God created evil

[oldcelt]

May I gently point out that Catholic teaching is clear that God did not create Satan per se. God did create the original angels with the inherent ability to follow their own desires instead of following God. This freedom, which is often overlooked by people who are mad at God, is a necessary element because of the obvious difference between the Creator and the creature, either angel or human.

Somehow, somewhere, in the rush to damage God’s reputation, some people, who have my sincere sympathy, have ignored the simple fact that a created angel could, of his own accord, commit evil in the broad, basic, fundamental sense of turning away from the greater goodness of God.

When there is a free moment, may I gently suggest that readers actually check the universal* Catechism of the Catholic Church Second Edition*…with an open mind…and some simple common sense.

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

One important hint about the protocol of the visible Catholic Church on planet earth.

The Catholic Church, with the guidance of the actual Creator, seeks out this Creator’s Divine Revelation and does not mix up this Divine Revelation with human’s personal anthropomorphic concepts.

Your first paragraph says it all: “God did create the original angels with the inherent ability to follow their own desires instead of following God.” Not only did God do that, but he did it with an absolute foreknowledge of what each of them would do.With this knowledge God knew that if he created Satan, that Satan would rebel; essentially committing the first sin.
God, had created evil and evil’s greatest agent in one fell swoop.

The one’s who deny that are the people not using common sense. This is a classic case of an action leading directly to a consequence. Further, if you say that God did not create evil, who did? If God did not create evil then there was another element with creative ability.That opens quite a can of worms.

So far as the Catechism, yes, I have that edition and several older that my parents left behind. I also have several penitent missals from my grandmother. I have looked at this issue and many others from the Catholic perspective, since it was my home church. The church’s position on this matter I find to be inconsistent with what they claim as facts regarding God’s creative powers and other characteristics.

BTW, I do appreciate your tone while asking these questions. It certainly makes discussion more pleasant and productive.

 

[fhansen]

Your first paragraph says it all: “God did create the original angels with the inherent ability to follow their own desires instead of following God.” Not only did God do that, but he did it with an absolute foreknowledge of what each of them would do.With this knowledge God knew that if he created Satan, that Satan would rebel; essentially committing the first sin.
God, had created evil and evil’s greatest agent in one fell swoop.

The one’s who deny that are the people not using common sense. This is a classic case of an action leading directly to a consequence. Further, if you say that God did not create evil, who did? If God did not create evil then there was another element with creative ability.That opens quite a can of worms.

So far as the Catechism, yes, I have that edition and several older that my parents left behind. I also have several penitent missals from my grandmother. I have looked at this issue and many others from the Catholic perspective, since it was my home church. The church’s position on this matter I find to be inconsistent with what they claim as facts regarding God’s creative powers and other characteristics.

BTW, I do appreciate your tone while asking these questions. It certainly makes discussion more pleasant and productive.

The posdibility of moral evil (sin) can be defined as the freedom and ability to oppose the will of God. Free will is not at all possible unless for this ability. So, while God created a world which He knew would fall into evil, the evil acts themselves still remain outside His will, as evil exists only as an act of creation’s choosing a path inferior to the one He would otherwise choose for them.

 

[grannymh]

Your first paragraph says it all: “God did create the original angels with the inherent ability to follow their own desires instead of following God.” Not only did God do that, but he did it with an absolute foreknowledge of what each of them would do.With this knowledge God knew that if he created Satan, that Satan would rebel; essentially committing the first sin.
God, had created evil and evil’s greatest agent in one fell swoop.

May I respectfully point out to readers, both CAF members and guests

…that the above conclusion that God had created evil and evil’s greatest agent in one fell swoop." is a misreading of the Catholic information in post 219.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11534092&postcount=219

God creating evil does not follow directly from the truth that angels had an inherent ability to stop following God. That jump to God avoids the Catholic position that the devil and the other demons were indeed created naturally good by God, but they became evil** by their own doing**. (Lateran Council IV (1215): DS 800)

In post 219, I did not specify paragraphs because there are so many ways to find out about God, I did not want to limit information to a few paragraphs. I trust readers’ intellectual curiosity.

Obviously, every poster is free to post her or his personal opinions about everything and I do respect that.

However, the Catholic Church is based on Divine Revelation. As a Catholic, I respect and accept its teachings regarding the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Seven Sacraments. I will remain faithful even when it is difficult.

