- Status
R
reggieM
Guest
Because mankind can prevent it, but freely chooses not to. Thus, the presence of evil is an act of respect for the freedom that humans have.
It’s ordinary Catholic teaching that if all people fully lived by the precepts of Christ, this world would have very little evil, if any at all.
R
reggieM
Guest
Every sin you commit contributes evil into the world. Why doesn’t God force you not to sin? Because, you would complain about being forced against your will.
Evil in the world is traced to sinful behavior. Let’s imagine someone who insults people who they don’t even know. That increases the amount of evil in the world.
A good place to look for justice, usually, is within our own behavior. If we can live a morally pure life, then we could perhaps start judging everybody else. But that would tarnish our purity in itself – and thus contribute to evil in the world.
Evil in the world is traced to sinful behavior. Let’s imagine someone who insults people who they don’t even know. That increases the amount of evil in the world.
A good place to look for justice, usually, is within our own behavior. If we can live a morally pure life, then we could perhaps start judging everybody else. But that would tarnish our purity in itself – and thus contribute to evil in the world.
S
STT
Guest
I simply mean that a good universe is a possibility and has nothing against free will.
It is not.
R
reggieM
Guest
Now, of course, I’m hoping you guys will tell us that you never commit any infractions against the moral law. 
Or perhaps you will blame God for those things.
Or perhaps you will blame God for those things.
R
reggieM
Guest
There can be no perfect, finite thing. If the thing is finite, it has limits - that is a restriction of good. So, you cannot even in principle have a “good universe”. Any contingent thing relies on other things to sustain it - and cannot explain or support its own existence. Some things will be destroyed - thus, not a good universe.
Regarding freedom:
In order to freely choose to love God, one must be free to reject God.
If one is not free to reject God, then one does not have free will.
God is, by definition, the fulness of perfect good.
A rejection of God, a rejection of good, is therefore necessary with free will.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
You don’t understand that the existence of free moral agency hinges on the preservation of the moral dichotomy of “good and evil”. If you “limit” the option of evil to non-existence, then you’ve destroyed free moral agency.
Again, you are trapped by your own paradigm on this matter.
When someone does something good, affirming, edifying - they are “worshiping” God, even if just implicitly. Whatever is good is God. To turn away from God is to turn away from good.
This belief is the central under-pinning of the Catholic belief that there may likely be non-Christians in heaven as well (remember, “man bound by sacraments” & “God not”).
R
reggieM
Guest
We could call heaven a universe without evil. And we’re all invited to live there forever some day.
V
Vera_Ljuba
Guest
There is no generic “evil”. There are many activities that you consider “evil”, but they do not hurt anyone else. People can use curses when they speak of God, and that is “evil” according to you, but such curses are do not hurt anyone. Any “blasphemy” is supposed unforgivable, it is the supposed to be the one and only sin that God will not (cannot?) forgive, so it is the perfect candidate for “evil”, which does not hurt other humans.
Furthermore, you are wrong on other counts, too. It is sufficient to have free will if you have the option to do something “evil”, but you have a good disposition and do not want to do something evil. There are people with such a basic attitude, and no same person would deny their “free will”. The number of such people has no “upper limit”, so God could fill up the universe with people, who simply have no desire to perform any evil acts.
Finally this whole “morally significant free will” is sheer nonsense. There is no need for such a freedom. It is sufficient to have the freedom to choose between chocolate and vanilla ice cream. Only an idiot would allow freedom to his creation which he disapproves.
This is so incredibly irrational that I am lost for charitable words, and non-charitable words are not allowed. There is no “implicit” worshipping. Your usage of “god” and “good” is just a ridiculous pun.
When I help my crippled neighbor, it has nothing to do with God - either explicitly or implicitly. When I donate to help the starving children in Africa, it has nothing to do with God.
B
Bradski
Guest
Well, you are wrong in the first instance. If you think God will impose ultimate justice, then go for it. But I will have my justice in this world thanks very much. Just in case. And then your sense of ‘justice’ (scare quotes definately needed here) allows for him to have the opportunity of eternal bliss and me, railing against God and unrepentant of that, ends up in hell.
And at last you agree that he does need to repent. Previously that was not the case. Then it was repentance on one’s death bed. Now there is penance. And recompense. Gee, the guy’s going to be busy in his last few minutes.
Which is why purgatory was invented. Another escape clause, because really, I mean no sane person wants someone who has spent his life murdering and raping to get out of jail just because he repents at the last minute.
So what you can tell the sister of the murdered child is that it’s all ok. The guy is really, really sorry and if you are good you’ll get to thank him for being contrite in heaven.
I keep asking this, but does any sane person consider that reasonable? You are tied to this bizarre sense of justice because of what your church teaches and the only response is: ‘it’s not for us to determine punishment’. Well, guys, in this earthly temporal existence, I demand the right to determine justice myself. God gets to deal with what’s left.
V
Vera_Ljuba
Guest
Therefore it is sufficient to reject God. Fine. But rejecting God does not logically entail that one should be free to hurt other beings.
That is only your definition. I know that you (in plural) love to define things into existence, but that is nonsense.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
I’m not even sure what this means.
Any? Perhaps blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which is simply refusing it’s call to righteousness.
But then you do not have moral agency if you’re incapable of seeking it.
“Free moral agency” is a concept that transcends culture. If you want to put your head in the sand on it, I won’t stop you. But you’ve excused yourself from most religious conversation.
Not if the “idiot” wanted his creation to willfully chose Him. If there isn’t an alternative, there isn’t a choice.
You’re absolutely behaving as God desires you to in these instances. Your acknowledgement of it is fully irrelevant.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Looks at Syria and the state of “individual freedom” in places like China
Good luck with that.
