God responsible for evil?

[DonQuichote1235]

Dear fellow brothers and sister, I have a questions for you:

Last Friday, I had a discussion with my boss about religion. I think he’s baptized Catholic, because he comes from the southern regions of the Netherlands, which historically is a Catholic region, but at some moment we reached the subject about religion. He told me he didn’t believe anymore in God.

The discussion turned very philosophical at some point, but it came down to that he couldn’t believe in a God (or better: he couldn’t love a God) who was responsible for Evil in this world. I told him that God also respects the freedom of will of his creatures and, subsequently, that because of that people or other entities can choose to do evil. More importantly, they can choose, in freedom, to love Him.

He understood that, but his point was that because God allowed Satan to become evil and, within a bigger spectrum, the evil people do to themselves, God can also be held responsible for that, because He has chosen to create the possibility of the existence of evil.

I just thought of an example for this: why didn’t God shield the Tree of Wisdom (or the Tree that brought the Fall of Man) from Adam and Eve. In order that the Fall of Men couldn’t have taken place in the first place. According to my boss, God should be, indirectly, responsible for this.

Do you have an answer for this? Or maybe you can point me where I can find the answer for this? Are there any books I can read? Thanks in advance!

Yours,

DonQuichote!

ps. he’s not a hater, he is still open for religion…

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Dear fellow brothers and sister, I have a questions for you:

Last Friday, I had a discussion with my boss about religion. I think he’s baptized Catholic, because he comes from the southern regions of the Netherlands, which historically is a Catholic region, but at some moment we reached the subject about religion. He told me he didn’t believe anymore in God.

The discussion turned very philosophical at some point, but it came down to that he couldn’t believe in a God (or better: he couldn’t love a God) who was responsible for Evil in this world. I told him that God also respects the freedom of will of his creatures and, subsequently, that because of that people or other entities can choose to do evil. More importantly, they can choose, in freedom, to love Him.

He understood that, but his point was that because God allowed Satan to become evil and, within a bigger spectrum, the evil people do to themselves, God can also be held responsible for that, because He has chosen to create the possibility of the existence of evil.

I just thought of an example for this: why didn’t God shield the Tree of Wisdom (or the Tree that brought the Fall of Man) from Adam and Eve. In order that the Fall of Men couldn’t have taken place in the first place. According to my boss, God should be, indirectly, responsible for this.

Do you have an answer for this? Or maybe you can point me where I can find the answer for this? Are there any books I can read? Thanks in advance!

Yours,

DonQuichote!

ps. he’s not a hater, he is still open for religion…

You know, you don’t know if he is telling you the truth or not. People frequently hid the real reasons why they leave the Church or stop believing in God. They frequently latch on to the argument your boss gave becuase it is the one most frequently given for rejecting God. The whole thing is nothing but a defensive mechanism, designed to make them feel good about themselves.

You know and I know that God only permits evil because he will draw a better good from it. Of course he does not always let us know about that. Of course the good that came out of the fall of Satan and sin was the coming of Christ and the Sacraments. Even the Angels cannot receive Christ Himself in Holy Communion!!!

Linus2nd

 

[Povero]

Dear fellow brothers and sister, I have a questions for you:

Last Friday, I had a discussion with my boss about religion. I think he’s baptized Catholic, because he comes from the southern regions of the Netherlands, which historically is a Catholic region, but at some moment we reached the subject about religion. He told me he didn’t believe anymore in God.

The discussion turned very philosophical at some point, but it came down to that he couldn’t believe in a God (or better: he couldn’t love a God) who was responsible for Evil in this world. I told him that God also respects the freedom of will of his creatures and, subsequently, that because of that people or other entities can choose to do evil. More importantly, they can choose, in freedom, to love Him.

He understood that, but his point was that because God allowed Satan to become evil and, within a bigger spectrum, the evil people do to themselves, God can also be held responsible for that, because He has chosen to create the possibility of the existence of evil.

I just thought of an example for this: why didn’t God shield the Tree of Wisdom (or the Tree that brought the Fall of Man) from Adam and Eve. In order that the Fall of Men couldn’t have taken place in the first place. According to my boss, God should be, indirectly, responsible for this.

