God created evil

[Gary_Sheldrake]

From:

PRmergerEgg-zactly! My point is that you do believe that some people are wrong. And that you are right.

That’s what it means when you say, “I don’t agree with or believe in [what someone else believes in]”

Good Evening PR: When I say that I don’t believe in the same thing another person believes, I don’t personally look at it as being a matter of who is right and who is wrong. I am simply viewing things through a different aperture and offering to share the view I have through that particular lens.

There are many ways to protest someone’s wrong ideations.

To protest the actions of another is to attempt to foist our own ideas on them. By quietly demonstrating another approach, we are simply offering an alternative for others to consider. In the case of the late Rev Phelps, our approach was to demonstrate resolute kindness. It was something he was free to consider and free to miss the point on completely.

It appears to me that you have some things a bit backwards.

If you and I were talking face to face, right and left would be completely a matter of perspective. Likewise if I draw a line around a sphere, where is forward and where is backward? Is it relative to the where I started or the way I didn’t? Is it relative to the way we think, or is it relative to the way things are?

You appear, in pridian posts, to be saying, “There is no right or wrong belief” and then you also appear to be saying, “There is a right way to intervene (i.e: to “quietly intervene” rather than “preaching”)”

Actually I said that intervening through setting an example through my own behavior is my way of doing things. I never offered that my way is the right way or the wrong way. I simply said it was my way.

So your position seems to be: no right or wrong morals, but yet I get to say there is a right and wrong way to handle differences.

I said that I have a way of approaching differences and you have another way. They are different ways, but I never offered an opinion on which was right or which was wrong. I have tried both your way and my way. The way I settled with suits me best.

My position is: there are indeed right and wrong morals, but there’s lots of different ways to handle these differences.

Right needs wrong and wrong needs right. This is simply an existential imperative as far as I am able to reason. All things are known in comparison to their opposite, and together make each other possible as well as all things in between. My morals are probably roughly the same as yours. My reasons for having them I expect are profoundly different.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[PRmerger]

Good Evening PR: When I say that I don’t believe in the same thing another person believes, I don’t personally look at it as being a matter of who is right and who is wrong. I am simply viewing things through a different aperture and offering to share the view I have through that particular lens.

And that’s what I find so curious about your paradigm.

Here you seem to be saying, “I just see things differently from the WBC. My way is no better and no worse than the Phelps’ morality”.

But then you are telling me, “It’s better to act in a way that we quietly intervene, rather than your way of ‘preaching’, which is ineffectual.”

Your way is better than my way.

That’s what you told me. Right here.

And right here:

To protest the actions of another is to attempt to foist our own ideas on them. By quietly demonstrating another approach, we are simply offering an alternative for others to consider. In the case of the late Rev Phelps, our approach was to demonstrate resolute kindness. It was something he was free to consider and free to miss the point on completely.

It would appear that what’s worse to you than actually* believing* and professing that God hates homosexuals is* telling *someone that he’s wrong about God hating homosexuals.

 

[PRmerger]

Right needs wrong and wrong needs right. This is simply an existential imperative as far as I am able to reason. All things are known in comparison to their opposite, and together make each other possible as well as all things in between.

Very Catholic, this!

We are agreed!

My morals are probably roughly the same as yours. My reasons for having them I expect are profoundly different.

Perhaps you could share what you believe my reasons are for having my morals–say, what do you believe are my reasons for believing that the WBC is professing a vile message?

 

[PRmerger]

Are you now agreeing to what I’ve said? Are you saying, in effect: ‘Yes, I agree with you, but what is the alternative?’

I am agreeing with your hypothetical that a manufacturer of chainsaws is guilty if he gives a chainsaw to someone he knows will kill someone.

However, your hypothetical doesn’t translate to God being guilty of creating evil because there is no translation. There is no way to envision a world in which we don’t have free will…at least as you could describe when I asked.

 

[PRmerger]

But there is a price to pay. If He wants us to have it then He has to accept some responsibility for the choices we make. Well, in reality it means that some people like me are going to say:

‘If there is a God and He has given us free will and He knows what choices we make, then it is undeniably true that He must accept some responsibility for the results of those choices’.

