except inasmuch as it is a being, and every being, as such, is good.

And if we consider the special kinds of causes, we see that the agent, the form, and the end, import some kind of perfection which belongs to the notion of good. Even matter, as a potentiality to good, has the nature of good. Now that good is the cause of evil by way of the material cause was shown above (Question 48, Article 3). For it was shown that good is the subject of evil. But evil has no formal cause, rather is it a privation of form; likewise, neither has it a final cause, but rather is it a privation of order to the proper end; since not only the end has the nature of good, but also the useful, which is ordered to the end. Evil, however, has a cause by way of an agent, not directly, but accidentally.

In proof of this, we must know that evil is caused in the action otherwise than in the effect. In the action evil is caused by reason of the defect of some principle of action, either of the principal or the instrumental agent; thus the defect in the movement of an animal may happen by reason of the weakness of the motive power, as in the case of children, or by reason only of the ineptitude of the instrument, as in the lame. On the other hand, evil is caused in a thing, but not in the proper effect of the agent, sometimes by the power of the agent, sometimes by reason of a defect, either of the agent or of the matter. It is caused by reason of the power or perfection of the agent when there necessarily follows on the form intended by the agent the privation of another form; as, for instance, when on the form of fire there follows the privation of the form of air or of water. Therefore, as the more perfect the fire is in strength, so much the more perfectly does it impress its own form, so also the more perfectly does it corrupt the contrary. Hence that evil and corruption befall air and water comes from the perfection of the fire: but this is accidental; because fire does not aim at the privation of the form of water, but at the bringing in of its own form, though by doing this it also accidentally causes the other. But if there is a defect in the proper effect of the fire–as, for instance, that it fails to heat–this comes either by defect of the action, which implies the defect of some principle, as was said above, or by the indisposition of the matter, which does not receive the action of the fire, the agent. But this very fact that it is a deficient being is accidental to good to which of itself it belongs to act. Hence it is true that evil in no way has any but an accidental cause; and thus is good the cause of evil.

2
As appears from what was said (1), the evil which consists in the defect of action is always caused by the defect of the agent. But in God there is no defect, but the highest perfection, as was shown above (Question 4, Article 1). Hence, the evil which consists in defect of action, or which is caused by defect of the agent, is not reduced to God as to its cause.

But the evil which consists in the corruption of some things is reduced to God as the cause. And this appears as regards both natural things and voluntary things. For it was said (1) that some agent inasmuch as it produces by its power a form to which follows corruption and defect, causes by its power that corruption and defect. But it is manifest that the form which God chiefly intends in things created is the good of the order of the universe. Now, the order of the universe requires, as was said above (22, 2, ad 2; 48, 2), that there should be some things that can, and do sometimes, fail. And thus God, by causing in things the good of the order of the universe, consequently and as it were by accident, causes the corruptions of things, according to 1 Samuel 2:6: “The Lord killeth and maketh alive.” But when we read that “God hath not made death” (Wisdom 1:13), the sense is that God does not will death for its own sake. Nevertheless the order of justice belongs to the order of the universe; and this requires that penalty should be dealt out to sinners. And so God is the author of the evil which is penalty, but not of the evil which is fault, by reason of what is said above.

 

[jonfawkes]

That article insults my intelligence - fire is a chemical reaction not a privation of water or air. So what you are implying is good is the cause of evil in that evil is the lack of good. You can’t have evil without good. God made the good so God makes evil. If there is no good there is no evil. It is the nature of duality.

 

[tonyrey]

So yes, he creates evil. HE created evil only to save us from evil.

God does **not **create evil. Everything He created is good and nothing is evil in itself. Evil is the product of natural causes or human decisions. He permits evil because the immense value of life outweighs its drawbacks.

 

[jonfawkes]

But he created nature and humans so without their creation there would be no evil. There can’t be evil without good. I can’t know a glass is empty without the glass.

 

[tonyrey]

But he created nature and humans so without their creation there would be no evil. There can’t be evil without good. I can’t know a glass is empty without the glass.

Precisely. The fact remains that it would be a greater evil not to create anything simply because life has some drawbacks. Would you advise people not to have children because of the problems they will face? Do you think it would be better if nothing had been created?

 

[jonfawkes]

It’s a false analogy - I didn’t create the environment that my children are born into. God on the other hand did. I can prepare my child the best I can but my control and power to control only goes so far, God doesn’t have these limitations.

 

[tonyrey]

It’s a false analogy - I didn’t create the environment that my children are born into. God on the other hand did. I can prepare my child the best I can but my control and power to control only goes so far, God doesn’t have these limitations.

You are implying then it would be better if we hadn’t been created… not to mention the fact that God has relinquished control of us so that we have free will…

 

[jonfawkes]

No I’m saying that God doesn’t have limitations, yet he chose a word of duality and sin for us to inhabit. He didn’t have to. He created us in grace and then let it fall Apart.

 

[tonyrey]

No I’m saying that God doesn’t have limitations, yet he chose a word of duality and sin for us to inhabit. He didn’t have to. He created us in grace and then let it fall Apart.

He chose to create a physical world with the duality of advantages and disdvantages. He also chose to create us with free will which implies the duality of good and evil. Do find that unjust? You still haven’t stated whether it would have been better not to create us…

You seem to imply that God should not create anything with limitations but surely everything finite must have limitations. Only God can be perfect in every respect.