Do you have an answer for this? Or maybe you can point me where I can find the answer for this? Are there any books I can read? Thanks in advance!

Yours,

DonQuichote!

ps. he’s not a hater, he is still open for religion…

A priori: we must believe God is totally responsible for everything in Creation and outside of it (where there is no time, perhaps other dimensions). Now this means: either God created Evil, deliberately (which makes, imo, God a lunatic), or God allows free will (in all of creation, including “nature” on our planet) and did not, in fact, create “satan” but allowed Evil to emerge. I look at it this way: if God were to put His “finger” in every evil or bad situation in all of Creation, then Creation would be nothing except His own “thoughts” and there would be no autonomy so there would be no one, and nothing, to “love” Him or acknowledge Him. Of course, this means there is yet another more serious question: why does God “need” love or acknowledgment? Perhaps Creation is His mirror and He would, ultimately, wish to see IT (Creation) mirror His perfection???

The question of “why does evil exist” has cost most likely millions (or more) souls their faith in Him. My personal philosophy: in my life experience I have had thousands of interactions with what can only be called “God” because there could not be that many “coincidences”, statistically. So: I adhere to the faith into which I was born (after straying and seeking for many years) not because I think this “faith” has all the answers, but because I know it has SOME of the answers. I will, at the moment of death, either be RIGHT or WRONG. If I am RIGHT, I will be in the presence of God. If I am WRONG I will be in oblivion, eradicated, meaningless, but I won’t know it. Does this Creation seem meaningless to you? Logically? Quantum Physics is just about proving that there is non-local consciousness (in fact, I think it has been proven). If there is non-local consciousness, then there is universal consciousness. If there is universal consciousness, then there is an ORIGIN for it, the alpha/omega. Why someone would deliberately choose to live in a state where s/he does not believe in God is a question that cannot be answered, since we all suffer and we all respond to that suffering in different ways. But it doesn’t seem logical does it, and it doesn’t seem like any “member” of this Creation can possibly comprehend (or even come close to comprehending) its CREATOR, does it?

If it doesn’t make sense, then it isn’t true.

 

[fhansen]

Dear fellow brothers and sister, I have a questions for you:

Last Friday, I had a discussion with my boss about religion. I think he’s baptized Catholic, because he comes from the southern regions of the Netherlands, which historically is a Catholic region, but at some moment we reached the subject about religion. He told me he didn’t believe anymore in God.

The discussion turned very philosophical at some point, but it came down to that he couldn’t believe in a God (or better: he couldn’t love a God) who was responsible for Evil in this world. I told him that God also respects the freedom of will of his creatures and, subsequently, that because of that people or other entities can choose to do evil. More importantly, they can choose, in freedom, to love Him.

He understood that, but his point was that because God allowed Satan to become evil and, within a bigger spectrum, the evil people do to themselves, God can also be held responsible for that, because He has chosen to create the possibility of the existence of evil.

I just thought of an example for this: why didn’t God shield the Tree of Wisdom (or the Tree that brought the Fall of Man) from Adam and Eve. In order that the Fall of Men couldn’t have taken place in the first place. According to my boss, God should be, indirectly, responsible for this.

Do you have an answer for this? Or maybe you can point me where I can find the answer for this? Are there any books I can read? Thanks in advance!

Yours,

DonQuichote!

ps. he’s not a hater, he is still open for religion…

The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is a figurative concept. It simply means that man has limitations; he’s not the Creator, and he’s obligated, for his own good, for his own integrity, justice, and overall happiness, to remain consciously subjugated to God-within His will. Adam thought otherwise, for whatever reason, and we’re here now to learn why Adam was wrong. From the Catechism:

**Freedom put to the test

396 God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” spells this out: "for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die."276 The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"277 symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.
**

 

[Linusthe2nd]

A priori: we must believe God is totally responsible for everything in Creation and outside of it (where there is no time, perhaps other dimensions). Now this means: either God created Evil, deliberately (which makes, imo, God a lunatic), or God allows free will (in all of creation, including “nature” on our planet) and did not, in fact, create “satan” but allowed Evil to emerge. I look at it this way: if God were to put His “finger” in every evil or bad situation in all of Creation, then Creation would be nothing except His own “thoughts” and there would be no autonomy so there would be no one, and nothing, to “love” Him or acknowledge Him. Of course, this means there is yet another more serious question: why does God “need” love or acknowledgment? Perhaps Creation is His mirror and He would, ultimately, wish to see IT (Creation) mirror His perfection???

