Does God use sin to accomplish his plan?

[oldcelt]

This has troubled me for nearly 30 years and I’d like to hear other takes.

Many people believe that God is directly involved in the creation of every human being. I personally do not, but here is the question.

If God is directly involved in the creation of every person, how can people be physically conceived through such things as rape, incest, invitro fertilization, pre-marital sex, etc? Each of these is viewed by the Church as a grave or mortal sin, yet God is using them to create lives.

 

[Razanir]

God wants everyone to love him, except it wouldn’t be love if we were forced to. So He gave us free will. Unfortunately, free will also allowed sin to enter the world.

Now bear with me for a bit as I explain a term from the internet. (Because some tropes make wonderful tools for evangelism)

Xanatos Gambit: A plan where someone has contingencies for their contingencies for their contingencies. Pretty much, even if the plan seems to fail, the planner still has a way to spin things back in their direction.

I describe God’s Will as being the largest Xanatos Gambit ever. Why? Because God wins. Even though people sin, He manages to spin it toward advancing His divine Will.

 

[phil19034]

This has troubled me for nearly 30 years and I’d like to hear other takes.

Many people believe that God is directly involved in the creation of every human being. I personally do not, but here is the question.

If God is directly involved in the creation of every person, how can people be physically conceived through such things as rape, incest, invitro fertilization, pre-marital sex, etc? Each of these is viewed by the Church as a grave or mortal sin, yet God is using them to create lives.

my Monsignor spoke about this yesterday in his Homily. God sends the babies, but he doesn’t control the circumstances. God does not interfere with our free will. But babies come for a reason, but the reason is sometimes is unknown to us.

It’s reasonable to believe that sometimes a baby is sent with the intention of dying at birth and being with God. So all babies have a purpose. But the purpose isn’t always clear cut.

We have to remember that God is eternal. We are not. His actions are measured over the course of human history and the Universe as a whole. As we know one life can alter Human history (Moses, Alexander the Great, Julius Ceasar, King Henry VIII, King George, Ben Franklin, Albert Einstin, Hilter, Stalin, etc.)

At the same time, what we don’t know is what early deaths, etc have altered human history because of the “what if” factor???

 

[oldcelt]

God wants everyone to love him, except it wouldn’t be love if we were forced to. So He gave us free will. Unfortunately, free will also allowed sin to enter the world.

Now bear with me for a bit as I explain a term from the internet. (Because some tropes make wonderful tools for evangelism)

Xanatos Gambit: A plan where someone has contingencies for their contingencies for their contingencies. Pretty much, even if the plan seems to fail, the planner still has a way to spin things back in their direction.

I describe God’s Will as being the largest Xanatos Gambit ever. Why? Because God wins. Even though people sin, He manages to spin it toward advancing His divine Will.

That is interesting, but in conflict with the supposed omniscience of the Abrahamic/Christian god. If a plan goes awry then its creator could not be all knowing. It also does not answer the question og God using sin to accomplish His goals.

 

[SuperLuigi]

That is interesting, but in conflict with the supposed omniscience of the Abrahamic/Christian god. If a plan goes awry then its creator could not be all knowing. It also does not answer the question og God using sin to accomplish His goals.

I think you’re falling into the classical secular trap of “if God is real and good, why isn’t everything perfect and why do people suffer”?

The answer really is going come to down to free will, even in circumstances of bringing new lives into the world.

I would say that God did not create sin, but He created intelligent beings and gave them choices and those choices have consequences.

 

[anthonymarie]

IMHO, this is a question of language. I was always taught that “out of sin, God brings a greater good”. Looking at it that way, God doesn’t so much “use” sin as “respond” to it. For example, surely Our Lord’s death and resurrection is a response to Original Sin as opposed to a “use” of it.

 

[oldcelt]

I think you’re falling into the classical secular trap of “if God is real and good, why isn’t everything perfect and why do people suffer”?

The answer really is going come to down to free will, even in circumstances of bringing new lives into the world.

I would say that God did not create sin, but He created intelligent beings and gave them choices and those choices have consequences.

No, that’s not it at all. This is a circumstance over which God should have complete control, at least according to those who say that God creates all of us individually.As I said, I don’t believe that, but for those who do this a real problem.

If God uses a rape to begin a new life, then he is guilty of using sin to fulfill his plan. If it is a matter of free will, then God is not in control of the creation of life and that causes problems for the sacredness of life.

