Corpus of Church Traditions

[ffg]

SalamKhan,

How about a little exercise to help with analysis of the ‘creating of evil by God’ -

Confirm if you agree with the below statement, otherwise edit / add to, as you see true -

‘Evil is observed and thus known as ‘evil’ through experience or witness.’

(to clarify, if I have time, obviously witness is a part of experience, but one can witness an experience of which they are not a participant, thus the inclusion.)

Take care,

 

[Robert_in_SD]

As I have said, Allah has a wisdom for everything thing He does, so we are not really in disagreement over the motive issue.

Great.
SalamKahn:

Dualism is the view that good and evil are both equally and eternally conflicting forces; they are in opposition with each other because they are complete opposites. This could lead to dangerous conclusions, if God is goodness and His creation is opposite to Him, would that make creation evil in itself, and therefore in opposition to God and not created by Him? This is what the early Gnostics concluded.

That’s my understanding. But you would agree from what I posted that this is not the Catholic position, correct?
SalamKahn:

However, you hit the nail right on the head when you said that evil is the absence of good. It’s also important to note, that the very meaning of tyranny or opression is infringing on the rights and ownership of others, this cannot be attributed to Allah, as He has dominion and ownership over all things, therefore He has the right to take what He owns. All contingencies are within the Power and Will of Allah, for a wisdom that may or may not be clear to us.

I don’t disagree with you here either. God is the author of our human lives, and it is His prerogative to give as much as He sees fit. But it is also His prerogative to allow moral evil to happen as a result of our own human free, and natural evil to occur as a result of the fallen state of this world. The Christian understanding is that he allows this to happen so He can bring a greater good, even from our bad choices, and the natural evils of this world.

Peace,
Robert

 

[SalamKhan]

That’s my understanding. But you would agree from what I posted that this is not the Catholic position, correct?

I believe that to deny that God created evil because it is in conflict with Him, is a form of dualism.

 

[ffg]

I find it interesting that you don’t see the opposite - that God ‘creating’ both is a form of dualism.

To be honest with searching for truth, the ‘created’ part needs to be evaluated - Is God good or evil, and does God do good or evil?

If truth is accurate and truth is 1 - God is and does 1 of those because He is perfect (detailed already in the thread).

It seems to me that at some point in history, to conquer the questions asked after teaching that God ‘created’ Good and Evil, someone figured the best way to wiggle out of the problem was to remove (and confuse about???) God’s motivation.

Belief systems with a God who creates both just seem chaotic.

(the systems, not the people, but obviously the systemic chaos would have an effect on the people).

Is this observable? would be the next question.

Then one has to weigh God against chaos. Would perfection create chaos?

In Catholicism, the chaos is sourced from wondering and wandering people, not the system.

 

[SalamKhan]

A belief system with a God who creates both just seems chaotic.

Quite the opposite. That something wiuld occur outside of Allah’s Power and Will would diminish both, making His Power and Will deficient. Nothing contingent would ever come into existence. Augustinians and Thomists believe that God pernits evil for a greater good, so the ends justify the means despite the chaos being permitted. Duns Scotus believed in the finiteness of sin, whereas Francis of Assissi considered death to be a servant of God; the same positions that Sunni Islam holds. As I have said time and time again, there is a wisdom for everything Allah does.

 

[ffg]

Quite the opposite. That something wiuld occur outside of Allah’s Power and Will would diminish both, making His Power and Will deficient. Nothing contingent would ever come into existence. Augustinians and Thomists believe that God pernits evil for a greater good, so the ends justify the means despite the chaos being permitted. Duns Scotus believed in the finiteness of sin, whereas Francis of Assissi considered death to be a servant of God; the same positions that Sunni Islam holds. As I have said time and time again, there is a wisdom for everything Allah does.

Ugh, major pet peeve to cut up posts. Oh well -

Please explain how evil being less than Good makes God’s power and will deficient.

Evil being less than good is expected with a God who is in control (power and will) and is perfect (always is and does the Good).

God does not do evil, of which we agree.

Though you did not want to do the exercise to see that doing evil is necessary for it’s existence (experience).

So who does that lesser bad thing? -

It makes sense that creation can ‘create’ (do) that which God does not want, if creation is free.

Creation is free to reject God - due to the Power and Will of God.