I doubt is anyone is going to push back their chair, gaze thoughtfully into the distance and think: Hmmm, maybe Bradski’s got something here. But I’m gad I got that in before the thread closed.

Accepting responsibility means that one owes another party some sort of acknowledgement/payment/reimbursement…

That is…

some…

redemption.

I think God has done that very thing, don’t you think?

 

[Bradski]

Accepting responsibility means that one owes another party some sort of acknowledgement/payment/reimbursement…

That is…

some…

redemption.

I think God has done that very thing, don’t you think?

We’ve done evil. That has been the whole point of the discussion. If we do evil and God knows that we do evil, then He must take some responsibility for that evil. If you say yes and He owes us something in return, then I’m good with that.

However, it has always been stated that God knows/did know/would know (whatever) that evil has been done because the person doing it has ended up in hell.

God knows/did know/would know that there’s no redemption for the person who committed the evil act and so we end with a conundrum: God has no way of acknowledging His responsibility to that person.

‘Hey, get me out of here!’.
‘Sorry, I can’t do that’.
‘But you said you were partly responsible!’
‘Yes…fair point…I’ll grant you that. But I’m afraid you were always going to end up down there so there’s nothing I can do’.

 

[Amandil]

God bears no “responsibility” for the free acts of His creatures because their(your) free acts are in fact and by definition voluntary.

 

[Bradski]

God bears no “responsibility” for the free acts of His creatures because their(your) free acts are in fact and by definition voluntary.

Way to go, Amandil. Just like the last couple of hundred posts never existed…

 

[Amandil]

Way to go, Amandil. Just like the last couple of hundred posts never existed…

I’ve heard imitation is the best form of flattery.

 

[Amandil]

---

 

[PRmerger]

We’ve done evil. That has been the whole point of the discussion. If we do evil and God knows that we do evil, then He must take some responsibility for that evil. If you say yes and He owes us something in return, then I’m good with that.

Sure. God “owes” us in a very primitive sense.

However, it has always been stated that God knows/did know/would know (whatever) that evil has been done because the person doing it has ended up in hell.

Right.

God knows/did know/would know that there’s no redemption for the person who committed the evil act and so we end with a conundrum: God has no way of acknowledging His responsibility to that person.

God gave us a means for redemption.

That we don’t take it, is not His responsibility.

‘Hey, get me out of here!’.
‘Sorry, I can’t do that’.
‘But you said you were partly responsible!’
‘Yes…fair point…I’ll grant you that. But I’m afraid you were always going to end up down there so there’s nothing I can do’.

Actually, it’s more like:

“Hey, get me out of here!”
"Here’s a rope, luv!
“Don’t want it. I wanted a ladder.”
"sigh!

 

[Bradski]

Sure. God “owes” us in a very primitive sense.

Mmm. Didn’t sound too God that God ‘owed us’ in the first instance. Changing it to ‘in a very primitive sense’ doesn’t really solve the problem of God ‘owing us’ because He accepts some of the responsibility for evil having been done.

God gave us a means for redemption. That we don’t take it, is not His responsibility.

Which has never been a problem. The fact of free will, to which everyone has agreed, allows for this.

This is my version of the outcome:

‘Hey, get me out of here!’
‘Sorry, I can’t do that’.

Very Catholic that.

1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire."617 The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

This is your version:

“Hey, get me out of here!”
"Here’s a rope, luv!

Not very Catholic at all.

There’s a thread going on now that discusses whether what you have described can actually happen. Whatever the outcome of that, whether God gives you a suspended sentence, day release of quashes the sentence completely, it seems to have been accepted that God, offering redemption as a quid pro quo, does indeed accept some responsibility for evil.

Whether He would put it in such terms is another matter.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

From PRmerger:

And that’s what I find so curious about your paradigm.

What other sort of paradigm could a curious person have?

Here you seem to be saying, “I just see things differently from the WBC. My way is no better and no worse than the Phelps’ morality”.

It depends on your view. For the late Rev Phelps, his view is clearly better. And you could lock him in a room for years with a loud speaker that repeated your position with endless logic and he would probably never change his mind. His place is his place. Mine is mine.