I think you’ve been less than clear about what exactly you mean by “repentance”. I think your “goal posts” on the term are a bit more mobile than you care to admit.
No atheists in foxholes…
I thought it was a development on the Jewish idea of Sheol. I had no idea it was so novel.
The “Right of Might” descends upon the land!
When your “justice” runs contrary to those mightier than you, such as the state, let me know how it fares for you. In the early 50’s, Stalin would have arranged a comfy spot in a mass grave for you.
B
Bradski
Guest
Bad guys do bad things so we have to leave it to God? Seriously? One might ask for your idea of suitable punishment for child rapists. A few sessions in the confessional? Bit of recompense?
But hang on, you have already stated that no Catholic knows what would be suitable. What a system!
V
Vonsalza
Guest
No where have I argued for the abolition of a temporal justice system. I still think the convicted criminal should face jail. I also think he can be forgiven his sins. But Justice, if it objectively exists, cannot be subjectively yours or mine. That makes it vengeance.
See above. And while an atheist may make light of penance and the suffering of purgatory, those experiencing them have differing attitudes.
No, I’ve stated that no Catholic can make the final call for a particular person. Above our paygrade.
T
TheCuriousCat
Guest
I love how this thread has completely proven the point that I was making. The demand that atheists have to prove God doesn’t exist is a shell game.
If someone points out a contradiction between being all merciful and all just, it suddenly becomes a debate about what justice and mercy really mean. Up until yesterday, most people on this forum would probably have excepted the dictionary definitions of those two words, and probably wouldn’t have batted an eyelash over the idea that you can’t do both at the same time.
It’s just like you can’t be simultaneously equitable and generous.
Or meticulous and flexible.
Or tolerant and accepting.
You can balance one with the other (and I would argue should balance them), but it is not possible to be both simultaneously or be perfectly both. If we didn’t invoke God in the discussion, it would be pretty cut and dried.
If someone points out a contradiction between being all merciful and all just, it suddenly becomes a debate about what justice and mercy really mean. Up until yesterday, most people on this forum would probably have excepted the dictionary definitions of those two words, and probably wouldn’t have batted an eyelash over the idea that you can’t do both at the same time.
It’s just like you can’t be simultaneously equitable and generous.
Or meticulous and flexible.
Or tolerant and accepting.
You can balance one with the other (and I would argue should balance them), but it is not possible to be both simultaneously or be perfectly both. If we didn’t invoke God in the discussion, it would be pretty cut and dried.
M
minkymurph
Guest
You may well be right, but given what you have said I am not ‘most people.’
I have never thought you can’t be both just and merciful at the same time. I have always thought you can, and I have never been taught you can’t. When I came across this thread and the thread Justice-Grace-Mercy I certainly batted an eyelash.
I have always had reservations about dictionary definitions - except when I was a young child and my teacher set me an exercise in dictionary definitions and getting it wrong had consequences. Dictionary definitions have their limitations. They are not the be all nor are they intended to be.
As far as the Catholic definition of Justice goes, to my knowledge it is defined as a moral virtue. (noun) As a verb it is described as many things.
Equity and generosity are not mutually exclusive in law. The law of equity strives for fairness and generosity is not necessarily unfair. The law of equity was developed in the UK to temper the rigors of the common law as a black letter reading of the law can produce unjust results. The point being black letter definitions are not always helpful where we seek to establish justice rather than simply define it.
Can you be meticulous and flexible at the same time? I would say it depends very much on what you are doing. Again the law of equity is a good example in that it can meticulously be applied yet flexible. The reason is it is intended to be flexible, yet built on principles more accurately called maxims.
Tolerant and accepting - are they not the same thing?
As to your point atheists have to prove God doesn’t exist is a shell game, it is difficult to predict in advance how what you say will be construed by others in advance, or perhaps more significantly misconstrued or misinterpreted. When what we say is misconstrued or misinterpreted and we attempt to rectify this, it can be interpreted as backtracking or as you say playing a shell game - particularly where another is knowingly and intentionally misconstruing and misinterpreting our words, and let’s not pretend there is no one on CAF who would do that.
I’ve lost count of the number of times my posts have been misconstrued and misinterpreted, and intentions and meanings read into them that could not have been farther from my mind when I wrote what I did. Where someone is genuinely interested in what I have to say and is not intentionally misconstruing or misinterpreting what I wrote they generally accept my explanations. Where they are not and simply want to discredit what I say no matter what it is, they don’t.
I do however like you analogy of a shell game, though I would a different interpretation on it.
‘Your said - X, Y, Z’
‘I didn’t say X, Y, Z - copy/paste - here is what I said - here is the shell.’
‘You are saying X, Y, Z’
‘No I’m not - here is the shell’
‘That’s not a shell’
‘It is a shell’
‘No it’s not’
Do you catch my drift?
It can equally be said trying to prove there is a God to an atheist is like playing a shell game in that no matter what you say it will be rejected.
Taking God completely out of the equation, I agree it is not possible to be perfectly just and perfectly merciful at the same time because we are not perfect people. The best we can do as you imply is to balance them as best we can. A perfect being or entity could perfectly be both. For those who do not accept God exists I personally see no impediment to accepting this as a hypothetical - but I’m willing to be enlightened. For those who do believe in God it presents no difficulty for reasons stated.
S
STT
Guest
Was it possible that everybody just does good in a hypothetical universe? If not God is responsible for evil because He knew the outcome.
S
STT
Guest
You read half of my argument so didn’t get my point. Could you please read the previous comment in the post you reply to?
- Status