 

[oldcelt]

IMHO, this is a question of language. I was always taught that “out of sin, God brings a greater good”. Looking at it that way, God doesn’t so much “use” sin as “respond” to it. For example, surely Our Lord’s death and resurrection is a response to Original Sin as opposed to a “use” of it.

Isn’t that just flipping words to try to get a good outcome that suits what you want to convey? Isn’t it more true that if a child is born as a result of rape, then either God used sin to create, or He didn’t have any control over the beginning of life. We are all, therefore, an accident.

Truthfully, that is what I believe, but the other possibility is being pushed by many here on this board. God created me, knows my every action, and knows when I will die. If that is the case, then sin is sin, no matter who uses it.

 

[anthonymarie]

Isn’t that just flipping words to try to get a good outcome that suits what you want to convey?

I don’t think so. The point is that God only allows sin in the first place because he can bring a greater good out of it than the evil He allows.

He didn’t have any control over the beginning of life. We are all, therefore, an accident.

When it comes to using the word “control” we have to be careful. God can’t be in control of a situation and give you control of it also. God gave the power to create life to human beings. But surely He only allowed us this power in the first place because it fitted in with His plan of divine providence. In that sense, all creation of life has been foreseen by God and must be part of God’s will. Hence if it is part of God’s will how can it rightly be called an “accident”.

Another way of looking at it is to use the word “intentions” instead of “will”. Then, if something is part of God’s “intentions”, it’s nonsensical to call it an accident.

 

[oldcelt]

I don’t think so. The point is that God only allows sin in the first place because he can bring a greater good out of it than the evil He allows.

When it comes to using the word “control” we have to be careful. God can’t be in control of a situation and give you control of it also. God gave the power to create life to human beings. But surely He only allowed us this power in the first place because it fitted in with His plan of divine providence. In that sense, all creation of life has been foreseen by God and must be part of God’s will. Hence if it is part of God’s will how can it rightly be called an “accident”.

Another way of looking at it is to use the word “intentions” instead of “will”. Then, if something is part of God’s “intentions”, it’s nonsensical to call it an accident.

Your first statement is one of the beliefs that drove me from the Church and Christianity in general. For example, there is an 8 year-old suffering a horrible death in Reading, PA. In the comments people are saying how God will use this for good. Well, in my mind, there is no good that could make up for this child’s suffering. Better in my mind if she have never been born.

The second paragraph is another point. Some teach god is in absolute control, you kind of go middle of the road, and I say, based on what I see…not at all. I was taught not to question the all-knowing will of god…that was pounded into our heads by the nuns. Well, if that were true, knowledge brings responsibility. I couldn’t make peace with an omniscient god who would allow the innocent, especially children to suffer while the wicked profit…that led me to deism…the non-interventionist god. I hope I’m right, because if at the end of my life, I find that God really did cause some of these horrific things, I’ll be staying somewhere else for what I’ll say.

The final paragraph, I honestly don’t know what to make of…be well…

 

[anthonymarie]

For example, there is an 8 year-old suffering a horrible death in Reading, PA …

Some teach god is in absolute control, you kind of go middle of the road, and I say, based on what I see…not at all.

No I don’t. The point is God allows it to happen, in that sense He IS in control. Like a teacher in a class room who allows a situation to unravel because they see a greater good that they can bring out of the consequences. To intentionally allow something to happen is an exercise in control.

The final paragraph, I honestly don’t know what to make of.

What I mean by talking about God’s “intentions” instead of His “will” is that if something is the will of God then in some sense it must be His intention. Hence if something is compatible with His will, it is compatible with His intentions. (If you remember in an earlier post you had said that if God is not in control at conception a person must “be” an accident.)

 

[oldcelt]

No I don’t. The point is God allows it to happen, in that sense He IS in control. Like a teacher in a class room who allows a situation to unravel because they see a greater good that they can bring out of the consequences. To intentionally allow something to happen is an exercise in control.

What I mean by talking about God’s “intentions” instead of His “will” is that if something is the will of God then in some sense it must be His intention. Hence if something is compatible with His will, it is compatible with His intentions. (If you remember in an earlier post you had said that if God is not in control at conception a person must “be” an accident.)

Point 1: I still can’t, or won’t understand people worshiping a deity who will slaughter an innocent child in the most terrible of ways to make a point. Even a feeble mind like mine can see that there are other ways to accomplish this and despite my lack of belief in this God, I have been screaming to the ferment all day…

Point 2: Then that brings us back to the theme of the Christian God using sin to advance his cause. If a child is born of rape, incest, pre-marital sex, etc., and it falls within his “intentions” and allows it to continue, then he is using sin to advance his “plan.” You can use another word but it boils down to the exact same thing. After all, he is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.

