I
icamhif
Guest
TrueNo.
Because not “every rational thinker in the world” thinks Christianity is real or true.
(and not every Saint has great, rational insights)
.
TrueNo.
Because not “every rational thinker in the world” thinks Christianity is real or true.
(and not every Saint has great, rational insights)
.
This comment demonstrates a determination to ridicule reality.icamhif #17
Except that the innocent had no “free-will” when it comes to natural disasters and cancer.
Eve had the opportunity of eternal life, after her sin, she could no longer eat from the tree of life, (immortality) so it means that she would eventually die, and all her children after would also die.Are you thinking that we have tsunamis that kill thousands of people including children … because Eve took a bite of fruit?
.
No,the eating of the fruit is an allegory. Our first parents decided to circumvent the natural limits God required and suffered the consequences. The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was forbidden for a reason.Are you thinking that we have tsunamis that kill thousands of people including children … because Eve took a bite of fruit?
.
It is not a case of “the end justifies the means.” Such a case would be doing something morally evil in order that good may come out of it. For example: conducting harmful or forced human experimentation to discover a cure for a disease.The problem with the “greater purpose” argument, as I see it, is that it does not explain how the end justifies the means. It does not explain how the glory that is to come outweighs all the natural disasters, diseases, famine, etc., that has ruined so many innocent lives (yes, we are all sinners, but I’m sure you know what I mean, humanly speaking, when I say “innocent.”) From a purely rational and humanistic perspective, it just seems like a cop-out. .
I see the distinction between causing evil and allowing evil, but as far as “end justifying the mean” is concerned, I think that is a distinction without a difference. The fact that I only allow it does not change the fact that I’m using it for some purpose.It is not a case of “the end justifies the means.” Such a case would be doing something morally evil in order that good may come out of it. For example: conducting harmful or forced human experimentation to discover a cure for a disease.
In the case of God, he allows the evil effects of his creatures’ evil actions to take effect. The moral source of the evil is the creature and not God. He does not intervene so as to prevent or nullify these ill effects but rather intervenes so that an even greater good may come out of them.
I think apart from the glorification of the elect, he makes the ill effects of sin apparent to all also to let us grasp how evil sin is. Maybe this is meant by the tree of “knowledge of good and evil.” It doesn’t just mean mental knowledge but also an actual experience of both good and evil with all their effects.
One might argue that why doesn’t he just prevent his creatures from committing evil. But this would be contrary to our having free will.
Addendum:
According to Bible, the glory of the kingdom of God does far outweigh all the evil that has taken place. It is beyond our imagination (1 Cor 2:9). It is so good in fact that all tears will be wiped away as though everything bad will be but a thing of the past. (Rev 21:4)
“For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all.” - 2 Cor 4:17
As Oscar Wild said, ‘I can resist everything, except temptation.’(And the original sin argument only makes me cringe with a “Wow, billions have to suffer for the mistake of two? What kind of justice is this?”)
.
Just imagine if God created the universe and life with just one purpose, that he would love each and everyone of us as he loves himself.I see the distinction between causing evil and allowing evil, but as far as “end justifying the mean” is concerned, I think that is a distinction without a difference. The fact that I only allow it does not change the fact that I’m using it for some purpose.
.
Since God is infinitely just and is perfectly just, we cannot entertain for a minute that the billions of people who may have suffered from disease or natural disasters throughout the history of the world is somehow unjust in the sight of God even though we may not understand it. Since you want to remain faithful to God than I think you would agree to this even though we may not comprehend it.I see the distinction between causing evil and allowing evil, but as far as “end justifying the mean” is concerned, I think that is a distinction without a difference. The fact that I only allow it does not change the fact that I’m using it for some purpose.
I’m not so much in cognitive dissonance about evil as I am about suffering, such as cancer and earthquakes. Even if we will, for all of eternity, be thankful to God for showing us how evil sin is and for freeing us from the consequences of sin, it still doesn’t make sense to me how that justifies the thousands of years of billions of people suffering from disease and natural disasters. (And the original sin argument only makes me cringe with a “Wow, billions have to suffer for the mistake of two? What kind of justice is this?”)
That said, I will stay faithful to God and trust that He will reveal the answers to me, whether in this life or the next life.
The difference is substantial. God is not the one who erred but rather he transformed the ill effects of the error into something which is incomparably better. It’s like God giving a person a gift. This person takes the gift, misuses and destroys it, and throws the trash on the road. Then, God steps in to recycle that trash and transforms it into a better product and gift.I see the distinction between causing evil and allowing evil, but as far as “end justifying the mean” is concerned, I think that is a distinction without a difference. The fact that I only allow it does not change the fact that I’m using it for some purpose.
There is no need to justify these sufferings because they are in fact the very effects of the moral evil that men committed. If they seem so gruesome to you (and you are right!), the moral evil done from whence it came is even so much worse in reality. The effects we observe now are even mitigated by God’s mercy. “He has not dealt with us after our sins; nor rewarded us according to our iniquities.” (Psalm 103:10)I’m not so much in cognitive dissonance about evil as I am about suffering, such as cancer and earthquakes. Even if we will, for all of eternity, be thankful to God for showing us how evil sin is and for freeing us from the consequences of sin, it still doesn’t make sense to me how that justifies the thousands of years of billions of people suffering from disease and natural disasters. (And the original sin argument only makes me cringe with a “Wow, billions have to suffer for the mistake of two? What kind of justice is this?”)
That said, I will stay faithful to God and trust that He will reveal the answers to me, whether in this life or the next life.
For some, for example those that honestly believe that The Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon, will not believe anything that a Catholic says. I don’t think there exists any explanations that will overcome their invincible denial of every thing The Catholic Church or it’s members say.If I take the insights of every Saint, every Theologian, every Apologist, and otherwise every rational thinker in the world, will I have all the answers that should satisfy the skepticism of all honest people?