God created evil

[Richca]

Aquinas conveniently ignores omniscience. This makes his view at very least incomplete.

It is very simple: The Christian God knows EVERYTHING, past, present and future. He knows our fate before we are created. If we are destined to do evil, then God created that evil by creating us.

Its not that Aquinas conveniently ignors omniscience, this is not likely of a theologian of the caliber of Aquinas, but that he was cognizant of the teaching of Holy Scripture such as the following:
Do not say: “It was God’s doing that I fell away,”
for what he hates he does not do.
Do not say: “He himself has led me astray,”
for he has no need of the wicked.
God in the beginning created human beings
and made them subject to their own free choice…
He never commands anyone to sin… (Sirach 15: 11-12, 14,20).

God is the cause of the human being’s free will for He created it. But, He is not the cause of moral evil or sin; this comes solely from the creature. Thus, if a servant do anything contrary to his master’s orders, it is not ascribed to the master as though he were the cause thereof. However, God is the cause of the evil of punishment and in this sense it is written in Isaiah 45:7 “I form the light, and create the darkness, I make well being and create evil;
I, the LORD, do all these things.” Absolutely speaking though, God’s punishment which is according to His justice is good.

If God had not created angels and human beings, then there would be no moral evil and sin. Then again, there would be no creatures created in His image and likeness which could have a share in God’s beatitude and enjoy that beatitude for all eternity. However, because of God’s infinite goodness and thankfully so, He chose to create creatures with an intellect and will to whom He could share His beatitude with for all eternity knowing full well of all the evil that would result from creating creatures with free will. But the good of the life of grace far outweighs the evil of sin so St Thomas Aquinas remarks: “the good of grace in one is greater than the good of nature in the whole universe.” And we sing " Oh happy fault which earned for us so great, so glorious a Redeemer."

 

[oldcelt]

Its not that Aquinas conveniently ignors omniscience, this is not likely of a theologian of the caliber of Aquinas, but that he was cognizant of the teaching of Holy Scripture such as the following:
Do not say: “It was God’s doing that I fell away,”
for what he hates he does not do.
Do not say: “He himself has led me astray,”
for he has no need of the wicked.
God in the beginning created human beings
and made them subject to their own free choice…
He never commands anyone to sin… (Sirach 15: 11-12, 14,20).

God is the cause of the human being’s free will for He created it. But, He is not the cause of moral evil or sin; this comes solely from the creature. Thus, if a servant do anything contrary to his master’s orders, it is not ascribed to the master as though he were the cause thereof. However, God is the cause of the evil of punishment and in this sense it is written in Isaiah 45:7 “I form the light, and create the darkness, I make well being and create evil;
I, the LORD, do all these things.” Absolutely speaking though, God’s punishment which is according to His justice is good.

If God had not created angels and human beings, then there would be no moral evil and sin. Then again, there would be no creatures created in His image and likeness which could have a share in God’s beatitude and enjoy that beatitude for all eternity. However, because of God’s infinite goodness and thankfully so, He chose to create creatures with an intellect and will to whom He could share His beatitude with for all eternity knowing full well of all the evil that would result from creating creatures with free will. But the good of the life of grace far outweighs the evil of sin so St Thomas Aquinas remarks: “the good of grace in one is greater than the good of nature in the whole universe.” And we sing " Oh happy fault which earned for us so great, so glorious a Redeemer."

You are most welcome to believe that. I see elsewise and think that logic favors my view.

 

[oldcelt]

To the 3 yr old child immunizations are a great suffering.

You don’t see that?

Are you a parent, by chance?

No, but an uncle and caseworker who has seen many such performed. Temporary inconvenience…maybe…suffering…look to the children with leukemia and other such horrors.
BTW, the average 3 yo, remembers nothing of that time in later life.

 

[PRmerger]

No, but an uncle and caseworker who has seen many such performed. Temporary inconvenience…maybe…suffering…look to the children with leukemia and other such horrors.

You do realize, oldcelt, that your math is not making any sense here, right?

Take the sufferings of, even a lifetime, and compare it to eternity in bliss…and that makes the “temporary inconvenience” of a 3 yr old’s suffering into a MEGA type of suffering.

BTW, the average 3 yo, remembers nothing of that time in later life.

Thank you for making my point for me.

That’s exactly what our Heavenly Father tells us about our current suffering.

QED.

 

[oldcelt]

You do realize, oldcelt, that your math is not making any sense here, right?

Take the sufferings of, even a lifetime, and compare it to eternity in bliss…and that makes the “temporary inconvenience” of a 3 yr old’s suffering into a MEGA type of suffering.



Thank you for making my point for me.

That’s exactly what our Heavenly Father tells us about our current suffering.

QED.

Does he…I was talking about 3 yo.s.and the absurdity of calling immunization suffering versus…Of course, you are basing the rest on an assumption that what you have been taught is correct…and no razors needed.

 

[thinkandmull]

so why does Isaiah 45:7 say God CREATES evil? It could says preserves or allows, but no, it says create. Huh?

 

[Polita612]

**2 TIMOTHY 2

22 But flee thou youthful desires, and pursue justice, faith, charity, and peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.

