God created evil

[oldcelt]

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?

If a manufacturer knows that he has a faulty product, he doesn’t continue making that product, does he? No, he corrects it. Now, this is a human who lacks omniscience, and he knows enough to correct a faulty product. God, according to the Christian model, has the option of knowing the flaws in advance and not producing the product until it is fixed. What does he do?
Rather than remove the evil he created he gives it a certain time to roam free tempting and attacking another part of his creation. Then he sends his son to the Middle East to offer a New Deal. If you believe that My Son died for you and you don’t do this and this and this, I’ll forgive you for My faulty creation.
Remember, He only sent his Son to the Middle East. To an area about 30 miles by 15 miles in size. I guess the majority of the human population wasn’t worthy of a personal appearance. Two thousand years later there are still people who have not heard about the new way of doing things. Love and Mercy?

 

[oldcelt]

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?

Why does God create in the first place? I was taught so that he would have beings to love Him. But, he wanted that love to be voluntary so he created free will. Sounds okay except that he had already created the angels, one of which had attempted to overthrow him in the process committing the first sin. God defeats Satan and throws him to the earth, along with 1/3 of the other angels.
That’s right…God threw evil right into the place where man would be created. He didn’t destroy Satan…or properly imprison him. God mixed Satan and man together even though his omniscience would have shown the result clearly.

The remote God, on the other hand, has no direct involvement with creation. So, which God s doing it for sport? The one who created ever angel, demon and human being directly, or the one who just let things happen? The one that people say has a plan for our lives, or the one who is just observing?

The Deist God, assuming he exists, did not create Delaney, did not create leukemia, and does not interfere in the workings of man for better or worse.

 

[Amandil]

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.

But that’s not what you said:

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

You seem to be asserting that they are two different “gods”. This is Marcionism.

The Church has been consistently clear that the God of the Old Testament is the same loving Father revealed by Christ in the New.

 

[oldcelt]

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

Lewis is trying very hard to give God an out, but he fails miserably because he does not deal with omniscience properly. In the final paragraph he acknowledges that God knew what the humans would do with free will, but thought it worth the risk. Wait a second C. S. , there was no risk…an omniscient God would have known precisely what was going to happen long before it happened.

Lewis says it…God created humans to love him, so he gives them free will. Of course, He also created evil and knew the outcome. So, the Christian God created the vast majority of humanity to be condemned, just so He could have a few to love Him.

I have to say that if I had to go into court, I would not want C. S. Lewis to represent me.

John

 

[Amandil]

Why does God create in the first place? I was taught so that he would have beings to love Him. But, he wanted that love to be voluntary so he created free will. Sounds okay except that he had already created the angels, one of which had attempted to overthrow him in the process committing the first sin. God defeats Satan and throws him to the earth, along with 1/3 of the other angels.
That’s right…God threw evil right into the place where man would be created. He didn’t destroy Satan…or properly imprison him. God mixed Satan and man together even though his omniscience would have shown the result clearly.

You misunderstand. God did not “throw him to the earth along with 1/3 of the other angels.” They were expelled into hell, not the earth.

Satan somehow managed to get to earth.

Either way, as it is with omniscience, to see or know that someone is going to do a thing is still not to make them do it.

The fact that God does not “destroy” Satan is still further proof of His love for His creation, even those creatures who act the most deplorably.

The remote God, on the other hand, has no direct involvement with creation. So, which God s doing it for sport? The one who created ever angel, demon and human being directly, or the one who just let things happen? The one that people say has a plan for our lives, or the one who is just observing?

The problem is that with this view you haven’t actually answered the problem of evil, you have only removed the source of any real goodness.

Therefore you have to accept all evil on equal terms, not as something that has gone wrong or which is a privation of the good, but as something that is coequal with “good”.

The Deist God, assuming he exists, did not create Delaney, did not create leukemia, and does not interfere in the workings of man for better or worse.

Then the Deist “god” is no god at all but a human construct, because “God” properly speaking is not limited by anything outside of Himself.

It is also a love-less deity. And if it is such a deity then there is no real reason for you to exist at all. Such a deity should have been content with it’s own infinite superabunance within itself that to create anything outside of itself would be unnecessary.

But you do exist. We all do. Therefore the deist god is not the true God.

But there still remains the problem of evil.

I suggest you read how St. Augustine treated with the problem of evil in his work “Grace and Free Will.”

 

[Amandil]

Lewis is trying very hard to give God an out, but he fails miserably because he does not deal with omniscience properly. In the final paragraph he acknowledges that God knew what the humans would do with free will, but thought it worth the risk. Wait a second C. S. , there was no risk…an omniscient God would have known precisely what was going to happen long before it happened.

Again, you misunderstand omniscience. It’s your premise which is faulty.

