I disagree profoundly. Evil is the absence of good, it is the absence of what should be there, consequently it is non-being. Which is essentially the position of Thomas Aquinas and the Church. And God creates only being, even he cannot create non-being.
Yes, but created beings cannot create non-being either. So does that mean they can only detract from being-where God would never do so? Or is evil already in some capacity the result, relatively speaking, of their less-than perfect “beingness”, due to their dependency on God for their being? I’m sure that’s a stretch theologically but the question, “Where does evil come from?” isn’t so easy to answer either it seems.
God does create being. But that doesn’t mean that I’m wrong.
So you don’t have any formal or informal fallacy to charge me with other than it is your opinion that I am wrong.
It’s not ridiculous at all. You’re confusing an instance of positive law with natural law.
That is a fallacy, its called a “non-sequitur”.
You apparently have no training in logic. A fallacy is a general term and they are subdivided into several categories, you can see this here.
If it is so clear, why are there so many disagreements on it? How come so many people did not and still do not see the prophecies being fulfilled in Jesus?
Free will can either help avoiding sin when we are not imperfect or it cannot. We could be perfect if it could help which is contrary to assumption that we are imperfect.
Would you care to clarify?
This depends very much how do you define imperfection and free will. We have to first understand that free will is a neutral thing meaning that it cannot favor good or bad/sin otherwise we are granted a thing which bias our decision. Perfection is defined as ability to resist bad/sin under any circumstances no matter how hard is the situation hence the ability to resist should be boundless. Imperfection is contrary to perfection meaning that sin is unavoidable give a very specific circumstances and it is avoidable otherwise. This means that circumstances and level of imperfection define the outcome of situation not free will. We in fact don’t exercise our free will but our perfection.
The problem with your definition is that a will which sins does so not out of freedom but from some disordered attachment to some thing.
What you even mean by “exercising…our perfection” is at best ambiguous. Perfection necessarily must involve the will. And in order for the will to get there it must be free.
People either accept or reject what is clearly stated in this passage based on their view of God. This is one of the reasons I have always been more than a bit suspicious of philosophy/philosophers. They utilize high-sounding terminology, often incorrectly, in an effort to make the interpretation of an event or statement sound like fact.
As St Thomas Aquinas points out, the above passage refers to God as being the author of the evil of penalty or punishment which is according to the order of His justice because God is the ruler, governor, and king of the universe. It does not refer to the evil of fault or sin which only comes from the creature.
There is a problem when the NKJV uses an unqualified term such as “evil”.
And you ought to know from your Catholic training that is the reason for the existence of the Church, the Church is how He makes Himself understood.
IOW, physical evil permitted, not moral evil committed.
Since when is a penalty evil? I know that Aquinas is highly admired, to say the least, on this board, bit I think he is making a major stretch to get the language to conform to his beliefs. It is a common human trait that I’m sure all of us are guilty of at one time or another.
And knowingly and simultaneously created the remedy to that evil.