What else is there? npatrol:

 

[meltzerboy]

This is interesting. You are exactly saying what I mentioned in post #198 namely Gods omniscience is the ability to know how to perform the creation which could act on its own, namely creatures own free will, rather than knowing everything about creation including our decisions. However, God should grant the possibility of good and evil in creation in order to exercise free will. In another word we understand the concepts of good or evil hence God provided the basic elements needed in act creation, similar to free will, such that the acts good and evil are possible.

This is not an either-or dichotomy according to Judaism. IOW G-d’s omniscience means that He knows BOTH that mankind has the free will to decide whether to pursue good or evil AND what mankind’s decisions will be. However, this does NOT mean that ultimately G-d determines our decisions. Further, it is precisely this free will to possibly choose evil, after the disobedience of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, that makes G-d’s Creation not merely “good” but “very good” according to the Word of G-d in Scripture. How can G-d’s Creation be “very good” when mankind intentionally chooses to sin? Sinning, or missing the mark, enables the possibility for improvement by means of choosing according to our free will to repent, turn toward a better direction, and thereby move closer toward G-d. We would not be able to do this if we lacked free will. In so doing, we not only can repair our own imperfections but also repair G-d’s incomplete Creation and, in a sense, participate in that Creation by renewing and completing it with every act of goodness we emit.

 

[tonyrey]

Would you prefer this planet to have remained devoid of life? If not why not?

Regardless of what others believe would you prefer this planet to have remained devoid of life?

So far as direct and ultimate responsibility, God should not have any, but clearly does inder Christianity.

Why not?

God created evil for his own purposes.

Evil is not created. It is the result of the abuse of free will.

Why not? I mean, we apparently are so wicked that god has to go so far as send an anti-Christ to be sure that he rounds up and condemns all the baddies. Leave it to the deer ot nothing at all.

Do you deny the reality of evil? If not how do you explain it?

According to Christianity, God, an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent (people often forget that one) who, with foreknowledge and forethought did create the angel Satan, an evil and wicked servant who God then released on the human race…

Satan’s power does not outweigh God’s grace. Even without Satan humanity can choose to be evil. That is the problem you have failed to solve.

1. If evil exists how did it originate?
2. If evil doesn’t exist there is no reason to deny the existence of God because everything is hunkydory.

 

[oldcelt]

Regardless of what others believe would you prefer this planet to have remained devoid of life?

Why not?

Evil is not created. It is the result of the abuse of free will.
Do you deny the reality of evil? If not how do you explain it?
Satan’s power does not outweigh God’s grace. Even without Satan humanity can choose to be evil. That is the problem you have failed to solve.

1. If evil exists how did it originate?
2. If evil doesn’t exist there is no reason to deny the existence of God because everything is hunkydory.

Too many questions, and now several are trying to say that evil is not created…shows desperation.

As I explained in one post long ago, the only god I believe in may have started creation and then just let it evolve. He knows no more about any of our lives than we do and he does not interfere with the coming and goings of man. Whether there is any form of after-life, the only way I can see it happening is if our brain waves somehow retain some organization.

This is the god I see as possible without being the enemy god that most larger religions worship.

Evil exists in that people step outside the generally accepted standards of mankind. These standards developed over many centuries, particularly after man began live in larger groups.

 

[meltzerboy]

Too many questions, and now several are trying to say that evil is not created…shows desperation.

As I explained in one post long ago, the only god I believe in may have started creation and then just let it evolve. He knows no more about any of our lives than we do and he does not interfere with the coming and goings of man. Whether there is any form of after-life, the only way I can see it happening is if our brain waves somehow retain some organization.

This is the god I see as possible without being the enemy god that most larger religions worship.

Evil exists in that people step outside the generally accepted standards of mankind. These standards developed over many centuries, particularly after man began live in larger groups.

If this “deist” G-d (at least one version of it) had the power to start the creation of a whole universe without being created Itself, wouldn’t it be reasonable to suggest that such a G-d is also rather interested in what It started, as well as also having considerable knowledge and concern about the inhabitants of Its creation even to the extent of caring about them? If not, then what might be the purpose or goal of such a G-d’s own existence and the purpose of G-d’s creation?

 

[oldcelt]

If this “deist” G-d (at least one version of it) had the power to start the creation of a whole universe without being created Itself, wouldn’t it be reasonable to suggest that such a G-d is also rather interested in what It started, as well as also having considerable knowledge and concern about the inhabitants of Its creation even to the extent of caring about them? If not, then what might be the purpose or goal of such a G-d’s own existence and the purpose of G-d’s creation?

Deism is very loosely defined. But my answer as to why is out of curiosity. We really don’t know how difficult it would be to set the early universe in motion. It may not be much. Once started God could just watch it develop without interfering.
I think it is the Buddhists who write of God sticking in his finger to stir the early universe.

