God responsible for evil?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DonQuichote1235
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.)”
Just because God “knows” everything (Omniscience) doesn’t mean that we are “puppets on a string” (determinism vs indeterminism), it just means that God is somewhat, so to speak, beyond our created ability to comprehend.

“Predestination” does not mean that God has “choreographed” everything, it just means that God “knows” everything, pretty simple yet beyond our ability to comprehend, as I already said.
 
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.
God’s Omniscience isn’t God determining just who and why is in the “‘champions circle’” just that God “knows”, pretty simple, just because we can NOT understand it doesn’t mean we have to complicate it.
 
God’s Omniscience isn’t God determining just who and why is in the “‘champions circle’” just that God “knows”, pretty simple, just because we can NOT understand it doesn’t mean we have to complicate it.
No I wasn’t trying to explain why or how God does what He does… just demonstrating the relationship of free will to human love.
 
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.)”
If a being’s will is involved in an act, whether God’s or my own, then neither pure chance or determinism is the cause; the* will *is the cause.
 
God’s Omniscience isn’t God determining just who and why is in the “‘champions circle’” just that God “knows”, pretty simple, just because we can NOT understand it doesn’t mean we have to complicate it.
So, if someone knows in advance that an invention of their’s will cause grave harm, they have no culpability? The Christian God knows all beforehand and is the sole creator of all parties involved. Add to that omnipotence and you have a pretty strong case for culpability in evil.

It really isn’t complicated.
 
Why are there only two options?
Because those are the only two logical possibilites. Either everything is determined or it is not. (This should not be difficult for most to intellectually grasp. Albeit, some may have a very difficult time emotionally accepting it.)

By the way, determinism does not necessarily imply that everything is physically determined. It simply means that every event or act has a cause. Determinism is completely compatible with a dualistic worldview. IOW, it does not preclude nonphysical, mental causes. In fact, determinism is compatible with various forms of Christianity. Calvinism subscribes to theological determinism where God ultimately determines everything that happens. The Bible itself clearly teaches predestination.

“For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.” Romans 8:29
 
Just because God “knows” everything (Omniscience) doesn’t mean that we are “puppets on a string” (determinism vs indeterminism), it just means that God is somewhat, so to speak, beyond our created ability to comprehend.
Why don’t you try addressing the argument I actually made? Either everything is determined or it is not. Those are the only two logical possibilities.
“Predestination” does not mean that God has “choreographed” everything, it just means that God “knows” everything, pretty simple yet beyond our ability to comprehend, as I already said.
Merriam-Webster defines “predestination” as “the belief that everything that will happen has already been decided by God or fate and cannot be changed.”
 
The Bible clearly teaches that God creates evil.

“I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.” Isaiah 45:7
 
The Bible clearly teaches that God creates evil.

“I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.” Isaiah 45:7
hmm, interesting but, there are variations and translations to all scripture and those translations are often debated. If God is responsible for evil then he is responsible also for Judas, or if we are to believe we actually have free will, then Judas had the option to not turn over Jesus and history would have been a lot different. Why would God have given free will to the angels before the fall and in turn Lucifer come about. God knows everything, but we are to some how think that God doesn’t know what we are going to do with our free will ? Or what about the book of Job, South Park even did a bit about the part where God an Satan had basically a bet, God took everything away from Job an in the end Job still praised God, an Kyle is like why was God talking to Satan in the first place, or something to that… An then eventually someone turns around an is like no no it isn’t literal it is meant to convey a message etc, well isn’t that a suiting answer to a question that is really too hard to answer.

If i had free will id choose to be an angel and give up being human in a heart beat. But i can’t seem to make that happen so im stuck with trying be a saint.

or perhaps evil has enough strength to create some kind of loophole around God and do damage to humanity, or perhaps God gets angry and lets loose on us once n awhile, he did in the old testament, but for some reason we are suppose to believe that just because God is slow to anger and rich in kindness that means he doesn’t get angry ever and wont let us enjoy the mess we created. More over if God does have the ability to get angry, then why doesn’t the church address that at all ?
how are we to discern between Gods anger and evil ? Or is one of satans tricks is to get us to believe that God is indeed responsible for evil. ?
 