It appears that a great many people are willing to overlook things that they have been indoctrinated in since early childhood. All I have done is follow the teachings and arrived at a much less pretty painting.

John

 

[anthonymarie]

Point 1: I still can’t, or won’t understand people worshiping a deity who will slaughter an innocent child in the most terrible of ways to make a point. Even a feeble mind like mine can see that there are other ways to accomplish this and despite my lack of belief in this God, I have been screaming to the ferment all day.

Point 2: Then that brings us back to the theme of the Christian God using sin to advance his cause. If a child is born of rape, incest, pre-marital sex, etc., and it falls within his “intentions” and allows it to continue, then he is using sin to advance his “plan.” You can use another word but it boils down to the exact same thing. After all, he is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.

Ok, well look, I can sort of see where you are coming from (although I still argue that “allows” and “responds to” do not amount to causing). But if there is a better way why hasn’t God used it? Perhaps our “feeble” minds are unable to see all of the flaws in our proposed “better ways”.

It appears that a great many people are willing to overlook things that they have been indoctrinated in since early childhood. All I have done is follow the teachings and arrived at a much less pretty painting.

I don’t think that’s fair. The simple matter of fact is that we are only looking at half of the picture here. Catholic theology rests on the notion of “Original Sin”. If you don’t believe in Original Sin then Catholic theology won’t make sense to you. For God to give us free will we must be able to have acted contrary to His. For this “free will” to have had any kind of meaning or value it must have had the ability to change things, i.e. have consequences.

You suggest that suffering disproves Catholic teaching but I was really convinced of Catholic teaching when I realised that it explained suffering. We are not in the state that God created us to be in but God allows us to continue in this state so that He can bring about an even greater good from it, namely, He will raise us to an even higher state than we were originally.

 

[Skye_Ariel]

This has troubled me for nearly 30 years and I’d like to hear other takes.

Many people believe that God is directly involved in the creation of every human being. I personally do not, but here is the question.

If God is directly involved in the creation of every person, how can people be physically conceived through such things as rape, incest, invitro fertilization, pre-marital sex, etc? Each of these is viewed by the Church as a grave or mortal sin, yet God is using them to create lives.

I don’t believe that God is involved in every single birth. He created the reproduction process in humans, put that into motion, then gave us free will. If He controlled every single birth then there would be no need for Him to set rules about no sex before marriage and no birth control etc. He’d simply control families by controlling every conception, but He doesn’t do it that way. He created the reproductive system then gave us free will and told us the way to live for the best results in the reproductive system He created. He can and does control individual conceptions like in answering people’s prayer for a child like with Sarah and cases like that, but He doesn’t hand pick and control every single conception on the planet. It’s the same thing with death, He doesn’t hand pick every single death, people die before their time all the time. Every death is not God’s will. People die because bad things happen, not because God called them home. God may call someone home after they’ve lived a long life, but every single death is not hand picked by God.

 

[oldcelt]

Ok, well look, I can sort of see where you are coming from (although I still argue that “allows” and “responds to” do not amount to causing). But if there is a better way why hasn’t God used it? Perhaps our “feeble” minds are unable to see all of the flaws in our proposed “better ways”.

I don’t think that’s fair. The simple matter of fact is that we are only looking at half of the picture here. Catholic theology rests on the notion of “Original Sin”. If you don’t believe in Original Sin then Catholic theology won’t make sense to you. For God to give us free will we must be able to have acted contrary to His. For this “free will” to have had any kind of meaning or value it must have had the ability to change things, i.e. have consequences.

You suggest that suffering disproves Catholic teaching but I was really convinced of Catholic teaching when I realised that it explained suffering. We are not in the state that God created us to be in but God allows us to continue in this state so that He can bring about an even greater good from it, namely, He will raise us to an even higher state than we were originally.

Example: If I have foreknowledge of a murder, allow it to happen and then benefit from the heist, I would be convicted as at least an accomplice…maybe more. In Reading PA we have an eight year old who God created knowing she would get a horrific case of leukemia, and now some are trying to use her suffering as a sign of God’s love for us. If I believed that the Christian God existed, he would be guilty of murder in the first, since leukemia is also part of his creation…and people are actually holding her up as a sign of God’s love…please!

