Did God commit a sin of omission by creating people with free will knowing they would bring evil to the world?

[STT]

Although God did not consult us before giving us life, our human destiny is conditional to whether we respond to divine grace.

Still, a child (kid) doesn’t just come out of the womb intending to put an end to humanity - which is what can be inferred from your analogy. Who and what we become as we grow and the decisions we make are largely affected by those around us, our parents,family, friends, our upbringing, what we read, hear, see; what we believe ; our personal experiences with others.

So your question would have to apply equally to an ever-expanding subject base, ie

Is having this kid good ?

Was allowing this kid’s parents to be born (or meet & marry) good ?

Was allowing the kid’s teacher to be born good ?

Was allowing MSM to distort the truth this kid would hear or read good ?

Was allowing this kid’s friend - a friend who would hurt him/her, to be born good ?

. . . etc . . .

The assertion that God is not All-Loving would necessarily have to deny the fact that God, in His infinite humility, was willing to and did, become a man and die on a Cross out of love for each one of us.

Well, you didn’t really provide an counter argument against OP.

---

As fellow members have already posted:** God cannot sin**. So a certain amount of absurdity should become apparent in any claim to the contrary.

Within the context of the assertion

• the Assertion that God is not All-Loving also becomes an assertion that God would somehow need to evolve . . . all leads to the same thing : The error of claiming that either God is not God, or God does not exist.

Regarding this part -

Again, “indirectly” committing a sin implies God is not omniscient; therefore not God.

Perhaps It might be a good idea to brush up on the definition of sin first, before making such an assertion? In humanity, original sin deprives us all of the beatific vision. In the angelic realm , the fallen angels are also deprived of the beatific vision. So claiming God has sinned would imply that God wouldn’t be/isn’t able to see Himself (or that “indirectly” . . . ] if He can see Himself , He at least needs a very strong pair of glasses in able to do so clearly).

Quite a proposition . . .that God sinned even before man did . . .but the good angels never sinned - only God did. . . .

And if we factor into consideration a divine ordering of secondary causes , the proposition would have to admit that God not only sinned, but that God is forever sinning.

A sin is an act which is not good.

 

[STT]

And what if another of her children were to find a cure for cancer, world poverty, this current scourge of ICE, stop ISIS in its tracks.

These are all good and are not our concern.

Arent you proposing what goes against Biblical and thus, our Catholic teaching - seeing into, by some form of divination, and attempting to impact future events?
Are you proposing some form of Heresy?

I just was trying to make an example.

 

[tonyrey]

I understand what you are saying, but…this would not be considered a “sin of omission” as that phrase and meaning is defined, I don’t think.
He’s not “omitting” anything.
After all, he allowed and expected evil/disobedience. He made it possible.

And since he not only gave free will, but* created *humans completely–and in his own image, I might add–one may go so far as to say he encouraged or wanted the above.
He could have created humans, gave them free will, but made evil impossible.

So…if god cannot sin or be evil or make mistakes, yet humans are flawed and sinners and do this all the time…I don’t see how people are so much made in his image?

.

We can’t have everything for nothing… Every advantage has a corresponding disadvantage unless you can provide an exception. Our greatest gift is the power to choose what to believe, how to live and who to love. And the old dictum is still true:
corruptio optimi pessima.

We are made in God’s image because we have the incredible ability to defy and reject Him for all eternity.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Well, you didn’t really provide an counter argument against OP.
. . .

. . . Seriously ? ? :ehh:
Counter arguments in this topic - as it was presented, increase exponentially - the more we use accepted Catholic terms in English ; where the proposition counters itself to the point of incoherence . . .IOW the argument caves on its own when we properly define what is being addressed. Forgive me if I find your perception of the issues being discussed somewhat lacking.

. . . A sin is an act which is not good.

Without intending to offend your definition of sin , it really appears to be not quite as complete as Fr John Hardon’s definition.

Here are the * properly defined* terms we are dealing with:

From MODERN CATHOLIC DICTIONARY; Fr. John Hardon, S.J.

