God created evil

[Oreoracle]

Now you’re begging the question. You can’t assume materialism as a premise without proving that materialism is true.

You seem to think that any mention of genetics assumes materialism. By “human” I am referring to homo sapiens, a species. Like any species, we are distinguished by our genetics; humans are humans because they are genetically similar enough to reproduce with each other but differ enough from other species so that reproduction is impossible.

Thus, “human”, by definition, is a species of animal whose DNA is such that their reproductive opportunities are limited to their own species. That is the only requirement for being a human. This is why Christians can say things like “embryos are human life”. They certainly are, due to their DNA. A sperm cell doesn’t have enough information to serve as the coding for a human, so sperm cells are not human life. It really isn’t such a radical notion.

Not at all. Only that it is impossible to be “sin-free” according to any subjective view and/or according to their own power, ability, or merits.

I have no idea what you’re talking about. You told me that the fact of sin in humanity is necessary. I don’t know how else to interpret that other than “human sin had to happen eventually”.

Strawman.

It may be blunt, but it accurately reflects what you’re getting at.

 

[Amandil]

You seem to think that any mention of genetics assumes materialism. By “human” I am referring to homo sapiens, a species. Like any species, we are distinguished by our genetics; humans are humans because they are genetically similar enough to reproduce with each other but differ enough from other species so that reproduction is impossible.

Thus, “human”, by definition, is a species of animal whose DNA is such that their reproductive opportunities are limited to their own species. That is the only requirement for being a human. This is why Christians can say things like “embryos are human life”. They certainly are, due to their DNA. A sperm cell doesn’t have enough information to serve as the coding for a human, so sperm cells are not human life. It really isn’t such a radical notion.

A human being or human person is not reducible to material/physical things. Again, they are necessary, but not sufficient.

I have no idea what you’re talking about. You told me that the fact of sin in humanity is necessary. I don’t know how else to interpret that other than “human sin had to happen eventually”.

Necessary to Christian “philosophy”, not to humanity. Christianity’s purpose, among other things, is the salvation of men. Thus necessary to that purpose is the recognition that man is currently dominated by sin and the punishment from sin(spiritual death), from which He has been redeemed by God through Christ.

Sin did not “have” to happen. But it did happen, and the consequences are universal.

Man was deceived into sin, thus he is offered redemption. But that in no way means that sin is “necessary” to man. It’s precisely the opposite.

It may be blunt, but it accurately reflects what you’re getting at.

No it doesn’t. Not at all. It just shows that you’re frustrated because you’ve hit a dead end.

 

[tonyrey]

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

The logic of despair! Since the Big Bang your God is inert. Probably exhausted!

 

[Oreoracle]

A human being or human person is not reducible to material/physical things. Again, they are necessary, but not sufficient.

This is one of the things that gives you the illusion of “freedom” in your worldview. You claim that there is more to humans than our genetics, our minds, our reasoning, our feelings, our beliefs, our personalities, our biases, our motivations, etc. What else is left? The remainder is so nebulous that you can’t even seem to put your finger on it. You just call it “free will” and leave it at that.

Beyond this aspect of humanity that you seem to have invented out of thin air, God clearly would have had to determine everything else by the chain of necessities that I don’t think you’ve satisfactorily addressed. The theology of Christian philosophy (and yes, I will keep calling it a philosophy) doesn’t seem to point out a scenario in which things could have been different. It offers no mechanism by which I can actually use my free will other than with qualities of mine that God has already pre-determined: my logic, my feelings, my motivations, etc.

And I think that, deep down, you implicitly agree that there is no freedom in your philosophy, at least not in the modal sense of “things could have been different”. You say that sin is necessary to Christian philosophy, and yet sin isn’t necessary in the modal sense. Are you suggesting that God didn’t create humans with the goal of them adopting Christian philosophy already in mind? That he didn’t have the goal of sacrificing his son on the cross from the outset? If not, he intended sin to take place from the start.

