God created evil

[oldcelt]

Not being bound by time and existing outside of time (which is what I hear frequently here) are two different concepts. My apologies if I misunderstood your description. I wrongly assumed that you were saying he exists out of time, which means that He could not be here with us in time.

However, that does not mean that the Christian God does not know that one of His creations will be evil. If He doesn’t know, He is not omniscient.

324 The fact that God permits physical and even moral evil is a mystery that God illuminates by his Son Jesus Christ who died and rose to vanquish evil. Faith gives us the certainty that God would not permit an evil if he did not cause a good to come from that very evil, by ways that we shall fully know only in eternal life.

Even the Church falls back on the old mystery non-answer. I continue to contend that an omniscient, omnipresent deity who creates something knows every act that creation will commit. Or has Catholic teaching on that point changed?

 

[oldcelt]

By the same knowledge of vision,** God also foresees the future free acts of the rational creatures with infallible certainty**. As taught by the Church, “All things are naked and open to His eyes, even those things that will happen through the free actions of creatures” (Denzinger 3003). The future free actions foreseen by God follow infallibly not because God substitutes his will for the free wills of his creatures but because he does not interfere with the freedom that he foresees creatures will exercise. (Etym. Latin omnis, all + scire, to know.)

catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=35262

 

[PRmerger]

However, that does not mean that the Christian God does not know that one of His creations will be evil. If He doesn’t know, He is not omniscient.

Again, there is no such thing as “will be evil” in God’s mind.

It is all the Eternal Now.

 

[oldcelt]

Again, there is no such thing as “will be evil” in God’s mind.

It is all the Eternal Now.

God also foresees the future free acts of the rational creatures with infallible certainty.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=35262

There seems to be a conflict between your position and the “Modern Catholic Dictionary.” Apparently, the Christian God is quite capable of knowing everything in His Eternal Now. He can also influence events here from his eternal now.

 

[PRmerger]

catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=35262

There seems to be a conflict between your position and the “Modern Catholic Dictionary.”

There is no conflict.

You are creating some sort of weird dichotomy where one need not exist.

Both positions are true.

Apparently, the Christian God is quite capable of knowing everything in His Eternal Now. He can also influence events here from his eternal now.

Exactly!

 

[oldcelt]

There is no conflict.

You are creating some sort of weird dichotomy where one need not exist.

Both positions are true.

Exactly!

You have said that there is no “will be evil” classification with God, yet the Church says that he knows EVERYTHING, including the individual actions of his sentient creations …including evil actions and their condemnation. Call it what you like, the Christian God knows in advance if one of his creations will end up in hell. He created evil.

That is not a “weird” dichotomy, and both cannot be true.
All this conflicts with the view of God as an all-loving father figure, and that seems to bother people on this thread the most.

 

[tonyrey]

You have said that there is no “will be evil” classification with God, yet the Church says that he knows EVERYTHING, including the individual actions of his sentient creations …including evil actions and their condemnation. Call it what you like, the Christian God knows in advance if one of his creations will end up in hell. He created evil.

It is impossible to create evil because evil is not a thing. It is a deficiency permitted by God because the only alternative is not to create anyone.

That is not a “weird” dichotomy, and both cannot be true.
All this conflicts with the view of God as an all-loving father figure, and that seems to bother people on this thread the most.

The only weird dichotomy is appreciating the value of life and denying that God is a loving Father…

 

[oldcelt]

It is impossible to create evil because evil is not a thing. It is a deficiency permitted by God because the only alternative is not to create anyone.

The only weird dichotomy is appreciating the value of life and denying that God is a loving Father…

We are at an impasse on this subject, I think you’ll agree. Remember though, that passage in Isaiah not only translates to evil in the King James Bible it also does so in the Douey-Rheims and several others.
And, you are absolutely correct, I care deeply for life, but the preponderance of evidence, in my my mind, does not point to an all loving father figure, but an immensely powerful creator with largely unknowable attributes.

Sleep well…I’m sure hoping to. A college friend of 39 years visited this weekend with her 5 year-old granddaughter. A sweet, well-behaved child, but my could she talk.

I’m whooped.

 

[PRmerger]

You have said that there is no “will be evil” classification with God, yet the Church says that he knows EVERYTHING, including the individual actions of his sentient creations …including evil actions and their condemnation.

Right.

Call it what you like, the Christian God knows in advance if one of his creations will end up in hell. He created evil.

Nope. There is no “in advance”.

That is not a “weird” dichotomy, and both cannot be true.

Of course both can be true.

That’s like saying, “It cannot both be true that science is an explanation for the world and faith is an explanation for the world.”

You have simply arbitrarily said, “They cannot both be true.”

All this conflicts with the view of God as an all-loving father figure, and that seems to bother people on this thread the most.

That there is evil in the world in no way conflicts with the view of God as an all loving father figure, any more than the fact that you would hold down your child while she receives immunizations conflicts with your being a loving father.

In fact, the fact that you hold your child down tells us that you* are *a loving father.

 

[oldcelt]

PRMerger, Could you please show me where you have determined that there is “in advance?” This just one that I have:

OMNISCIENCE

God’s knowledge of all things. Revelation discloses that the wisdom of God is without measure (Psalm 146:5). **And the Church teaches that his knowledge is infinite.
**
The primary object of divine cognition is God himself, whom he knows immediately, that is, without any medium by which he apprehends his nature. He knows himself through himself.