SIN.
“A word, deed or desire in opposition to the eternal law” (St. Augustine). Sin is a deliberate transgression of a law of God, which identifies the four essentials of every sin. A law is involved, implying that there are physical laws that operate with necessity, and moral laws that can be disregarded by human beings. God is offended, so that the divine dimension is never absent from any sin. Sin is a transgression, since Catholicism holds that grace is resistible and the divine will can be disobeyed. And the transgression is deliberate, which means that a sin is committed whenever a person knows that something is contrary to the law of God and then freely does the action anyway. (Etym. Old English synn, syn, sin; Old High German sunta, suntea, perhaps to Latin sons, guilty.)

GOD.
The one absolutely and infinitely perfect spirit who is the Creator of all. In the definition of the First Vatican Council, fifteen internal attributes of God are affirmed, besides his role as Creator of the universe: “The holy, Catholic, apostolic Roman Church believes and professes that there is one true, living God, the Creator and Lord of heaven and earth. He is almighty, eternal, beyond measure, incomprehensible, and infinite in intellect, will and in every perfection. Since He is one unique spiritual substance, entirely simple and unchangeable, He must be declared really and essentially distinct from the world, perfectly happy in Himself and by his very nature, and inexpressibly exalted over all things that exist or can be conceived other than Himself” (Denzinger 3001).

Reflecting on the nature of God, theology has variously identified what may be called his metaphysical essence, i.e., what is God. It is commonly said to be his self-subsistence. God is Being Itself. In God essence and existence coincide. He is the Being who cannot not exist. God alone must be. All other beings exist only because of the will of God.

A common tendency we have as humans created in God’s image , is to erroneously recreate God in our own image instead.

If we accept the argument as presented in the OP , we aren’t looking at the BIG picture. We have an incomplete understanding of grace. We also fail to take into account how God desires to raise us to a state even greater than the one we enjoyed before sinning. And God renews that promise for us each day in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and in the Confessional. Everything is ordered by God to our greater good and to our eternal happiness.

If someone is having problems wrapping their heads around the aforementioned truth in its completeness, then may it be suggested that they at least go for the shorter counter argument *which, incidentally, is also found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church… . . (Given that the OP cited the CCC , how did this part- also from the CCC , get left out of the argument guys?) :

412
But why did God not prevent the first man from sinning? St. Leo the Great responds, "Christ’s inexpressible grace gave us blessings better than those the demon’s envy had taken away."307 And St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, “There is nothing to prevent human nature’s being raised up to something greater, even after sin; God permits evil in order to draw forth some greater good. Thus St. Paul says, ‘Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more’; and the Exsultet sings, ‘O happy fault,. . . which gained for us so great a Redeemer!’”

God bless everyone who posted. .

 

[NeedImprovement]

Luke 7:40-48 ; DRV

** And Jesus answering, said to him: Simon, I have somewhat to say to thee. But he said: Master, say it.

A certain creditor had two debtors, the one who owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty. And whereas they had not wherewith to pay, he forgave them both. Which therefore of the two loveth him most? Simon answering, said: I suppose that he to whom he forgave most. And he said to him: Thou hast judged rightly. And turning to the woman, he said unto Simon: Dost thou see this woman? I entered into thy house, thou gavest me no water for my feet; but she with tears hath washed my feet, and with her hairs hath wiped them. Thou gavest me no kiss; but she, since she came in, hath not ceased to kiss my feet.

My head with oil thou didst not anoint; but she with ointment hath anointed my feet. Wherefore I say to thee: Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much. But to whom less is forgiven, he loveth less. And he said to her: Thy sins are forgiven thee**.

 

[STT]

Without intending to offend your definition of sin , it really appears to be not quite as complete as Fr John Hardon’s definition.

Here are the * properly defined* terms we are dealing with:

That is parallel to my definition. Define a set laws. Following laws is good and going against is bad.

A common tendency we have as humans created in God’s image , is to erroneously recreate God in our own image instead.

If we accept the argument as presented in the OP , we aren’t looking at the BIG picture. We have an incomplete understanding of grace. We also fail to take into account how God desires to raise us to a state even greater than the one we enjoyed before sinning. And God renews that promise for us each day in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and in the Confessional. Everything is ordered by God to our greater good and to our eternal happiness.