That’s not to say God likes the bad that the free creation does - enter here the typical question about the OT God vs. the NT God.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I believe your thinking of the New Testament, written shortly after Christ and during the time of the Apostles, contains the life of Christ, Paul’s epistles, Catholic Epistles, life of the early Church and etc. That’s the closet you will get to a compendium of early Church traditions/practices/beliefs. Now if we go beyond the first century all we really have is references in various writers to events not mentioned in the New Testament but were clearly believed by the Church of the time. Saint Iraneaus tells the Gospels authorship, the succession of the Bishops of Rome and the rule of faith which was maintained in all the churches among other traditions of what the Apostles did though he more quotes from the New Testament.

There’s no real need to form a compendium of the extra biblical traditions of Christ or the early Church since they are readily accessible from the Church fathers writings through investigation. The primary source has always been the New Testament which has always benefited from the teaching or clarification of latter thinkers.

 

[SalamKhan]

Ugh, major pet peeve to cut up posts. Oh well -

Please explain how evil being less than Good makes God’s power and will deficient.

I have explained this before. For something to occur outside of Allah’s Power and Will, would have to be equal to or greater than Allah’s Power and Will. Anything less occurs within His Power and Will, as He has no rival.

 

[ffg]

I have explained this before. For something to occur outside of Allah’s Power and Will, would have to be equal to or greater than Allah’s Power and Will. Anything less occurs within His Power and Will, as He has no rival.

Bold - Disagree per my last post.

Read the second half of my last post (preferably the whole thing).

There is a problem to hash out.

Maybe next week. Have a great weekend!

 

[SalamKhan]

Read the second half of my last post (preferably the whole thing).

There is a problem to hash out.

Maybe next week. Have a great weekend!

I have read it. You asked if God does not do evil, then who does? And answered your own question that we do evil, which I agree with and which is why I didn’t feel the need to address it.

We believe that actions are created by Allah, but actions are acquired by us. We have the free will to acquire the actions that Allah creates for us, which makes us responsible for evil actions.

 

[ffg]

I have read it. You asked if God does not do evil, then who does? And answered your own question that we do evil, which I agree with and which is why I didn’t feel the need to address it.

We believe that actions are created by Allah, but actions are acquired by us. We have the free will to acquire the actions that Allah creates for us, which makes us responsible for evil actions.

Perfect.

So now back to the top of this page - how do we know evil?

For the bold - (sorry, trying to do 3 things at once) - but we know God doesn’t do evil.

 

[SalamKhan]

Perfect.

So now back to the top of this page - how do we know evil?

The human intellect can recognise certain goods and certain evils, though with some difficulty, but ultimately it cannot absolutely define good and evil without the aid of divine revelation. Only Allah, the creator of good and evil, can absolutely define good and evil.

 

[SalamKhan]

I believe your thinking of the New Testament, written shortly after Christ and during the time of the Apostles, contains the life of Christ, Paul’s epistles, Catholic Epistles, life of the early Church and etc. That’s the closet you will get to a compendium of early Church traditions/practices/beliefs. Now if we go beyond the first century all we really have is references in various writers to events not mentioned in the New Testament but were clearly believed by the Church of the time. Saint Iraneaus tells the Gospels authorship, the succession of the Bishops of Rome and the rule of faith which was maintained in all the churches among other traditions of what the Apostles did though he more quotes from the New Testament.

There’s no real need to form a compendium of the extra biblical traditions of Christ or the early Church since they are readily accessible from the Church fathers writings through investigation. The primary source has always been the New Testament which has always benefited from the teaching or clarification of latter thinkers.

Thank you for addressing the actual topic at hand. But again, without verifying and authenticating the source material for your beliefs and practices, you have just as much claim as followers of Isa ibn Maryam (A) as Catholics, Protestants, early Gnostics & ‘Judaizers’, etc.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Thank you for addressing the actual topic at hand. But again, without verifying and authenticating the source material for your beliefs and practices, you have just as much claim as followers of Isa ibn Maryam (A) as Catholics, Protestants, early Gnostics & ‘Judaizers’, etc.

It’s a different question to ask for verification of the collection than to ask whether or not there is one, as you initial post did. Before we even begin to verify anything I would ask whether or not you accept the Christian canon as a legitimate representative of Christianity, ie the New Testament then if you accept the Church fathers (those generally approved of as such by most traditions) as being representative of the early Church.