The question of “why does evil exist” has cost most likely millions (or more) souls their faith in Him. My personal philosophy: in my life experience I have had thousands of interactions with what can only be called “God” because there could not be that many “coincidences”, statistically. So: I adhere to the faith into which I was born (after straying and seeking for many years) not because I think this “faith” has all the answers, but because I know it has SOME of the answers. I will, at the moment of death, either be RIGHT or WRONG. If I am RIGHT, I will be in the presence of God. If I am WRONG I will be in oblivion, eradicated, meaningless, but I won’t know it. Does this Creation seem meaningless to you? Logically? Quantum Physics is just about proving that there is non-local consciousness (in fact, I think it has been proven). If there is non-local consciousness, then there is universal consciousness. If there is universal consciousness, then there is an ORIGIN for it, the alpha/omega. Why someone would deliberately choose to live in a state where s/he does not believe in God is a question that cannot be answered, since we all suffer and we all respond to that suffering in different ways. But it doesn’t seem logical does it, and it doesn’t seem like any “member” of this Creation can possibly comprehend (or even come close to comprehending) its CREATOR, does it?

If it doesn’t make sense, then it isn’t true.

Just a side bar. There is no " universal " consciousness. That is a condemned proposition.
True, we each have an intellect and will, which makes us conscious beings. But there is no universal " intellect and will, " therfore, no universal consciousness.

Linus2nd

 

[Povero]

Just a side bar. There is no " universal " consciousness. That is a condemned proposition.
True, we each have an intellect and will, which makes us conscious beings. But there is no universal " intellect and will, " therfore, no universal consciousness.

Linus2nd

I beg to differ. I believe what is known as “Young’s Experiment” is an indication of “communication” between particles at a great distance. This is Quantum entanglement and Einstein called it “spooky action at a distance.” At one time the world was believed to be the center of the universe. Along came Galileo. It seems ridiculous to “forbid” or “condemn” anything proven thousands of times over in laboratories that indicates God’s “consciousness” is in everything, everywhere, at all time and outside of time. This isn’t the dark ages.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I beg to differ. I believe what is known as “Young’s Experiment” is an indication of “communication” between particles at a great distance. This is Quantum entanglement and Einstein called it “spooky action at a distance.” At one time the world was believed to be the center of the universe. Along came Galileo. It seems ridiculous to “forbid” or “condemn” anything proven thousands of times over in laboratories that indicates God’s “consciousness” is in everything, everywhere, at all time and outside of time. This isn’t the dark ages.

You are guilty of using sloppy language. If by " universal consciousness " you mean the mind of God working throughout nature, I would agree. But this is a philosophical forum. And when you attach the word " universal " as a modifier, philosophers naturally think you are making a philosophical statment similar to Plato’s idea of externally, actually existing Forms, as in " universal forms. "

Don’t see the Quantum implication here as it relates to the activity of God in the universe. It is not likely that he is personally directing each little " fluction. " More than likely, these are explained by the causal powers or potentialities he has coded into nature.

Linus2nd

 

[Counterpoint]

If evil is real and God is the creator of all that is, then it logically follows that God is responsible for evil. Intellectual honesty tells us this much.

 

[davidv]

If evil is real and God is the creator of all that is, then it logically follows that God is responsible for evil. Intellectual honesty tells us this much.

Not if evil, even though real, is not a created entity.

 

[Povero]

You are guilty of using sloppy language. If by " universal consciousness " you mean the mind of God working throughout nature, I would agree. But this is a philosophical forum. And when you attach the word " universal " as a modifier, philosophers naturally think you are making a philosophical statment similar to Plato’s idea of externally, actually existing Forms, as in " universal forms. "

Don’t see the Quantum implication here as it relates to the activity of God in the universe. It is not likely that he is personally directing each little " fluction. " More than likely, these are explained by the causal powers or potentialities he has coded into nature.