If someone is having problems wrapping their heads around the aforementioned truth in its completeness, then may it be suggested that they at least go for the shorter counter argument *which, incidentally, is also found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church… . . (Given that the OP cited the CCC , how did this part- also from the CCC , get left out of the argument guys?) :

God bless everyone who posted. .

The act of creation knowing the fact that it leads to evil is a bad act therefore it is a sin. There is no need to look at bigger picture.

 

[Aloysium]

@ Needimprovement:
Your username is misleading.
I don’t think I could improve on your post.
Thanks.

 

[PJM]

According to the CCC God is in no way, directly or indirectly, the cause of moral evil. He permits it, however, because he respects the freedom of his creatures and, mysteriously, knows how to derive good from it.

I understand that evil doesn’t exist, so it would be impossible for God to create it or even indirectly create it.

My question is reflecting more on what God DIDN’T do instead of what he did. This is a question of a potential sin of omission on God’s part.

-Evil is the absence of Good

-God intentionally created man with free will knowing man would display an absence of good, even though God didn’t will man disobey.

-Whether God likes it or not, he is a contributor to a display of the absence of good taking place, since this wouldn’t have happened if he wouldn’t have made man with free will.

-God, indirectly, has committed a sin of omission due to this absence of good happening due to his negligence by creating man with the ability to sin.

-Thus God is not All-Loving

How do we prove this assertion wrong?

GREAT QUESTION!

Thanks!

A brief but accurate definition for our God is:

**God IS “All good things perfected” **

Then we ask ARE being “Just & Fair” good things? OF course they are, so we can know that God in an absolute sense HAS TO BE both Just and Fair,

**Gen 1:26-27 **
Teaches us that God freely choose to create “make”] man in His Image; that is accomplished in great part by God GIFTING humanity with a mind, intellect and FREEWILL, which God attaches permanently to man’s Soul.

So WHY did GOD choose to do this?

Before answering that I willl point out that in the many BILLIONS of things in the Universe, there is only one thing that is enabled by GOD to fulfill our reason for being Created:

Isaiah 43: verse 7& 21 explains our very reason to exist

[7] every one who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made." & [21] the people whom I formed for myself that they might declare my praise."

God who we have described as “Perfect” cannot in any matter be improved; not is an absolute sense does God actually “NEED” anything; nor does God actually benefit from anything that we ca do, even for Him.

But now to your question:

God is Perfect; “SIN” is imperfect, and therefore it is morally & theologically impossible for God to sin, and still be Perfect as He MUST be.

The REASON God choose to give humanity a FREEWILL deals with His Perfecton

Because God is Perfect, God not only desires perfection BUT even insist upon it IF we are to obtain the Beatific Vision “seeing GOD face to face”]

Hence God created Purgatory so that souls NOT Mortally guilty [1 Jn 5:16-17], yet with Souls not TRULY Perfect, could and would be PERFECTED so that in time they WOULD become perfect & attain heaven;

Lev.22: 21 “And when any one offers a sacrifice of peace offerings to the LORD, to fulfill a vow or as a freewill offering, from the herd or from the flock, to be accepted it must be perfect; there shall be no blemish in it.

Rev. 21: 27 “But nothing unclean shall enter it, nor anyone who practices abomination or falsehood, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life.”

Mt. 5: 26 truly, I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny.

Matt.5: 48 “You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

Heb. 2: 10 For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through suffering

Because God has given each of Us Perfect LOVE by his Birth, life, Passion and Death; God desires and even demands that WE return to Him, PERFECT love in return.

"Love: in ORDER to be “perfect” HAS to be freely given, and hence our Gifted minds, intellects & Freewill’s are GIFTS given for a precise purpose [Isaiah above]; so NO, God not only did NOT sin; God has a precise reason for creating us exactly as He choose to do:thumbsup:

GBY

Patrick

 

[Roseeurekacross]

These are all good and are not our concern

I just was trying to make an example.

These replies in no way answer my questions. Why did you choose that example?