Lewis says it…God created humans to love him, so he gives them free will. Of course, He also created evil and knew the outcome. So, the Christian God created the vast majority of humanity to be condemned, just so He could have a few to love Him.

I have to say that if I had to go into court, I would not want C. S. Lewis to represent me.

John

God did not “create” evil. Evil comes specifically from His creatures free choice not to love Him and His creation as He does. To reject the Supreme Reality in favor of unreality.

Secondly, God offers salvation to all humanity. He still leaves it up to human free will to choose to accept that salvation or reject it. He predestines no one for hell.

Again, its your premise which is faulty, not God.

 

[meltzerboy]

Lewis is trying very hard to give God an out, but he fails miserably because he does not deal with omniscience properly. In the final paragraph he acknowledges that God knew what the humans would do with free will, but thought it worth the risk. Wait a second C. S. , there was no risk…an omniscient God would have known precisely what was going to happen long before it happened.

Lewis says it…God created humans to love him, so he gives them free will. Of course, He also created evil and knew the outcome. So, the Christian God created the vast majority of humanity to be condemned, just so He could have a few to love Him.

I have to say that if I had to go into court, I would not want C. S. Lewis to represent me.

John

Does Christianity really teach that G-d created mankind to love and worship Him as the angels do? I thought Christianity believes that G-d created mankind, and all of creation, because of His love for us.

 

[oldcelt]

Again, you misunderstand omniscience. It’s your premise which is faulty.

God did not “create” evil. Evil comes specifically from His creatures free choice not to love Him and His creation as He does. To reject the Supreme Reality in favor of unreality.

Secondly, God offers salvation to all humanity. He still leaves it up to human free will to choose to accept that salvation or reject it. He predestines no one for hell.

Again, its your premise which is faulty, not God.

We have been through all these arguments before…omniscience = knowing everything about everything. God offered salvation from problems that were his to begin with…you see? You can no more prove that my premise is faulty than I can prove that yours is. Offering readings that one would expect to defend a case as evidence is not proof of anything.

I have have pointed out the inconsistencies and irrationality of the Christian version. Whether anyone considers them is not the point…this is a philosophy forum.

 

[oldcelt]

Does Christianity really teach that G-d created mankind to love and worship Him as the angels do? I thought Christianity believes that G-d created mankind, and all of creation, because of His love for us.

That is how I was taught meltzer, but I was also taught about Limbo, so who knows?
God created us out of love of us? I have an opinion on that, but I don’t think I’ll share it.

John

 

[meltzerboy]

That is how I was taught meltzer, but I was also taught about Limbo, so who knows?
God created us out of love of us? I have an opinion on that, but I don’t think I’ll share it.

John

No, better not to share that one!

 

[Amandil]

We have been through all these arguments before…omniscience = knowing everything about everything. God offered salvation from problems that were his to begin with…you see? You can no more prove that my premise is faulty than I can prove that yours is. Offering readings that one would expect to defend a case as evidence is not proof of anything.

I have have pointed out the inconsistencies and irrationality of the Christian version. Whether anyone considers them is not the point…this is a philosophy forum.

Paradoxes are not “inconsistencies and irrationality”. You are mistakenly looking at it from a temporal cause-effect perspective rather from the perspective of eternity.

As I already said, to know that someone is going to do a thing is not to make them do it.

But your premise is precisely the opposite. Its a “post hoc” fallacy. It also begs the question.

 

[fhansen]

Does Christianity really teach that G-d created mankind to love and worship Him as the angels do? I thought Christianity believes that G-d created mankind, and all of creation, because of His love for us.

It’s not either/or, but both/and, because love is what Christianity is all about; it’s the only thing, once understood, that could make eternal life worth living; it’s the very nature of God, the source of ineffable happiness, that which gives worth to all things, as Teresa of Avila put it. Its what defines justice and order and harmony and wholeness for man-or the source of those in any case. Love’s not just what God wants from us; its what He wants for us. Its the one basic reality that is absolutely indispensable. And if a Catholic taught that this was-or even could be-a one-way street, then they didn’t know the first thing about the faith they were “teaching”-of the nature and will of God. The rejection of love is the cause-and chief attribute-of hell.

 

[oldcelt]

Paradoxes are not “inconsistencies and irrationality”. You are mistakenly looking at it from a temporal cause-effect perspective rather from the perspective of eternity.

As I already said, to know that someone is going to do a thing is not to make them do it.

But your premise is precisely the opposite. Its a “post hoc” fallacy. It also begs the question.

My view of the universe relates as directly to eternity as any other. As humans, considering eternity and infinity generally cause our heads to ache. At present, they are both beyond our ability to adequately explain.

If you know someone is going to commit a crime, and you do nothing about it, you may not have made them do it, but you would be looked at as an accessory before the fact. I don’t know why that came up since I believe in a non-interventionist God.