Linus2nd

Your semantics are laudable, your condescension is not Christian, your minimizing my lifelong experience that consciousness IS non-local, has been PROVEN non-local, and your apparent inability to concede that God can do anything with or without your acknowledgment are mind boggling.

 

[Counterpoint]

Not if evil, even though real, is not a created entity.

If we define evil as the privation of good (which is how Aquinas defined it), then God is ultimately responsible for the privation (or, perhaps, I should say “deprivation”).

 

[LongingSoul]

If evil is real and God is the creator of all that is, then it logically follows that God is responsible for evil. Intellectual honesty tells us this much.

God created humans with free will. Having the capacity to choose to reject God makes we creatures the creators of evil.

 

[Sochi]

He understood that, but his point was that because God allowed Satan to become evil and, within a bigger spectrum, the evil people do to themselves, God can also be held responsible for that, because He has chosen to create the possibility of the existence of evil.

The Genesis story is much older than the 4K years ago it was collected an written down. Some can get past the need to take it in absolutely literal terms. This can include the very viable possibility that, like the parables Jesus used, it has at least three levels of meaning. IN other words, the face value of the story is just that, and for it to be acceptable to a large number of people, what was understood as God was portrayed in terms of a “Father” for the sake of easier acceptance. As in school, as one’s understanding grew, the priestly cast could guide one’s deepening comprehension, and the “family” structure grew less important in the light of more profound inquiry.

All that is to say that to portray God as someone who allowed evil may be the initial step that leads on a path that ends in a profoundly different clarity than a personalization of Deity. So we might consider that the dynamic of God allowing Satan and evil in the way most understand it may not be the whole story. It could, as do so many scriptural presentations, carry within it a more foundational meaning than the cover story. So I wouldn’t blame God for evil, or allowing it. Not quite that simple, perhaps.

I just thought of an example for this: why didn’t God shield the Tree of Wisdom (or the Tree that brought the Fall of Man) from Adam and Eve. In order that the Fall of Men couldn’t have taken place in the first place. According to my boss, God should be, indirectly, responsible for this.

So, looking at this story in light of what was proposed above, say what if that which we call the “fall” is a description of the development of the kind of awareness that humans use to distinguish themselves personally from the world around them. So what we “fell” out of was animal instinct and the “eden” of that simple state. In other words, the “fall” was the birth of our ability to discriminate, or a step up in the evolution of awareness. Second, we discovered that we can’t know everything and actually made a lot of things up in the effort to survive. So we became aware of our own ignorance. Third, we had the ability to make choices, so we made those on the information we had, and very often were wrong. So instead of acting instinctively with no thought, we were slowed by consideration. That had to be overcome by learning and training. A modern example of this is how people go into denial in many emergencies. The people who act competently in those emergencies are the ones who went through one form of training or another. Some would call that training “spiritual.”

So if that had to be put in religious terms for the sake of a public face of a teaching, we could say firstly, when man fell our nature became corrupted so that we do not always do what is right. Secondly, our intellect was darkened, which means we cannot always discern the truth. And thirdly, our will was weakened so that we do not always do what is right. We wold propose that it takes more than natural power to set this right because it is not merely a natural problem, but primarily a spiritual one. And yes, it takes training, and in the course of that, the levels of meaning beyond the intriguing tale first told t get attention are revealed.

So that is a take on the whole problem not often, in my experience, heard or considered. But the idea of levels of understanding in Scripture is a very important one. A fine book that recommends itself well and many find enlightening is this. It might help. There are many such books that go beyond the vast field and harevests of the first level of understanding. This is one of them.

 

[Counterpoint]

God created humans with free will. Having the capacity to choose to reject God makes we creatures the creators of evil.

God is ultimately responsible because he created the the creators of evil.

 

[fhansen]

God is ultimately responsible because he created the the creators of evil.

Are those creations mere brutes-or imbeciles? Are they/we morally irresponsible, unaccountable: ‘God made me do it’?