 

[meltzerboy]

Deism is very loosely defined. But my answer as to why is out of curiosity. We really don’t know how difficult it would be to set the early universe in motion. It may not be much. Once started God could just watch it develop without interfering.
I think it is the Buddhists who write of God sticking in his finger to stir the early universe.

Do you mean that G-d created only the most basic, early rudiments of the universe, set these in motion, and sat back and watched it unfold? Do deists ponder the question concerning where G-d Himself came from in the first place?

 

[oldcelt]

Do you mean that G-d created only the most basic, early rudiments of the universe, set these in motion, and sat back and watched it unfold? Do deists ponder the question concerning where G-d Himself came from in the first place?

Yes to your first question. For the second part the origin of “god” is considered and discussed but I have never heard of one particular answer. There are deists who lean strongly toward the atheist side of the question, some view it only as an impersonal, yet intelligent force but virtually all look on God as non-interventionist, allowing things to develop as they do, including, and maybe even particularly, the affairs of man.

I became interested because that last line seemed the closest to God’s role based on my observations.

 

[tonyrey]

*Regardless of what others believe would you prefer this planet to have remained devoid of life?

Not to answer simple questions shows evasion as well as desperation!

As I explained in one post long ago, the only god I believe in may have started creation and then just let it evolve. He knows no more about any of our lives than we do and he does not interfere with the coming and goings of man. Whether there is any form of after-life, the only way I can see it happening is if our brain waves somehow retain some organization.

A finite god is impotent and so unimportant it is not worth having!

This is the god I see as possible without being the enemy god that most larger religions worship.

The God revealed by Jesus is a loving Father not the vindictive Yahweh of the Old Testament.

Evil exists in that people step outside the generally accepted standards of mankind. These standards developed over many centuries, particularly after man began live in larger groups.

Standards are merely human conventions which can be safely ignored when convenient. They are certainly not categorical imperatives which uphold the value of life and the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.

Belief in a remote, disinterested god is a very sound basis for the law of the jungle!

 

[meltzerboy]

Not to answer simple questions shows evasion as well as desperation!

A finite god is impotent and so unimportant it is not worth having!

The God revealed by Jesus is a loving Father not the vindictive Yahweh of the Old Testament.

Standards are merely human conventions which can be safely ignored when convenient. They are certainly not categorical imperatives which uphold the value of life and the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.

Belief in a remote, disinterested god is a very sound basis for the law of the jungle!

“The G-d revealed by Jesus is a loving Father not the vindictive Y-hweh of the Old Testament.” I must take issue with this for two reasons: one is that you seem to be implying that G-d changes His nature, which neither of our faiths believes; and the second is that the G-d portrayed in the Hebrew Bible consistently tempers His justice with abundant mercy.

 

[tonyrey]

“The G-d revealed by Jesus is a loving Father not the vindictive Y-hweh of the Old Testament.” I must take issue with this for two reasons: one is that you seem to be implying that G-d changes His nature, which neither of our faiths believes; and the second is that the G-d portrayed in the Hebrew Bible consistently tempers His justice with abundant mercy.

It is not the Creator who changes but man’s interpretation of the Creator. Jesus quoted Hosea “I want mercy not sacrifice” and rejected the principle of “an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth”. He also extended divine love to all humanity rather than just the Chosen People.

 

[meltzerboy]

It is not the Creator who changes but man’s interpretation of the Creator. Jesus quoted Hosea “I want mercy not sacrifice” and rejected the principle of “an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth”. He also extended divine love to all humanity rather than just the Chosen People.

The notion of “an eye for an eye” was designed mainly for legal and business transactions. What it referred to, figuratively speaking, was the prohibition against charging exorbitant interest (usury) on loans. When applied to human interactions, it was restrictive, rather than punitive, in nature: that is, one should not ask for and extract more punishment than what is deserved. Even just punishment, however, had to meet a high threshold: for example, stoning for the moral crime of adultery could not be performed without the testimony of two reliable eyewitnesses to the adulterous deed. Further, punishment such as the death penalty was rarely executed (as it is rarely meted out in the modern state of Israel); however, when it was considered appropriate justice for an egregious crime, it was at the same time regarded as a preliminary atonement for the benefit of the wrongdoer in purgatory, as well as for the purpose of justice for the victim and for society as a whole.