Suffering helps disprove the existence of the God who is the basis of Catholicism…my official faith for over 50 years. I don’t have an individual beef with any church, people want to be led. My beef is with their notion of God, which I view as almost entirely a work of fiction. Even Jesus was trying to explain God during his ministry and had to fall back on it’s a mystery and only the father knows…

If we accept the Christian God then why was I created with a mind that questioned the whole thing from a very early age? Was he setting me up for condemnation? Were all the arguments with my father good for our relationship? Is a malcontent needed somewhere down the line? It’s got to be something like that by the logic of the Christian god.

And I’m glad you brought up original sin. A man and a woman thousands of years ago seek knowledge, are cast out, and all of us pack that around, even though we had no part in anything, so we have to be baptized, etc. to atone for a sin we didn’t commit.
If that isn’t using sin to forward his agenda, I don’t know what is.

 

[ffg]

Wouldn’t the first item to address here be if God created sin?

Now of course many pixels can spill, but there must be an answer, yes, or no?

What is sin? Rejection of God, or His laws.

So did God create rejection of himself? Or did God reject his own laws and in doing so, sin?

Humans created sin.

What is God’s plan? History shows pretty clearly that God’s plan is to be in union with His beloved creation. The fruits of his efforts seem to be unity with humans.

That result, unity, does not require sin.

Humans use sin, God has no use or desire for it.

With regard to your examples, we could list examples until our fingers go numb where good came from a human’s sin.

Might be easier to understand the concept that an outcome doesn’t have to equal the ‘nature’ of an act. Nature in this case being a ‘good’ or a ‘bad’.

 

[oldcelt]

Wouldn’t the first item to address here be if God created sin?

Now of course many pixels can spill, but there must be an answer, yes, or no?

What is sin? Rejection of God, or His laws.

So did God create rejection of himself? Or did God reject his own laws and in doing so, sin?

Humans created sin.

What is God’s plan? History shows pretty clearly that God’s plan is to be in union with His beloved creation. The fruits of his efforts seem to be unity with humans.

That result, unity, does not require sin.

Humans use sin, God has no use or desire for it.

With regard to your examples, we could list examples until our fingers go numb where good came from a human’s sin.

Might be easier to understand the concept that an outcome doesn’t have to equal the ‘nature’ of an act. Nature in this case being a ‘good’ or a ‘bad’.

According to Christianity, Satan created sin after God created Satan (Man wasn’t even around yet). God knew Satan would do this and is, therefore, complicit in the act for creating Satan with foreknowledge of his evil.

Humanity did NOT create sin.

 

[anthonymarie]

Example: If I have foreknowledge of a murder, allow it to happen and then benefit from the heist, I would be convicted as at least an accomplice…maybe more.

God doesn’t benefit from our suffering. He acts as an agent that allows us to benefit from our suffering. When looked at this way your example becomes very pertinent. If you have foreknowledge of a crime, allow it to happen and the victim benefits from it, surely that’s a “good call”.

In Reading PA we have an eight year old who God created knowing she would get a horrific case of leukemia, and now some are trying to use her suffering as a sign of God’s love for us. If I believed that the Christian God existed, he would be guilty of murder in the first, since leukemia is also part of his creation…and people are actually holding her up as a sign of God’s love…please!
Suffering helps disprove the existence of the God who is the basis of Catholicism…

The problem seems to be more a matter of us not being able to see exactly how the victim could possibly benefit from their suffering in this instance. This is only proof if you assume humans to be omniscient. Just because we can’t see the explanation doesn’t mean there isn’t one. It doesn’t even mean that there aren’t other people who can see an explanation. Would you ever say you can disprove Einstein’s Theories of Relativity by the fact that you can’t see any possible explanation for them? No because that’s not logical.

Suffering makes many people question their faith. This is for sentimental reasons though, NOT logical ones.

I see hurt and ask myself: how can God allow this? I am expressing a sentiment, not a logical conclusion.

If we accept the Christian God then why was I created with a mind that questioned the whole thing from a very early age? Was he setting me up for condemnation? Were all the arguments with my father good for our relationship? Is a malcontent needed somewhere down the line? It’s got to be something like that by the logic of the Christian god.

Why wouldn’t he create you with a mind that questioned? Surely that’s the most logical thing to do. Surely, unless you make him omniscient, you make an intelligent creature inquisitive, otherwise he’s incapable of any kind of growth or journey.

Also you seem to assume that any advantage that comes from suffering must be had in this life rather than the next. Which Christian teaching says that? You also seem to assume that anyone that questions God doesn’t get into heaven. Which Christian teaching says that? Pope Francis was all over the news recently for saying that even atheists can get into heaven. Why this surprised people I don’t know. This is not a new teaching.