Secondly I would ask, what in your mind verifies the veracity of an ancient text for you? Do you follow a modern historical approach or are you following an Islamic approach which has a specific methodology concerning what makes a saying reported to have been said by someone as accurate? I am convinced of the authenticity of much of the New Testament with reference to it’s universal acceptance in the early Church but that is based on ideas more compatible with Western historiography and Christian theology. I won’t pretend my ideas are scholarly but I think they are reasonable.

 

[MartinJordan]

Thank you for addressing the actual topic at hand. But again, without verifying and authenticating the source material for your beliefs and practices, you have just as much claim as followers of Isa ibn Maryam (A) as Catholics, Protestants, early Gnostics & ‘Judaizers’, etc.

Here we go again. SK reply my questions about Gnostics and Judaiizers. I know from your earliest posts you claimed to be ex Muslim then Catholic then Muslim again! All during CAF visits no less.

What’s going on?

MJ

 

[MartinJordan]

It’s a different question to ask for verification of the collection than to ask whether or not there is one, as you initial post did. Before we even begin to verify anything I would ask whether or not you accept the Christian canon as a legitimate representative of Christianity, ie the New Testament then if you accept the Church fathers (those generally approved of as such by most traditions) as being representative of the early Church.

Secondly I would ask, what in your mind verifies the veracity of an ancient text for you? Do you follow a modern historical approach or are you following an Islamic approach which has a specific methodology concerning what makes a saying reported to have been said by someone as accurate? I am convinced of the authenticity of much of the New Testament with reference to it’s universal acceptance in the early Church but that is based on ideas more compatible with Western historiography and Christian theology. I won’t pretend my ideas are scholarly but I think they are reasonable.

MJ

 

[SalamKhan]

Here we go again. SK reply my questions about Gnostics and Judaiizers. I know from your earliest posts you claimed to be ex Muslim then Catholic then Muslim again! All during CAF visits no less.

What’s going on?

MJ

I replied to them, but you’re still asking for whatever reason. And I know from my early threads that you’ve never contributed anything useful or insightful.

I never claimed to be Catholic, when I was an ex Muslim, I l put my religion as “Attracted to Traditional Christianity”.

 

[SalamKhan]

It’s a different question to ask for verification of the collection than to ask whether or not there is one, as you initial post did. Before we even begin to verify anything I would ask whether or not you accept the Christian canon as a legitimate representative of Christianity, ie the New Testament then if you accept the Church fathers (those generally approved of as such by most traditions) as being representative of the early Church.

Secondly I would ask, what in your mind verifies the veracity of an ancient text for you? Do you follow a modern historical approach or are you following an Islamic approach which has a specific methodology concerning what makes a saying reported to have been said by someone as accurate? I am convinced of the authenticity of much of the New Testament with reference to it’s universal acceptance in the early Church but that is based on ideas more compatible with Western historiography and Christian theology. I won’t pretend my ideas are scholarly but I think they are reasonable.

You’re right, authenticity and verification is a different question to whether any collections of extra Biblical traditions exist. I don’t accept the Christian canon and I don’t believe simple references by later writers is proof of authenticity; they would have to say how they even know who the author is and how they know it’s authentic as opposed to the other writings floating around, being attributed to the disciples. Yes, I’m aware Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and some Protestants accept the same Church Fathers of the first millennium, yet the differences between these communions are not minor.

In Islam, those who accept the Salaf (the first three generations of Muslims), their differences are minor and only based on which of the Khalaf (later scholars) they accept. Other groups, such as the Shia, reject the Salaf, hence the major differences between them and the Sunni.

 

[MartinJordan]

I replied to them,

You haven’t replied Islamic references for the Gnostics and Judaizers you have alleged. It is incumbent upon you to answer it.

but you’re still asking for whatever reason. And I know from my early threads that you’ve never contributed anything useful or insightful.

Not worth answering really as you are now getting personal. But this is what you are doing:

Post #31 comment of yours to Roseeurekacross:

Verbatim- “You are experiencing some sort of cognitive dissonsance from being unable to defend your traditions”

What’s this supposed to mean?

I never claimed to be Catholic, when I was an ex Muslim, I l put my religion as “Attracted to Traditional Christianity”.

My apologies and lack of charity for possibly not being thorough.

MJ

 

[SalamKhan]

You haven’t replied Islamic references for the Gnostics and Judaizers you have alleged. It is incumbent upon you to answer it.

No it isn’t, you have no idea what you’re talking about.