You say she should practice chastity. So this is a concern for you , if you promote that model. Because these people would never come into existence due to your model.

Its not enough to respond with a dismissive one liner when you are proposing so many and varied philisophical arguments.

 

[STT]

These replies in no way answer my questions. Why did you choose that example?

I chose that example because that example resembles God and creation well.

You say she should practice chastity. So this is a concern for you , if you promote that model. Because these people would never come into existence due to your model.

Its not enough to respond with a dismissive one liner when you are proposing so many and varied philisophical arguments.

We could go with different model if you wish. What if the kid just kill one person?

 

[Roseeurekacross]

I think he is making a good point. Suppose that you are going to have a kid. Suppose also that you know that your kid put an end on humanity once he grew up enough. Are you going to have this kid? Is having this kid good?

How does this represent God and His creation well ?

And then ,

How does Dr Evil targeting only one , change your model?

Where and what are your variables.

 

[STT]

How does this represent God and His creation well ?

Just replace the kid with human and birth with creation and you see how this represent God’s creation.

And then ,

How does Dr Evil targeting only one , change your model?

Where and what are your variables.

I am sorry but I don’t understand your question. Could you please rephrase it?

 

[po18guy]

Did God commit a sin of omission by creating people with free will knowing they would bring evil to the world?

No.

God does not and cannot sin.

All that God made was* good.*

Free will was part of creation of Man - and the Angels - so they can love.

Judeo-Christianity 101. I thought everyone knew this?

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Just replace the kid with human and birth with creation and you see how this represent God’s creation.

Ok, a different approach.

Can you explain , with examples, rather then a one line statement, how this represents God and His creation.

I am sorry but I don’t understand your question. Could you please rephrase it?

You first proposed kill of humanity, then reduced it down to only one kill by that kid

So you have changed your model for God and his Creation, in the death of one kill, instead of 6 billion kills.

How does this new model change, support, or uphold your previous model, and what variables ( ie weapon, premeditation, choice of victim, mindset of perpetrator, lunch menu) are considered.

 

[STT]

You first proposed kill of humanity, then reduced it down to only one kill by that kid

So you have changed your model for God and his Creation, in the death of one kill, instead of 6 billion kills.

How does this new model change, support, or uphold your previous model, and what variables ( ie weapon, premeditation, choice of victim, mindset of perpetrator, lunch menu) are considered.

My original post was like this:“I think he is making a good point. Suppose that you are going to have a kid. Suppose also that you know that your kid put an end on humanity once he grew up enough. Are you going to have this kid? Is having this kid good?” so I didn’t change the model.

 

[Aloysium]

My original post was like this:“I think he is making a good point. Suppose that you are going to have a kid. Suppose also that you know that your kid put an end on humanity once he grew up enough. Are you going to have this kid? Is having this kid good?” so I didn’t change the model.

Wouldn’t it be too late? If you don’t have him, you will never know he was going to kill everybody, because he would never be around to do it.
Once you have him, you could kill him, if that is what you wanted to do.

I don’t want to be the bearer of bad news, but everybody dies. There’s lots of good that we can do in the brief time we have.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

My original post was like this:“I think he is making a good point. Suppose that you are going to have a kid. Suppose also that you know that your kid put an end on humanity once he grew up enough. Are you going to have this kid? Is having this kid good?” so I didn’t change the model.

You said this is a model of God and His Creation.

My question was, and is unanswered,

In what way is this a model for God and His Creation.

 

[STT]

Wouldn’t it be too late? If you don’t have him, you will never know he was going to kill everybody, because he would never be around to do it.

Suppose you have foreknowledge that he becomes a clear before your wife becomes pregnant. Would you try to have this kid?

 

[STT]

You said this is a model of God and His Creation.

My question was, and is unanswered,

In what way is this a model for God and His Creation.

What I am saying is that the act of creation is bad act since it leads to sin.

 

[davidv]

What I am saying is that the act of creation is bad act since it leads to sin.

Creation does not lead to sin, as a necessary end. Creation also leads to eternal life of happiness… Willful disobedience leads to sin.