With regard to divine love, that was extended to all of humanity according to the Scriptures of the Hebrew Bible. The idea of the Chosen People was not that the Jewish people were particularly deserving of G-d’s love; indeed the opposite was the case in several instances. They, however, were the ones who accepted G-d’s law, although not without much backsliding, and thus bore the responsibility and mission of maintaining it and serving as an example of a priestly people to the other nations of the world. This was not conceived of as a burden but rather as a loving act of obedience toward G-d.

 

[oldcelt]

Not to answer simple questions shows evasion as well as desperation!

A finite god is impotent and so unimportant it is not worth having!

The God revealed by Jesus is a loving Father not the vindictive Yahweh of the Old Testament.

Standards are merely human conventions which can be safely ignored when convenient. They are certainly not categorical imperatives which uphold the value of life and the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.

Belief in a remote, disinterested god is a very sound basis for the law of the jungle!

I’ve answered the question on the origin of evil over and over. According to the bible, it is God. So far as my “proving” it, not one person on this thread can prove anything they have said. It is a matter of faith and personal belief.

The NT God is still slaughtering innocent children every day. He just doesn’t have all the rules written down. Check the case of Delaney Brown, 8 years old, from Reading , PA. If you wish to worship a God that would permit that sweet child to die so horribly you are certainly free to do so…I won’t be joining in.

What you call standards, I call morals. Are you saying that morals can’t be ignored? You could have fooled me.

So far as your final statement it is, again, a matter of personal belief with which I do not agree. I would contend that the Abrahamic/Christian God has been involved in His fair share of “Jungle” behavior. How do I know? I’ve read his books several times. So far as I can tell, the remote God has no such burden to carry. We bring much of the hardship on ourselves. The rest is generally a natural process.

 

[josh987654321]

I’ve answered the question on the origin of evil over and over. According to the bible, it is God. So far as my “proving” it, not one person on this thread can prove anything they have said. It is a matter of faith and personal belief.

The NT God is still slaughtering innocent children every day. He just doesn’t have all the rules written down. Check the case of Delaney Brown, 8 years old, from Reading , PA. If you wish to worship a God that would permit that sweet child to die so horribly you are certainly free to do so…I won’t be joining in.

What you call standards, I call morals. Are you saying that morals can’t be ignored? You could have fooled me.

So far as your final statement it is, again, a matter of personal belief with which I do not agree. I would contend that the Abrahamic/Christian God has been involved in His fair share of “Jungle” behavior. How do I know? I’ve read his books several times. So far as I can tell, the remote God has no such burden to carry. We bring much of the hardship on ourselves. The rest is generally a natural process.

May I ask you a question?

If God were to step in and smite all of those who sinned, all of those who erred. Where would he start and where would he finnish? are we not all sinners? do we not all err?

Is it not God’s love and mercy that we experience daily the reason we are still even here at all? is it not his love and mercy which is holding back his wrath against us?
Extract from the book "Divine Providence":

In the first few minutes of the 27th, the day of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, at about ten past midnight, I entered into prayer and the following dialogue ensued. Jesus said to me:
2) “Love Me!”
3) “In whom today do You want me to love You, Lord?” **
4) “In the ones who hurt you.” **
5) “In that case I am going to have to love many.” **
6) “Not as many as those who hurt Me, and I love them.”**

Jesus, Omnipotence, God himself, became man and suffered on the cross willingly (Omnipotence was not put to death, he gave his life willingly for us) so that men might know his love for us, yet how many cast those very same taunts? “If you are the king of the Jews, save yourself!” “Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and save us!” “He saved others. Now he should save himself, if he really is God’s chosen Messiah!”

The Son of God suffered unto death, not that men might not suffer, but that their sufferings might be like His. - George MacDonald

“Skeptics always want miracles such as stepping down from the Cross, but never the greater miracle of forgiveness.” - Fulton J. Sheen

 

[JamesATyler]

I’ve answered the question on the origin of evil over and over. According to the bible, it is God. So far as my “proving” it, not one person on this thread can prove anything they have said. It is a matter of faith and personal belief.

The NT God is still slaughtering innocent children every day. He just doesn’t have all the rules written down. Check the case of Delaney Brown, 8 years old, from Reading , PA. If you wish to worship a God that would permit that sweet child to die so horribly you are certainly free to do so…I won’t be joining in.

What you call standards, I call morals. Are you saying that morals can’t be ignored? You could have fooled me.

So far as your final statement it is, again, a matter of personal belief with which I do not agree. I would contend that the Abrahamic/Christian God has been involved in His fair share of “Jungle” behavior. How do I know? I’ve read his books several times. So far as I can tell, the remote God has no such burden to carry. We bring much of the hardship on ourselves. The rest is generally a natural process.