The secondary objects of divine knowledge are everything else, namely the purely possible, the real, and the conditionally future. He knows all that is merely possible by what is called the knowledge of simple intelligence. This means that, in comprehending his infinite imitability and his omnipotence, God knows therein the whole sphere of the possible.

He knows all real things in the past, present, and the future by his knowledge of vision. When God, in his self-consciousness, beholds his infinite operative power, he knows therein all that he, as the main effective cause actually comprehends, i.e., all reality. The difference between past, present, and future does not exist for the divine knowledge, since for God all is simultaneously present.

By the same knowledge of vision, God also foresees the future free acts of the rational creatures with infallible certainty. ****As taught by the Church, “All things are naked and open to His eyes, even those things that will happen through the free actions of creatures” (Denzinger 3003). The future free actions foreseen by God follow infallibly ****not because God substitutes his will for the free wills of his creatures but because he does not interfere with the freedom that he foresees creatures will exercise. (Etym. Latin omnis, all + scire, to know.)

catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=35262

 

[Amandil]

PR said that there is no “in advance”.

 

[oldcelt]

PR said that there is no “in advance”.

Yes he did, and I asked where he got this notion, Do you have an answer or were you just checking your keyboard?

 

[tonyrey]

We are at an impasse on this subject, I think you’ll agree. Remember though, that passage in Isaiah not only translates to evil in the King James Bible it also does so in the Douey-Rheims and several others.
And, you are absolutely correct, I care deeply for life, but the preponderance of evidence, in my my mind, does not point to an all loving father figure, but an immensely powerful creator with largely unknowable attributes.

Sleep well…I’m sure hoping to. A college friend of 39 years visited this weekend with her 5 year-old granddaughter. A sweet, well-behaved child, but my could she talk.

I’m whooped.

The joy, vitality and exuberance of youth:

15And they were bringing even their babies to Him so that He would touch them, but when the disciples saw it, they began rebuking them. 16But Jesus called for them, saying, “Permit the children to come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 17"Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.”

Luke 18:15-17

Only cynics fail to see that immense power without love is worthless, meaningless and destructive…

 

[PRmerger]

PR said that there is no “in advance”.

Yes he did, and I asked where he got this notion,

Firstly, I am a she, not a he.

Do you have an answer or were you just checking your keyboard?

Amandil was simply clarifying, since you appear to have made a typo.

To wit:

PRMerger, Could you please show me where you have determined that there is “in advance?” This just one that I have:

Did you inadvertently omit the word “no”?

It would appear that your remark about Amandil “just checking your keyboard” was an erroneous and irrelevant comment?

 

[PRmerger]

And, you are absolutely correct, I care deeply for life, but the preponderance of evidence, in my my mind, does not point to an all loving father figure, but an immensely powerful creator with largely unknowable attributes.

Can you cite the evidence that points to a god who has “largely unknowable attributes”?

Right now, as you have never cited in any thread that we’ve been in dialogue together a single study that demonstrates a god who has “largely unknowable attributes.”

I think that you have made that conclusion without a whit o’ evidence.

But if you can show some studies that show that the god you believe in has “largely unknowable attributes” then we can talk.

Right now, you have lots of evidence–millions of examples, in fact–of how a God could be loving yet permit inexplicable suffering.

Unless you want to tell us that when a father holds down his child for immunizations that this father is NOT being loving?

 

[oldcelt]

Can you cite the evidence that points to a god who has “largely unknowable attributes”?

Right now, as you have never cited in any thread that we’ve been in dialogue together a single study that demonstrates a god who has “largely unknowable attributes.”

I think that you have made that conclusion without a whit o’ evidence.

But if you can show some studies that show that the god you believe in has “largely unknowable attributes” then we can talk.

Right now, you have lots of evidence–millions of examples, in fact–of how a God could be loving yet permit inexplicable suffering.

Unless you want to tell us that when a father holds down his child for immunizations that this father is NOT being loving?

PR, of course I can’t. Any belief in an unseeable, untestable thing of any type has to be a matter of faith. You have also drawn your conclusion without a whit o’ substantiating evidence. Just because some people 2-5,000 years ago say something happened, does not make it true. If it did, every world religion would be real.

You must have some method that I am unaware of to explore the nature of the supernatural.

The evidence as I see it shows no supernatural involvement whatever and if you call immunizations suffering, then I don’t know what to tell you.

 

[oldcelt]

Firstly, I am a she, not a he.

Amandil was simply clarifying, since you appear to have made a typo.

To wit:

Did you inadvertently omit the word “no”?

It would appear that your remark about Amandil “just checking your keyboard” was an erroneous and irrelevant comment?

I see that now. My apologies to both you and Amandil.

 

[PRmerger]

PR, of course I can’t. Any belief in an unseeable, untestable thing of any type has to be a matter of faith.

Ah.

So I am correct in that you have arrived at your belief in a god who is “immensely powerful creator with largely unknowable attributes” WITHOUT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE.

Curious, that.

It appears that you have simply created a god that conforms to your own ideas.

Not followed truth where it leads.

 

[PRmerger]

I see that now. My apologies to both you and Amandil.

 

[PRmerger]

The evidence as I see it shows no supernatural involvement whatever and if you call immunizations suffering, then I don’t know what to tell you.

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

You don’t see that?

Are you a parent, by chance?