But of course you won’t come out and say that, because that would require quite a lot of cognitive dissonance. That’s why you use an obscure definition of “freedom” to make it seem more palatable.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Man was deceived into sin, thus he is offered redemption. But that in no way means that sin is “necessary” to man. It’s precisely the opposite.

Good Morning Amandil: Sin is a concept, not a thing. It is an idea that conveys a quality to an act or a thought, and without someone to conceptualize and incorporate it into the thought process, sin does not exist. We were not tricked into sin by a serpent, and of course we know that’s not the case. We simply created it. And as is the case with most concepts, it is referential and codependent on its opposite. Good is only known in relation to evil, and evil is only known in relation to good. The same is the case for all points in between. Sin is an abstract of the human mind, and its original meaning in the Greek form is simply to be out of alignment with proper natural order. Later translations of the Bible into other languages had no direct equivalent to the Greek word, and hence the notion of sin being badness and requiring punishment was introduced into the collective Christian psyche. Which means that the traditional Christian notion of sin is only an analog of the original notion in the original translations, and both iterations are again simply mental markers or labels. We created both, and whatever set the cosmos in motion clearly has no concept of such a thing. Because without “bad” things, such as stars exploding and planets colliding, there would be no “good things” such as a bike ride in the park. The former made the latter possible, and they are simply necessary parts of the whole.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Amandil]

This is one of the things that gives you the illusion of “freedom” in your worldview. You claim that there is more to humans than our genetics, our minds, our reasoning, our feelings, our beliefs, our personalities, our biases, our motivations, etc. What else is left? The remainder is so nebulous that you can’t even seem to put your finger on it. You just call it “free will” and leave it at that.

Beyond this aspect of humanity that you seem to have invented out of thin air, God clearly would have had to determine everything else by the chain of necessities that I don’t think you’ve satisfactorily addressed. The theology of Christian philosophy (and yes, I will keep calling it a philosophy) doesn’t seem to point out a scenario in which things could have been different. It offers no mechanism by which I can actually use my free will other than with qualities of mine that God has already pre-determined: my logic, my feelings, my motivations, etc.

And I think that, deep down, you implicitly agree that there is no freedom in your philosophy, at least not in the modal sense of “things could have been different”. You say that sin is necessary to Christian philosophy, and yet sin isn’t necessary in the modal sense. Are you suggesting that God didn’t create humans with the goal of them adopting Christian philosophy already in mind? That he didn’t have the goal of sacrificing his son on the cross from the outset? If not, he intended sin to take place from the start.

But of course you won’t come out and say that, because that would require quite a lot of cognitive dissonance. That’s why you use an obscure definition of “freedom” to make it seem more palatable.

Editorializing.

 

[davidv]

Good Morning Amandil: Sin is a concept, not a thing. It is an idea that conveys a quality to an act or a thought, and without someone to conceptualize and incorporate it into the thought process, sin does not exist. We were not tricked into sin by a serpent, and of course we know that’s not the case. We simply created it. And as is the case with most concepts, it is referential and codependent on its opposite. Good is only known in relation to evil, and evil is only known in relation to good. The same is the case for all points in between. Sin is an abstract of the human mind, and its original meaning in the Greek form is simply to be out of alignment with proper natural order. Later translations of the Bible into other languages had no direct equivalent to the Greek word, and hence the notion of sin being badness and requiring punishment was introduced into the collective Christian psyche. Which means that the traditional Christian notion of sin is only an analog of the original notion in the original translations, and both iterations are again simply mental markers or labels. We created both, and whatever set the cosmos in motion clearly has no concept of such a thing. Because without “bad” things, such as stars exploding and planets colliding, there would be no “good things” such as a bike ride in the park. The former made the latter possible, and they are simply necessary parts of the whole.

Thank you,
Gary

So, if someone robs you at gun point, a sin, this is just a concept? An illusion?

 

[rinnie]

This is one of the things that gives you the illusion of “freedom” in your worldview. You claim that there is more to humans than our genetics, our minds, our reasoning, our feelings, our beliefs, our personalities, our biases, our motivations, etc. What else is left? The remainder is so nebulous that you can’t even seem to put your finger on it. You just call it “free will” and leave it at that.