23 And avoid foolish and unlearned questions, knowing that they beget strifes.

24 But the servant of the Lord must not wrangle: but be mild towards all men, apt to teach, patient,

25 With modesty admonishing them that resist the truth: if peradventure God may give them repentance to know the truth,

26 And they may recover themselves from the snares of the devil, by whom they are held captive at his will.**

and…

**2 Timothy 3 ** Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

**3 Know also this, that, in the last days, shall come dangerous times.

2 Men shall be lovers of themselves, covetous, haughty, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, wicked,

3 Without affection, without peace, slanderers, incontinent, unmerciful, without kindness,

4 Traitors, stubborn, puffed up, and lovers of pleasures more than of God:

5 Having an appearance indeed of godliness, but denying the power thereof. Now these avoid.

6 For of these sort are they who creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, who are led away with divers desires:

7 Ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of the truth.

8 Now as Jannes and Mambres resisted Moses, so these also resist the truth, men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith.

9 But they shall proceed no farther; for their folly shall be manifest to all men, as theirs also was.

10 But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love, patience,

11 Persecutions, afflictions: such as came upon me at Antioch, at Iconium, and at Lystra: what persecutions I endured, and out of them all the Lord delivered me.

12 And all that will live godly in Christ Jesus, shall suffer persecution.

13 But evil men and seducers shall grow worse and worse: erring, and driving into error.

14 But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned, and which have been committed to thee: knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

15 And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice,

17 That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.**

 

[Bahman]

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.

And what is the source this disorder attachment? Imperfection. Yet we do sin out of freedom.

OTOH we are free when we are acting according to our purposes and ends and are not attached to anything.

This is a contradictory statement. We are in fact are not free when we act upon our purpose and ends since we are acting upon our purpose and ends.

To do the good is not merely a bias but a basic understanding of morality.

We are imperfect yet perfection is approachable through the right practice which involves the knowledge of what is good and bad to do on the spot so called morality. The blind obedience however does not grant any understanding of morality.

So free will cannot be a “neutral thing”.

I don’t understand how do you reach to such a conclusion.

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.

It is not ambiguous. It means that perfection is the goal and free will is the tools.

Even in our state of imperfection while temptation is unavoidable due to concupiscience, to act in favor of the perceived good sought in the temptation (I.e. to sin) is completely avoidable by the proper use of free will despite whatever state of imperfection we may possess.

No, what you say is inconsistent. You have to either accept that the imperfection is the source of sin or not. If yes sin is possible given circumstances and if not then you have to explain how possibly someone could commit sin. In first case God is responsible for sin since he knows that imperfect creatures fail given circumstances.

 

[tonyrey]

so why does Isaiah 45:7 say God CREATES evil? It could says preserves or allows, but no, it says create. Huh?

Only Fundamentalists believe every statement in the Old Testament is literally true.

The book of Isaiah is a prophecy of salvation not a history of creation. Significantly, the chapter concludes with the words:

They will say of me, “In the Lord alone
are deliverance and strength.”’
**All who have raged against him
**** **will come to him and be put to shame.
25 But all the descendants of Israel
will find deliverance in the Lord
and will make their boast in him.

 

[Bahman]

Can you explain how being omniscient and omnipresent creates some sort of dichotomy with not being bound by time?

Well, you could be outside of time and have foreknowledge without having omniscience and you could have foreknowledge being omniscience and bounded by time. You don’t need to be omniscient and outside the time to have foreknowledge since one of them is sufficient.

It would appear that your position is exactly CONTRARY to being omniscient.

There is a tension between having omniscience and free will (please read OP). There is another tension between being in timeless state and ability to create something namely granting a beginning. Hence, God cannot be omniscient, outside of time and create a being with free will meaning that there is a tension between being omniscient and be in state of timeless unless we accept God as a being without ability to create.

If God is indeed omniscient, it naturally follows that he would be not be bound by time.

It does not.

But perhaps you can explain how God is bound by time while also being omniscient and omnipresent?

I don’t see any contradiction. Perhaps you could explain how could this lead to a contradiction?

 

[PRmerger]

Does he…I was talking about 3 yo.s.and the absurdity of calling immunization suffering versus…Of course, you are basing the rest on an assumption that what you have been taught is correct…and no razors needed.

Not sure what the reference to razors is all about but, er, yes, when we chat we all understand that we are basing “the rest” on an assumption.

Even you do that.

I find it curious that you keep reserving for yourself what you object to in others (esp in Catholics).

Why are you so special that you get to:
-make a decision based on FAITH ALONE (without a shred of evidence!)
-dialogue here based on an assumption that what you believe is correct

yet object to Catholics doing this?

NB: Catholicism rejects FAITH ALONE, but that does not stop you from objecting to this straw man.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, you could be outside of time and have foreknowledge without having omniscience and you could have foreknowledge being omniscience and bounded by time. You don’t need to be omniscient and outside the time to have foreknowledge since one of them is sufficient.

Sure.

Were you under some misapprehension that I was positing that one must be omniscient in order to be outside of time?

God is outside of time because He is God. Not because He is omniscient.

At any rate, I posited that God is not bound by time.