I really don’t understand why you remove responsibility from a remote God. If he can arrange the universe to exist surely he can arrange the molecules in Delaney Brown’s body correctly. But the remote God is the ultimate bystander that does nothing. He makes the universe and sits back and watches the show. For sport? For his own personal gain in knowledge? Yet he shares nothing. Illuminates nothing. Why didn’t the nameless, unknown remote God, not reach down his finger for Delaney? How do you say he bears no burden because of her but the Christian God is fully responsible?

 

[JamesATyler]

May I ask you a question?

If God were to step in and smite all of those who sinned, all of those erred. Where would he start and where would he finnish? are we not all sinners? do we not all err?

Is it not God’s love and mercy that we experience daily the reason we are still even here at all? is it not his love and mercy which is holding back his wrath against us?

Because of the argument that God foresaw sin before it existed a strong case can be made that God’s mercy preceded creation. Though he saw that angel and man would sin he did not deny them life but instead he gave them both life and free will so that they might have the opportunity to repent and attain eternal life. By the reasoning of those who seek to find error in God, it seems as though they ask for eternal destruction to be granted to any who are not perfect before they are even created.

 

[josh987654321]

Because of the argument that God foresaw sin before it existed a strong case can be made that God’s mercy preceded creation. Though he saw that angel and man would sin he did not deny them life but instead he gave them both life and free will so that they might have the opportunity to repent and attain eternal life. By the reasoning of those who seek to find error in God, it seems as though they ask for eternal destruction to be granted to any who are not perfect before they are even created.

I re-wrote a great response to that which I found in a book I was reading called “Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis, I might just repeat it because I think Oldcelt joined this thread after my post #81, so just incase he may have missed it, I hope people wont mind if I repeat it.

So I guess the question is, If God is omnipotent and omniscient, is the existence of Satan in accordance with his will? If it is, he is a strange God, you will say: and if it is not, how can anything happen contrary to the will of a being with absolute power? But anyone who has been in authority knows how a thing can be in accordance with your will in one way and not in another. You make a thing voluntary and than half the people do not do it. That is not what you willed, but your will has made it possible. It’s probably the same in the universe. God created things which had free will. That means creatures which can go either wrong or right. Some people think they can imagine a creature which was free but had no possibility of going wrong; I cannot.

If a thing is free to be good it is also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata-of creatures that worked like machines-would hardly be worth creating. The happiness which God designs for his higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to him and to each other in an ecstasy of love and delight compared with which the most rapturous love between a man and a woman on this earth is mere milk and water. And for that they must be free.

Of course God knew what would happen if they used their freedom the wrong way: apparently He thought it worth the risk. Perhaps we feel inclined to disagree with him. But there is a difficulty about disagreeing with God. He is the source from which all your reasoning power comes; you could not be right and He wrong any more than a stream could rise higher than its own source. When you are arguing against him you are arguing against the very power that makes you able to argue at all: it is like cutting off the branch you are sitting on. If God thinks this state of war in the universe a price worth paying for free will-that is, for making a live world in which creatures can do real good or harm and something of real importance can happen, instead of a toy world which only moves when He pulls the strings-then we may take it it is worth paying.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[JamesATyler]

The notion is unjust.

Really, at the root of it what are we supposed to ask God to do? According to the sense of justice of some, we are supposed to want God to look into the future (which has not occurred yet) find the crime and then deliver the punishment before the crime is committed.

The reasoning is as such. God knows everything so he knows what you are going to do. Therefore, God is unjust because he does not punish you before you commit the crime.

The punishment? It is so severe that you do not even get a chance to live. This is not justice!

Even Jesus, who knew that Judas would betray him to his face with a kiss, allowed him to do so in the interest of Justice.

Matt 26:20-25
When it was evening, he took his place with the twelve; and while they were eating, he said, “Truly I tell you, one of you will betray me.” And they became greatly distressed and began to say to him one after another, “Surely not I, Lord?” He answered, “The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me will betray me. The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that one by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that one not to have been born.” Judas, who betrayed him, said, “Surely not I, Rabbi?” He replied, “You have said so.”

Here, even Jesus points out that it would have been better for Judas to have not been born. Are we supposed to accept then that Judas was born because it was his purpose to betray Jesus? No. If that were the case then Judas would deserve no punishment for he would have fulfilled God’s will. The truth is, it was Judas’s own choice. He reaps his punishment for the way he behaved. That is the justice of our God. He does not punish us until we make our choice and do the act.