Beyond this aspect of humanity that you seem to have invented out of thin air, God clearly would have had to determine everything else by the chain of necessities that I don’t think you’ve satisfactorily addressed. The theology of Christian philosophy (and yes, I will keep calling it a philosophy) doesn’t seem to point out a scenario in which things could have been different. It offers no mechanism by which I can actually use my free will other than with qualities of mine that God has already pre-determined: my logic, my feelings, my motivations, etc.

And I think that, deep down, you implicitly agree that there is no freedom in your philosophy, at least not in the modal sense of “things could have been different”. You say that sin is necessary to Christian philosophy, and yet sin isn’t necessary in the modal sense. Are you suggesting that God didn’t create humans with the goal of them adopting Christian philosophy already in mind? That he didn’t have the goal of sacrificing his son on the cross from the outset? If not, he intended sin to take place from the start.

But of course you won’t come out and say that, because that would require quite a lot of cognitive dissonance. That’s why you use an obscure definition of “freedom” to make it seem more palatable.

Huh? You make no sense. Rather or not God knew how things were going to end up has nothing to do with how they end up.

You are saying things could not have been different? Sin had nothing to do with God.

If Adam and Eve choose not to sin we would all still be in paradise with God and there would be no sin, no death or no suffering.

If Sin never entered the world by mans own free will, then Jesus would not have had to die. Why would he, what would be the purpose.

Christ came to pay for our sin, because we choose it. He came to pay the price because we could not.

You seem to be arguing with yourself here. Because Adam and Eve used free will to disobey God, and God knew the outcome, he took the free will off of them, because he knows all. So then in your eyes they had no free will. Again you are talking in circles.

Let me make this simple. God gives you free will to accept him or reject him. Its your choice. Just because he gives you the knowledge to do right or wrong, in no way means you have to CHOOSE right or wrong.

You seem to be saying that a person can’t rob a bank if they know it is wrong. Yes they can!! It happens everyday.

Adam and Eve were told DON"T eat from the tree or you will die. That’s pretty simple. The devil said disobey GOd and do it. Eve said we were told not to. So she disobeyed God. She had the free will to obey God and continue to live in paradise, or disobey God and be thrown out. She chose to disobey. Its as simple as that.

You need to read the first book of the bible. Sin is not necessary. No one must sin, we are told not to sin. But because Man is selfish they do sin. But we don’t have to.

We are all called to be Saints, and it is possible. If we choose it.

 

[Oreoracle]

If Adam and Eve choose not to sin we would all still be in paradise with God and there would be no sin, no death or no suffering.

But God knew before he created them that they would sin. He deliberately created something that he knew would sin. To argue that God isn’t responsible for sin would require you to pass the buck onto people that were already pre-determined to behave that way.

This is where Amandil and I disagree: Amandil uses a perverted definition of “freedom” that allows for such arguments to be made. But as Amandil noted in another post (quite ironically), you can argue anything if you insist that white is black. Likewise, you can avoid the problems associated with free will if you use a nebulous definition of “freedom” as Amandil does.

The bottom line is that if you’re okay with calling pre-determined choices “free” then we simply can’t agree. As I’ve said multiple times now, to say that a choice is free is a modal claim; it means the choice could have been made differently. But if God knew what would be chosen, then it can’t have happened differently without contradicting God’s knowledge. If God knows what brand of cereal I’ll eat tomorrow, you can’t argue that my choice of cereal is free.

 

[Amandil]

But God knew before he created them that they would sin. He deliberately created something that he knew would sin. To argue that God isn’t responsible for sin would require you to pass the buck onto people that were already pre-determined to behave that way.

You keep using terms in the past tense like “before he created them” which simply do not identify with how God experiences reality.

This is why you continue to be confused.