But then you are telling me, “It’s better to act in a way that we quietly intervene, rather than your way of ‘preaching’, which is ineffectual.”

I simply said that my way was to quietly intervene. I never said it was a better way, although people often seem to learn more from role models than preachers.

Your way is better than my way.

Your way is your way PR. I don’t have a problem with your way. We each have a place you know.

That’s what you told me. Right here.

I read it again and we are seeing two different things.

It would appear that what’s worse to you than actually* believing* and professing that God hates homosexuals is* telling *someone that he’s wrong about God hating homosexuals.

Of course not. Hate is a self made hell like any other hell. And you know that I believe that the only real hell is the one inside of people. Same goes for heaven. And I think most people know that very well. Deep inside they do. They are just hoping that it’s a place of some sort that you get snatched up to if you’re good. The Kingdom of God is not here or there, but inside you. If you fail to develop it and reveal it, well there’s hell.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Very Catholic, this!

Perhaps you could share what you believe my reasons are for having my morals–say, what do you believe are my reasons for believing that the WBC is professing a vile message?

Your reasons are usually different than mine. Mine is simply that it makes sense no to hate people. It’s not from a moral point of view. I don’t like ideas like inherent good or inherent bad. Good and Bad are sisters from different misters. They go hand in hand.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Amandil]

Your reasons are usually different than mine. Mine is simply that it makes sense no to hate people. It’s not from a moral point of view.

I’m rather certain that the Church teaches that love is a moral imperative, not merely a subjective preference based upon what “makes sense”.

And to other people hating others makes much sense, even to the point of murder.

Your personal preference, without the true and objective moral imperative, would have no real foundation to that what “makes sense” to them is in fact immoral.

I don’t like ideas like inherent good or inherent bad.

Yet again you espouse beliefs contrary to the teachings of the Church.

Good and Bad are sisters from different misters. They go hand in hand.

Thank you,
Gary

Not only yet another belief contrary to Church teaching but a self-contradictory statement as well.

If this assertion is true then there is no possible way you can call anything “good” or “evil”.

IOW, there’s no way that you can assert that it is good(or in your terminology that it “makes sense”) not to hate people but instead you must accept that it rather makes just as much sense to hate people as it does to love them.

Instead you are saying that to love or to hate someone really makes no difference at all, since to “love”(that is to desire someone’s highest good) or to hate(to desire someone’s worst evil) according to you go “hand in hand”.

Isaiah 5:4.[20] Woe to those who call evil good and good evil,
who put darkness for light and light for darkness…

 

[PRmerger]

Mmm. Didn’t sound too God that God ‘owed us’ in the first instance. Changing it to ‘in a very primitive sense’ doesn’t really solve the problem of God ‘owing us’ because He accepts some of the responsibility for evil having been done.

It ought not be taken literally, which is why I said, “in a primitive sense”.

If God owes anyone, then, by definition he is not God, eh?

That would mean that there is a higher authority to which this Perfect Being is subject to…

and that means that he is not God.

I used “owes” in the sense that He saw how we messed things up, and being the only Being that could fix it, He did.

 

[PRmerger]

Which has never been a problem. The fact of free will, to which everyone has agreed, allows for this.

This is my version of the outcome:

‘Hey, get me out of here!’
‘Sorry, I can’t do that’.

Very Catholic that.

1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire."617 The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

This is your version:

“Hey, get me out of here!”
"Here’s a rope, luv!

Not very Catholic at all.

Ah. You should have clarified the terms of your analogy.

I looked at the pit as being “sin”.

You made the pit be “hell”.

God did indeed send us a rope to get us out of the pit of sin.

But it’s true that once we make the choice to reject the rope, then we are in the pit of hell for eternity.

 

[Bradski]

Accepting responsibility means that one owes another party some sort of acknowledgement/payment/reimbursement…

So if God knows we are going to sin, He gives us, as you said, the opportunity for redemption. If we make a free will choice to commit sin, then we can make a free will choice to accept God’s redemption. But…

But it’s true that once we make the choice to reject the rope, then we are in the pit of hell for eternity.