 

[Counterpoint]

Are those creations mere brutes-or imbeciles? Are they/we morally irresponsible, unaccountable: ‘God made me do it’?

To reiterate what I have written in another thread:

“There are only two options here: either everything is determined or not. If everything is determined, then this implies every event or act that occurs could not have been otherwise. If everything is not determined, then this implies that some (not all) events or acts could have been otherwise only due to some element of pure chance or randomness. Free will must be compatible with either determinism or indeterminism. And regardless how you define it, the moral implications are exactly the same. Why? Because I can be held no more responsible for an act that ultimately reduces to pure chance than for an act that was completely predetermined and could not have been otherwise. (The bottom line is that the “free will” argument does not alleviate God of any culpability.)”

 

[LongingSoul]

To reiterate what I have written in another thread:

“There are only two options here: either everything is determined or not. If everything is determined, then this implies every event or act that occurs could not have been otherwise. If everything is not determined, then this implies that some (not all) events or acts could have been otherwise only due to some element of pure chance or randomness. Free will must be compatible with either determinism or indeterminism. And regardless how you define it, the moral implications are exactly the same. Why? Because I can be held no more responsible for an act that ultimately reduces to pure chance than for an act that was completely predetermined and could not have been otherwise. (The bottom line is that the “free will” argument does not alleviate God of any culpability.)”

Why are there only two options? Nothing about life demonstrates that that has to be true. For example I don’t know if you know anything about the horse racing industry but there is a really high degree of determinism evidenced by the ‘champions circle’. So much so that people will spend millions buying an unborn foal.

At the end of the day though what determines a champion is not genetics or DNA, it is heart. The destiny of a champion racehorse can be determined to the enth degree but if he doesnt have a heart to win… he is a dud.

On the other hand, you can find another horse without any pedigree or predictable form who wants to win so badly that he becomes the champion he was never destined to be by any determining factors. Those are the horses that have a capacity for cooperation with a trainer and even ‘love’ for their trainer and a heart for the game.

Nothing in life makes sense by only two options being allowed for. Free will would be meaningless. God would not need to ‘judge’ each person according to his works on judgement day, because judging implies some moral culpability. He would just need to ‘sort’ us if complete determinism is all meaning.

A great degree can be determined and we are certainly born with specific vocations and obligations, but by the gift of our free will, we can either cooperate with these great gifts or use them for our on selfish ends.

 

[MacQ]

He understood that, but his point was that because God allowed Satan to become evil and, within a bigger spectrum, the evil people do to themselves, God can also be held responsible for that, because He has chosen to create the possibility of the existence of evil.

I just thought of an example for this: why didn’t God shield the Tree of Wisdom (or the Tree that brought the Fall of Man) from Adam and Eve. In order that the Fall of Men couldn’t have taken place in the first place. According to my boss, God should be, indirectly, responsible for this.
…

“Allowed” would seem to be the operative word there.
If God didn’t “allow” for possibilities…if He didn’t give us any choices, how could He know what we would choose?

 

[Tom_Baum]

Not if evil, even though real, is not a created entity.

Seems as if you are trying to say that evil is real, is this so?

If this is so, are you saying that evil is an entity or that evil is not an entity?

Are you saying that evil is real and that evil is an entity but is not a created entity?

It is hard for me to tell what you are trying to say but if it is the question just above that I proposed than are you saying that evil always was, since your original post stated, “Not if evil, even though real, is not a created entity”?

 

[tonyrey]

To reiterate what I have written in another thread:

“There are only two options here: either everything is determined or not. If everything is determined, then this implies every event or act that occurs could not have been otherwise. If everything is not determined, then this implies that some (not all) events or acts could have been otherwise only due to some element of pure chance or randomness. Free will must be compatible with either determinism or indeterminism. And regardless how you define it, the moral implications are exactly the same. Why? Because I can be held no more responsible for an act that ultimately reduces to pure chance than for an act that was completely predetermined and could not have been otherwise. (The bottom line is that the “free will” argument does not alleviate God of any culpability.)”

The false dilemma overlooks self-determinism!