Oreoracle:

This is where Amandil and I disagree: Amandil uses a perverted definition of “freedom” that allows for such arguments to be made. But as Amandil noted in another post (quite ironically), you can argue anything if you insist that white is black. Likewise, you can avoid the problems associated with free will if you use a nebulous definition of “freedom” as Amandil does.

More editorializing.

Oreoracle:

The bottom line is that if you’re okay with calling pre-determined choices “free” then we simply can’t agree. As I’ve said multiple times now, to say that a choice is free is a modal claim; it means the choice could have been made differently. But if God knew what would be chosen, then it can’t have happened differently without contradicting God’s knowledge. If God knows what brand of cereal I’ll eat tomorrow, you can’t argue that my choice of cereal is free.

God’s knowledge doesn’t determine what cereal you will eat.

Things could have been differently, but they were not, because of the acts of humans who both acted freely according to the good, or who abused their freedom and acted evilly.

And God in His ever-present now sees all free choices of his children as they actually make them, from the beginning to the end of time.

 

[oldcelt]

He knew, He knows, He will know…that’s what omniscience is all about. There is no escaping that reality if one insists that their deity is omniscient.

 

[Aloysium]

But God knew before he created them that they would sin. He deliberately created something that he knew would sin. . . . .

Your comment is a distortion of the mystery of God. God is not responsible for sin. You do not know Jesus. Hence, you are not getting the basics.

I wonder if the issue that you are connecting to is a deeper truth, that has to do with your statement that “God knew before he created them that they would sin.”
Let’s see if this helps.

We cannot just make up our own reality. We have to look at what has been revealed.

Consider first:

John 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

and, (speaking of evil and those who follow him.)

Rev 13:8 8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

The Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world.

Now: If there is any way to just sit quietly. Know that you are thinking and reading. If you are not in pain, recall what it feels like. Things are bad - really and things are good really. This mystery ( meaning absolutely, totally, completely infinitely , superbly, etc AMAZING!!) exists.
What did it take for this, or we creatures to be children of God, capable of love to be?
You did not, you are not bringing yourself into being. He does so.
Again, what did He have to do to makes us all capable of joining Him in paradise?
The answer is in the quote.

God knew from the beginning the sacrifice that He would have to make in bringing such a magnificent being, His children into existence.

If you are troubled still by this, think about who wails at the thought of ultimate perdition, when all one has to do is turn to Jesus, to love itself, who has set us free?

 

[oldcelt]

Your comment is a distortion of the mystery of God. God is not responsible for sin. You do not know Jesus. Hence, you are not getting the basics.

I wonder if the issue that you are connecting to is a deeper truth, that has to do with your statement that “God knew before he created them that they would sin.”
Let’s see if this helps.

We cannot just make up our own reality. We have to look at what has been revealed.

Consider first:

and, (speaking of evil and those who follow him.)

The Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world.

Now: If there is any way to just sit quietly. Know that you are thinking and reading. If you are not in pain, recall what it feels like. Things are bad - really and things are good really. This mystery ( meaning absolutely, totally, completely infinitely , superbly, etc AMAZING!!) exists.
What did it take for this, or we creatures to be children of God, capable of love to be?
You did not, you are not bringing yourself into being. He does so.
Again, what did He have to do to makes us all capable of joining Him in paradise?
The answer is in the quote.

God knew from the beginning the sacrifice that He would have to make in bringing such a magnificent being, His children into existence.

If you are troubled still by this, think about who wails at the thought of ultimate perdition, when all one has to do is turn to Jesus, to love itself, who has set us free?

Revelation is only reliable for those who believe in that reality. So you have created your reality by accepting a particular set of revelations. We are all functioning on some sort of faith when it comes to the unsolved portions of the universe, but none has any claim to being more real than the other.

 

[Oreoracle]

You keep using terms in the past tense like “before he created them” which simply do not identify with how God experiences reality.

Firstly, I’m describing God’s actions the way they do in the Bible. His actions are given a tense. This “ever-present” nonsense is an invention of apologists.

Secondly, as I mentioned before, my argument works without time. My existence is contingent upon God. I am his responsibility. This is a metaphysical problem that holds regardless of chronology.