That He exists outside of time is a different argument.

There is a tension between having omniscience and free will (please read OP). There is another tension between being in timeless state and ability to create something namely granting a beginning. Hence, God cannot be omniscient, outside of time and create a being with free will meaning that there is a tension between being omniscient and be in state of timeless unless we accept God as a being without ability to create.

There is no tension between God being in a timeless state and creating something that has a beginning.

Maybe you mean that there is a tension between God being in a timeless state and God having a moment that He first existed? That would certainly be a dichotomy.

 

[Bahman]

Sure.

Were you under some misapprehension that I was positing that one must be omniscient in order to be outside of time?

God is outside of time because He is God. Not because He is omniscient.

At any rate, I posited that God is not bound by time.

That He exists outside of time is a different argument.

There is no tension between God being in a timeless state and creating something that has a beginning.

Maybe you mean that there is a tension between God being in a timeless state and God having a moment that He first existed? That would certainly be a dichotomy.

1. God exist in state of timeless
2. This means that there existed a state of affair that only God existed namely {God}
3. Creation has a beginning
4. From (3) we can deduce that there exist a state of affair that God and creation coexist, namely {God, creation}
5. This means that we have two states {God} and {God, creation} the second followed by the first
6. From (5) we can deduce the temporarity which has conflict with (1)
7. God cannot be in state of timeless and create anything

 

[PRmerger]

1. God exist in state of timeless

Yep.

1. This means that there existed a state of affair that only God existed namely {God}

Indeed.

1. Creation has a beginning

Too true, too true.

1. From (3) we can deduce that there exist a state of affair that God and creation coexist, namely {God, creation}

Amen!

1. This means that we have two states {God} and {God, creation} the second followed by the first

You are correct!

1. From (5) we can deduce the temporarity which has conflict with (1)

Huh? Temporarity? I’m pretty sure you just made that word up.
webster-dictionary.org/definition/Temporarity

Whatever…

#6 is ga-ga la-la nonsense, regardless of whether you’ve just made up a word.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

so why does Isaiah 45:7 say God CREATES evil? It could says preserves or allows, but no, it says create. Huh?

It’s a bad translation choice. Not one translation is perfect. It’s always best to compare between 5+ of them.

If you look at Isaiah45:7 in the NABRE, RSVCE, ESV, NASB, NKJV, none of them use it.

Looking at the passage itself, it makes no sense.

The passage is comparing one extreme to the other:

“I form Light” vs. “Create Darkness”

“I make well-being/weal/peace” vs. {Evil}, really!? That doesn’t make any sense.

If it would have said:

“I make good” vs. “Create Evil”, then it would have made sense.

Then:

“I make well-being/weal/peace” vs. “I create calamity, woe”

Makes sense.

 

[Bahman]

Yep.

Indeed.

Too true, too true.

Amen!

You are correct!

Huh? Temporarity? I’m pretty sure you just made that word up.
webster-dictionary.org/definition/Temporarity

Whatever…

#6 is ga-ga la-la nonsense, regardless of whether you’ve just made up a word.

(6) is correct if (5) and (1) are correct since (5) means that there exist a time which God is subjected to.

 

[PRmerger]

(6) is correct if (5) and (1) are correct since (5) means that there exist a time which God is subjected to.

No. God does not have to be “subject to” time any more than I am subject to time when I create a drawing. I didn’t have to create it at any particular time. That I chose to do it at Point A does not make me subject to Time A. At all.

(NB: this is not to say that I, as a creature, am not subject to Time in the general sense. I am simply talking about being compelled to do something at a specific point in time because I created something.)

 

[PRmerger]

(6) is correct if (5) and (1) are correct since (5) means that there exist a time which God is subjected to.

Incidentally, when you say “which God is subjected to”, I assume you really meant “which God is subject to”, as in, “God is under the authority of this”.

What you actually said, in saying “God is subjected to” means “God is exposed to.”

And that doesn’t make sense.

So I took the liberty of presuming you had used the wrong word.

 

[Bahman]

Incidentally, when you say “which God is subjected to”, I assume you really meant “which God is subject to”, as in, “God is under the authority of this”.

What you actually said, in saying “God is subjected to” means “God is exposed to.”

And that doesn’t make sense.

So I took the liberty of presuming you had used the wrong word.

By subjectivity over time, I meant that there exist at least two different states in which one follows another one.

 

[Aloysium]

1. God exist in state of timeless
2. This means that there existed a state of affair that only God existed namely {God}
3. Creation has a beginning
4. From (3) we can deduce that there exist a state of affair that God and creation coexist, namely {God, creation}
5. This means that we have two states {God} and {God, creation} the second followed by the first
6. From (5) we can deduce the temporarity which has conflict with (1)
7. God cannot be in state of timeless and create anything

Since 7 is wrong, there is something amiss in your statements 1-6, or they are incomplete.
Where do you think the problem lies?
This then leads to a few other questions:
Are you trying to find the truth or to justify your beliefs?
If you are trying to find truth, what makes you believe that it can be arrived at, in this manner?
Are you starting with 7 as your “truth”, and working out 1-6 to arrive at that result?