Since I don’t believe that God intervenes in the affairs of man, how can I be guilty of a post hoc? I can’t. Something to remember…post hoc and other fallacies relate to the interaction of humans. It is quite different if one of the parties involved is all-knowing, all-powerful and present everywhere at the exact same moment. Quite a difference,

 

[JamesATyler]

At the end of the day, I just think it is an advocation to punish the sinner before he sins. God doesn’t do this. God punishes after the sin is committed. It’s a classic example of putting the cart before the horse.

 

[fhansen]

If you know someone is going to commit a crime, and you do nothing about it, you may not have made them do it, but you would be looked at as an accessory before the fact. I don’t know why that came up since I believe in a non-interventionist God.

Either God’s too powerless or too ignorant to intervene, or He values our freedom enough to have given it us to-and allowed us to keep it-and free will doesn’t really work any other way. It’s not that creation is “worth the risk”; its that creation-this world- is worth it, in the end, and I agree with this rather than pondering about how it could’ve or should’ve been better yet.

 

[oldcelt]

At the end of the day, I just think it is an advocation to punish the sinner before he sins. God doesn’t do this. God punishes after the sin is committed. It’s a classic example of putting the cart before the horse.

Like I’ve said, I don’t believe God does either, but, when the sin involves the death of an innocent, I wish He would.

 

[oldcelt]

Either God’s too powerless or too ignorant to intervene, or He values our freedom enough to have given it us to-and allowed us to keep it-and free will doesn’t really work any other way. It’s not that creation is “worth the risk”; its that creation-this world- is worth it, in the end, and I agree with this rather than pondering about how it could’ve or should’ve been better yet.

Some people see things as they are and say why. I dream dreams that never were and say, Why Not?—RFK

 

[fhansen]

Some people see things as they are and say why. I dream dreams that never were and say, Why Not?—RFK

Its not that I don’t ask the question-it’s an obvious one. Its that I trust that God will bring an indescribable good out of it all in the end-so that even this messed up world is worth the creating. We’re allowed to be-we’re* meant* to be- God’s hands in this world, and unless we’re doing everything in our own power to right wrongs, to bring about justice, then I doubt we honestly care enough to worthily sit in judgement of God or anyone else for not doing all they could.

 

[Amandil]

My view of the universe relates as directly to eternity as any other. As humans, considering eternity and infinity generally cause our heads to ache. At present, they are both beyond our ability to adequately explain.

Which begs the question, how do you know?

If you know someone is going to commit a crime, and you do nothing about it, you may not have made them do it, but you would be looked at as an accessory before the fact. I don’t know why that came up since I believe in a non-interventionist God.

Imposing positive law theory upon the divine order is absurd. The fact remains that the person has the ability to exercise his free will in accord with the good. For him to act contrary to this necessity is, despite God’s foreknowledge, entirely the fault of the person committing the immoral act, not God.

You’re simply assuming a lot of things which are utterly fallacious.

Since I don’t believe that God intervenes in the affairs of man, how can I be guilty of a post hoc? I can’t. Something to remember…post hoc and other fallacies relate to the interaction of humans. It is quite different if one of the parties involved is all-knowing, all-powerful and present everywhere at the exact same moment. Quite a difference,

So then you’re merely assuming your conclusion and arguing in a circle.

Either way, your premise is still faulty.

 

[oldcelt]

Which begs the question, how do you know?

Imposing positive law theory upon the divine order is absurd. The fact remains that the person has the ability to exercise his free will in accord with the good. For him to act contrary to this necessity is, despite God’s foreknowledge, entirely the fault of the person committing the immoral act, not God.

You’re simply assuming a lot of things which are utterly fallacious.

So then you’re merely assuming your conclusion and arguing in a circle.

Either way, your premise is still faulty.

How do I know? I don’t and neither do you. The best that each of us can do is to look at the available evidence and make a decision.

Why is it absurd to say that the Christian God has been an accessory before the fact on countless murders? A human certainly would be, and for you to say that my argument is fallacious is what is absurd. This is a philosophy forum in case you hadn’t noticed. On any forum that required verifiable fact, every argument that has been presented, including yours and mine, would be tossed.

When looking at the question of God, one is forced to take a position if you are going to discuss. My is a hands-off and remote God. You tried to demonstrate your knowledge by throwing in a term that does not apply to a human-deity interaction and then tried to call my response circular. Please.

My premise is fallacious? But yours is dead on accurate I’ll bet. By the way, which premise? I have presented a number of them on a variety of issues related to the subject…

Truly, if you can’t accept the fact that everyone in a thread like this will be arguing from the theoretical, then maybe you would feel more comfortable in a thread on theology or the Catechism. There, everything is written down and i is provable whether something.is the belief of a particular sect.