Evil as a positive existent

  • Thread starter Thread starter SalamKhan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SalamKhan said:
40.png
JuanFlorencio:
And when you insult someone, do you think it was God who insulted, and not you?
Click to expand...
No, we are responsible for our actions, it does not mean I did this against God’s will, rather against His command.
Click to expand...
Do you think He is kind of divided, having His commands against His will?
 
God assigns to actions their moral value, meaning either consequences of Hell or Paradise.
 
SalamKhan said:
God assigns to actions their moral value, meaning either consequences of Hell or Paradise.
Click to expand...
And does He do it for everyone the same, or for some cultures one way and for other cultures a different way?
 
Command is not the same as will. For example, a human judge may order a criminal to be punished, but will for him not to be punished (out of sympathy), however, as this human judge does not possess autonomous will, his will would not be fulfilled in this instance. The point being, command and will is not the same for us, and so to attempt make an analogy based on that false assumption, and apply it to God, is wrong.
 
Due to the contingent nature of His creation, which would include evil, His definition of sin, although authoritative to the extent that He both wills and commands, is not immutable pre-eternally or even from the beginning of creation. Unless I misunderstood your question.
 
Last edited:
SalamKhan said:
Command is not the same as will. For example, a human judge may order a criminal to be punished, but will for him not to be punished (out of sympathy), however, as this human judge does not possess autonomous will, his will would not be fulfilled in this instance. The point being, command and will is not the same for us, and so to attempt make an analogy based on that false assumption, and apply it to God, is wrong.
Click to expand...
Let me see if I understood you correctly: Are you saying that in God command and will are the same or that they are not?
 
I am saying they are not the same. By applying a false assumption to God, I was referring to the false assumption that command and will are the same.
 
Last edited:
STT said:
40.png
fhansen:
It only exists or is identifiable in relation to sight.
Click to expand...
That is not true. Give me another example.

Moreover, let me see if I can make an argument on this: (1) Existence is good, (2) Evil is privation of good, (3) Therefore evil is non-existence, (4) We experience evil, (5) Therefore evil exists, (6) This means that (3) and therefore (2) is wrong.
Click to expand...
IOW, “blindness” has no meaning except in relation to sight. And we can experience the fact that any degree of blindness, anything less than full sight, is an obstacle to the good that sight achieves for us, i,e, full sight is the perfection of the optical system, it’s the reason why the optical system exists and therefore is part and parcel of its essence.

The idea behind the term, “the knowledge of good and evil” is that this knowledge is only obtainable as we experience both, because only then can we identify good as good and evil as evil. Prior to that, everything in Eden was good, so good wasn’t a separate reality identifiable on its own-there was no real reason for the word “good” in fact. Now we can come to know evil, the result of disobedience of and separation from God, and learn to hate it-and turn towards the source of all good, God Himself. Both physical and moral evil teach us this fact, paralleling each other so to speak, so that we come to know good and evil directly, viscerally. Unless evil can be identified as something at odds with and opposed to God, then this knowledge brings no benefit, this life has no purpose; God may as well have prevented Adam from sinning to begin with or just stocked heaven with the elect and hell with the reprobate from the beginning, as Calvinists believe He eventually does anyway. But either of those would’ve involved God reserving free will from man or overriding or eliminating it.

In any case evil is not God’s intention, other than to allow us to experience it, to wallow in it for a time like the prodigal in the pigsty, to learn run from it.
 
Last edited:
No, as I have explained already command is not the same as will, nor is it conditional upon will. God’s will is similar (although distinct) to His power. God’s commands are conditional upon His speech, through which He communicates to His creation.
 
SalamKhan said:
No, as I have explained already command is not the same as will, nor is it conditional upon will. God’s will is similar (although distinct) to His power. God’s commands are conditional upon His speech, through which He communicates to His creation.
Click to expand...
Are you using metaphors or do you intend to be literal?

If God’s commands are the communication of God to His creatures, what does He communicate to them? His will or something else?

And remember to answer this: Does He communicate the same commands to everybody or different commands to different people?
 
Last edited:
The power, yes. The will? Now, we have free will.
Now, I can’t do everything. I can’t fly without equipment, for instance. But I can choose to do good or evil or both or something rather neutral. Why? The power to fly was not given me, but free will was.
God has that which He Wills, and that which He allows to be done. All sin is ultimately an offense to God, so it would appear God values free will over us never being allowed to err. Perhaps to bring us to Christ? Ultimately, that which we seek is freedom to choose from a variety of goods.
Which is better, a man who wants to steal but ultimately doesn’t, or a man who is in a near identical situation but to whom the idea of stealing never arises? Children and instinct seem to say the latter. Indeed, I concur, but who grows more, the one who faced no temptation or the one who did and overcame it?
Indeed, Christ says that He came to heal the sinners and destitute. Of course, all humanity. But this means that we GET TO be healed by Christ, and ultimately, made better. We have the sweet yoke of Christ, compared to man who did not ever sin and instead were all righteous, but without such sweet yoke and blessed joy.
Perhaps this is hinted at in Jesus’ words that the angels are much more rejoiceful over a sinner who truly turns and repents than a righteous
We are never made to sin, but miss the mark and sin anyway. In this sense, it is autonomous, but in the sense that it is done outside the power and domain of God, then no, it is not.
We seem mostly in agreement, then.
But I also believe that to love is greater than to not, and to love is to care for others, yet it is also true that self sufficiency is greater than being dependent, and as love for others would require others, the Trinity seems to me a rather logical belief based upon any idea of God being the Greatest possible being, while I believe you are Muslim.
 
Consider it like a doctor prescribing drugs. Whether the patient takes the medicine or not, would benefit nor harm the doctor. In the same way, whatever we do, does not harm nor benefit God in any way, what He has prescribed for us, is for our own benefit.
 
SalamKhan said:
Consider it like a doctor prescribing drugs. Whether the patient takes the medicine or not, would benefit nor harm the doctor. In the same way, whatever we do, does not harm nor benefit God in any way, what He has prescribed for us, is for our own benefit.
Click to expand...
Nice comparison: Do you think God can be compared to a good doctor or to a bad and evil doctor?
 
JuanFlorencio said:
Does He communicate the same commands to everybody or different commands to different people?
Click to expand...
I’ve already answered this:
SalamKhan said:
Due to the contingent nature of His creation, which would include evil, His definition of sin, although authoritative to the extent that He both wills and commands, is not immutable pre-eternally or even from the beginning of creation. Unless I misunderstood your question.
Click to expand...
Although, I answered in the context of one divine law abrogating/replacing another.
 
Last edited:
Depends on how you define a good doctor and a bad doctor.
 
Last edited:
I will assume you mean by their actions. In that case, the goodness of God cannot be compared to the goodness of His creatures. Does God need to act in order to attain goodness and perfection, when He is already good and perfect in His essence?
 
SalamKhan said:
I will assume you mean by their actions. In that case, the goodness of God cannot be compared to the goodness of His creatures. Does God need to act in order to attain goodness and perfection, when He is already good and perfect in His essence?
Click to expand...
Does God act at all?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top