 

[Amandil]

Firstly, I’m describing God’s actions the way they do in the Bible. His actions are given a tense.

Are you actually trying to argue from the Bible alone?

Oreoracle:

This “ever-present” nonsense is an invention of apologists.

Which “apologists”? Was Aristotle a Catholic apologist?

Oreoracle:

Secondly, as I mentioned before, my argument works without time. My existence is contingent upon God. I am his responsibility. This is a metaphysical problem that holds regardless of chronology.

“God made me do it” makes no more sense in theology than “satan made me do it” in a court of law.

Your BEING is contingent on God, your actions are all your own.

 

[Oreoracle]

Are you actually trying to argue from the Bible alone?

Are you describing God in a way that contradicts the Bible? His actions have a tense. Are you going to dismiss that as symbolic?

Which “apologists”? Was Aristotle a Catholic apologist?

Catholics have cherry-picked things that they like from various philosophers. For example, the philosophies of Aristotle and Plato were at odds with each other at a fundamental level, but both were sufficiently respected that it was expedient to cite them as sources for one’s own philosophy.

However, on this particular point, I don’t recall Aristotle proposing that there is one deity who knows everything outside of time. His solution to determinism can be seen in the way he handled the problem of the future sea battle (“the problem of future contingents”). He proposed that statements about future events simply don’t have definite truth values. Interestingly enough, if this were so, God could not know something that hasn’t occurred yet, because future events are not true; as far as logic is concerned, their status is a mystery. If God did know them, we could argue that their truth value is definite.

I doubt very many Catholics would agree with this view of future events, and this is evidence of my assertion that they cherry-pick.

“God made me do it” makes no more sense in theology than “satan made me do it” in a court of law.

We don’t dismiss it because it doesn’t make sense. There are multiple reasons that we don’t allow those defenses in court, but coherence isn’t one of them. To name a few: 1) Law is concerned primarily with whether or not you did something, not why you did it. 2) There is no way to weigh the likelihood that such a claim is true against other evidence, meaning that we don’t know how much “doubt” this contributes to the case. 3) Having a theology would make the courts partial rather than secular.

Your BEING is contingent on God, your actions are all your own.

But you have not provided an actual mechanism by which I can exercise my free will in a non-deterministic manner. Every tool I could use–that is, every aspect of my personality–falls under the realm of pre-determination. How, for example, do you explain the fact that different people use their free will differently? You can’t attribute it to their personalities, because this would be an admission that our choices are based on pre-determined things. They have the same free will, so why are they making different choices if not because of the pre-determined things?

 

[tonyrey]

He knew, He knows, He will know…that’s what omniscience is all about. There is no escaping that reality if one insists that their deity is omniscient.

The reality is that God knows everything that is knowable but the free choices of non-existent persons are intrinsically unknowable. They are not like the actions of physical objects determined by the laws of nature. They are determined by us and presuppose our existence. Unless we exist nothing can be known about our destiny. That is why it is unreasonable to condemn God for creating those who go to hell. It is like predicting the fates of fictional characters: in other words, begging the question.

 

[tonyrey]

Revelation is only reliable for those who believe in that reality. So you have created your reality by accepting a particular set of revelations. We are all functioning on some sort of faith when it comes to the unsolved portions of the universe, but none has any claim to being more real than the other.

Then you should renounce your faith in deism and become an agnostic!

 

[LoganBice]

Look at it this way. Cold does not exist on its own. Cold is the absent of heat.

Evil does not exist on its own. Evil is the absent of goodness. Evil is the lack of something.

 

[Oreoracle]

Then you should renounce your faith in deism and become an agnostic!

No, because he is admitting that it is faith. The problem with Catholics is that they want to have their cake and eat it too. The Catechism says that “God can be known with certainty through the light of reason” but then says that faith is necessary. If we can know God exists with certainty, what’s the point of faith? Faith is, by definition, to believe in something in spite of the lack of evidence. It is impossible to have faith in something that one knows to be true.