So we’re back where we started. God has to take some responsibility for the sins we do, yet in some cases where the person ends up in hell, there is no way for Him to do it.

He creates people knowing that they will commit evil, knowing that people will suffer and knowing that the sinner will spend eternity in hell. We’re back to the chainsaw example. We appreciate that the person who knows in advance that what he is creating will be used for evil must bear some responsibility.

Strangely enough, the person in this case has an option to forgive the one committing the evil act. The people who are sinned against have that option as well. The father of the massacred family can tell the murderer that he forgives him. We all can. Except that God can’t…

God cannot forgive Him because he is already in Hell. He cannot offer forgiveness to all those he has created who are in hell. We have reached a point where we have discovered that there is something God cannot do.

 

[PRmerger]

So if God knows we are going to sin, He gives us, as you said, the opportunity for redemption. If we make a free will choice to commit sin, then we can make a free will choice to accept God’s redemption.

Yep.

So we’re back where we started. God has to take some responsibility for the sins we do, yet in some cases where the person ends up in hell, there is no way for Him to do it.

Wait…what?

You have acknowledged that God did indeed take “responsibility” for our mess up, but now your beef is because hell is for an eternity?

That’s a different question, and one that is being argued on a different thread.

Point that has been made and accepted though is of great import: God tried to make things right when evil happened.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

From Amandil:

I’m rather certain that the Church teaches that love is a moral imperative, not merely a subjective preference based upon what “makes sense”.

Good Evening Amandil: I do not think that a thing like love can be reduced to terms like “moral imperative.” You can’t mandate it or force it.

And to other people hating others makes much sense, even to the point of murder.

How is it that you have reasoned that it makes sense to hate and murder people?

Your personal preference, without the true and objective moral imperative, would have no real foundation to that what “makes sense” to them is in fact immoral.

My personal preferences are entirely up to me, and my reasoning is easy to understand. It’s really quite simple. It feels good to love other creatures and it feels good to be loved in return. Therefore, it makes sense to love. You don’t need a moral imperative as you call it, or dogma, or a commandment to see the truth in what I have said. And I would suggest that people who need imperatives, dogma, commandments and theology about love, are missing the point. You don’t need churches, beads, books and theologians to love anymore than you needed any formal education or instruction on how to make your heart to beat or your thyroid gland to work. Do you understand what I am telling you?

Yet again you espouse beliefs contrary to the teachings of the Church.

I disagree. I think you are trying to follow a set of rules and ideas for he sake of passing some sort of existential test. In doing so, I think you are missing the most primary of what the Church teaches.

Not only yet another belief contrary to Church teaching but a self-contradictory statement as well.

I am inviting you to explain how anything I have said is self contradictory.

If this assertion is true then there is no possible way you can call anything “good” or “evil”.

Sure you can. You just can’t know one without knowing the other. Because they are concepts.

IOW, there’s no way that you can assert that it is good(or in your terminology that it “makes sense”) not to hate people but instead you must accept that it rather makes just as much sense to hate people as it does to love them.

I have explained why it makes sense to love. I have not offered ideas on why it makes sense to hate.

Instead you are saying that to love or to hate someone really makes no difference at all, since to “love”(that is to desire someone’s highest good) or to hate(to desire someone’s worst evil) according to you go “hand in hand”.

I never said anything of the sort. You are viewing what I said through a very limited contextual lens. That everything walks hand and hand with it’s opposite is a simple observation anyone can make. There is no peak of a wave without a corresponding trough. No front side without a backside. No up without down, No here without there. No thing without nothing. And so it goes. We all know is very well, don’t we? So why is this hard to comprehend?

Isaiah 5:4.[20] Woe to those who call evil good and good evil,
who put darkness for light and light for darkness.

Thank you for the condemnation, however, it doesn’t apply to anything I said. Good and evil are simply two sides f the same coin. You also know this very well. If you could stop rattling off dull interpretations of scripture for a minute you may just see the real world around you. That’s where God is. Not in this book. Not in that teaching. Not in this dogma. Not in that imperative. Rather God is here as well as there, and all around you. If you look, God is not hard to find. But you need to look. Be careful not to walk past the destination by being too occupied with reading the map.

Thank you,
Gary