And I’m glad you brought up original sin. A man and a woman thousands of years ago seek knowledge, are cast out, and all of us pack that around, even though we had no part in anything, so we have to be baptized, etc. to atone for a sin we didn’t commit.

If that isn’t using sin to forward his agenda, I don’t know what is.

Sin here is used in its archaic sense (that’s why I like to capitalise it and make it a proper noun). Original Sin is the idea that our nature is corrupted. If a choice does not have a consequence or result it cannot be a choice. If the sum total of humanity chose (as Adam and Eve were), by nature of their free will, to know good and EVIL (i.e. a sort of independence or separation from God) then that will have consequences. Both good and EVIL, and one of those consequences will be a sort of independence from God and all the bad things that go with that. Again God allows this because He can bring a greater good out of it, namely, He will raise us to an even higher state than we were in originally.

Again, whether you choose to believe all this or not does not change the fact that it is all perfectly logically consistent. Whilst you have every right to disbelieve you have not proven anything except your disbelieve.

Merry Christmas by the way! It nearly here! :christmastree1:

 

[ffg]

According to Christianity, Satan created sin after God created Satan (Man wasn’t even around yet). God knew Satan would do this and is, therefore, complicit in the act for creating Satan with foreknowledge of his evil.

Humanity did NOT create sin.

Now we would have to go back to what sin is, and is not.

Temptation or to temp is not sin.

Sin is acting on temptation. The person who created sin acted. Sin did not exist before an actor acted. Thus creating a ‘first sin’.

Another avenue you should explore regarding the pride of lucifer is what lucifer knew.

There is a part of the definition of sin that you do not understand and are not considering. The inability to understand it’s effect.

We do not know God as angels do. Lucifer’s rejection came with full knowledge of who God Is.

Human sinfulness and angelic rejection are two totally different things in two completely different environments, time and no time.

The mystery of the divine outside of time is more logically not understood by humans, than known. It can only be known through revelation. So to make assumptions as you have either means God has revealed to you that which was revealed differently earlier in time, or you are wrong.

The great thing though, is that if you want to correct your thoughts of Christianity’s teachings, you’ve found a good place to poke around.

Merry Christmas!

 

[oldcelt]

God doesn’t benefit from our suffering. He acts as an agent that allows us to benefit from our suffering. When looked at this way your example becomes very pertinent. If you have foreknowledge of a crime, allow it to happen and the victim benefits from it, surely that’s a “good call”.

The problem seems to be more a matter of us not being able to see exactly how the victim could possibly benefit from their suffering in this instance. This is only proof if you assume humans to be omniscient. Just because we can’t see the explanation doesn’t mean there isn’t one. It doesn’t even mean that there aren’t other people who can see an explanation. Would you ever say you can disprove Einstein’s Theories of Relativity by the fact that you can’t see any possible explanation for them? No because that’s not logical.

Suffering makes many people question their faith. This is for sentimental reasons though, NOT logical ones.

I see hurt and ask myself: how can God allow this? I am expressing a sentiment, not a logical conclusion.

Why wouldn’t he create you with a mind that questioned? Surely that’s the most logical thing to do. Surely, unless you make him omniscient, you make an intelligent creature inquisitive, otherwise he’s incapable of any kind of growth or journey.

Also you seem to assume that any advantage that comes from suffering must be had in this life rather than the next. Which Christian teaching says that? You also seem to assume that anyone that questions God doesn’t get into heaven. Which Christian teaching says that? Pope Francis was all over the news recently for saying that even atheists can get into heaven. Why this surprised people I don’t know. This is not a new teaching.

Sin here is used in its archaic sense (that’s why I like to capitalise it and make it a proper noun). Original Sin is the idea that our nature is corrupted. If a choice does not have a consequence or result it cannot be a choice. If the sum total of humanity chose (as Adam and Eve were), by nature of their free will, to know good and EVIL (i.e. a sort of independence or separation from God) then that will have consequences. Both good and EVIL, and one of those consequences will be a sort of independence from God and all the bad things that go with that. Again God allows this because He can bring a greater good out of it, namely, He will raise us to an even higher state than we were in originally.

Again, whether you choose to believe all this or not does not change the fact that it is all perfectly logically consistent. Whilst you have every right to disbelieve you have not proven anything except your disbelieve.

Merry Christmas by the way! It nearly here! :christmastree1:

I have come to far to return. We disagree a bit on logic, and a great deal on what we will worship, but in my world, none of that matters.
Merry Christmas to you and yours.