The false dilemma overlooks self-determinism!
No, it doesn’t. Self-determinism is simply another expression for free will. As such, it must be either compatible with determinism or indeterminism.

I can illustrate this truth with a simple example. We are going to play a simple game of chance. I will flip a coin. While the coin is the air, you will call out “heads” or “tails.” If you guess correctly, I will give you $100. If you don’t, you will give me $100.

I flip the coin. While the coin is in the air you call out “tails.” The coin lands on the ground with “heads” facing up. You lose; I win. I ask you why did you decide to choose “tails.” You respond by saying: “Well, it was a 50-50 proposition. So there wasn’t any logical reason to chose one option over the other, but I had to make a choice to have any chance of winning. So, I chose the first thing that popped into my head. And that was tails.”

Now, let’s imagine we are able to go back in time and replay the tape. If you truly believe that you could have chosen otherwise, then this would imply that “heads” might have RANDOMLY popped-up in your head instead of “tails.” (There is no other explanation for how you could have chosen otherwise.)
 
hmm, interesting but, there are variations and translations to all scripture and those translations are often debated. If God is responsible for evil then he is responsible also for Judas, or if we are to believe we actually have free will, then Judas had the option to not turn over Jesus and history would have been a lot different.
Define free will.
 
No, it doesn’t. Self-determinism is simply another expression for free will. As such, it must be either compatible with determinism or indeterminism.

I can illustrate this truth with a simple example. We are going to play a simple game of chance. I will flip a coin. While the coin is the air, you will call out “heads” or “tails.” If you guess correctly, I will give you $100. If you don’t, you will give me $100.

I flip the coin. While the coin is in the air you call out “tails.” The coin lands on the ground with “heads” facing up. You lose; I win. I ask you why did you decide to choose “tails.” You respond by saying: “Well, it was a 50-50 proposition. So there wasn’t any logical reason to chose one option over the other, but I had to make a choice to have any chance of winning. So, I chose the first thing that popped into my head. And that was tails.”

Now, let’s imagine we are able to go back in time and replay the tape. If you truly believe that you could have chosen otherwise, then this would imply that “heads” might have RANDOMLY popped-up in your head instead of “tails.” (There is no other explanation for how you could have chosen otherwise.)
The flaw in your argument is that we are always faced with a meaningless dilemma…😉
 
The Bible clearly teaches that God creates evil.

“I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.” Isaiah 45:7
Only Fundamentalists interpret every statement in the OT literally…
 
Because those are the only two logical possibilites. Either everything is determined or it is not. (This should not be difficult for most to intellectually grasp. Albeit, some may have a very difficult time emotionally accepting it.)

By the way, determinism does not necessarily imply that everything is physically determined. It simply means that every event or act has a cause. Determinism is completely compatible with a dualistic worldview. IOW, it does not preclude nonphysical, mental causes. In fact, determinism is compatible with various forms of Christianity. Calvinism subscribes to theological determinism where God ultimately determines everything that happens. The Bible itself clearly teaches predestination.

“For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.” Romans 8:29
Give me a philosophy lesson. You are saying that if everything is pre-determined by God, man could never be culpable in the court of the Lord, in any thought, word or deed. If he embodies great charity towards others or if he does great harm out of vice… none of these things will be judged by God?

Adding to that… why were the Apostles and New Testament evangelists so focused on moral rights and wrongs in teaching the people about salvation?
 
Only Fundamentalists interpret every statement in the OT literally…
So which of the many interpretations is one to believe. Maybe it would be easier to acknowledge that the bible is a seriously flawed collection of ancient writings.
 
Not if evil, even though real, is not a created entity.
If nothing exists outside the will of God, then God actively allows evil to exist. It doesn’t exist by accident.

Therein lies the problem: how can an entirely “good” God allow evil?

There’s no answer. The old platitudes that “evil is the rejection of good” or “God allows us to sin so that we can grow to love Him” or “evil is the choice we make by rejecting good” are all just a bunch of sugary floss; touchy-feely statements designed to sound good, without having any substance.

The fact is that evil exists. It is abundantly clear. It is also clear that God does nothing about it, apart from (supposedly) punishing the evil-doers in the next life.
The trouble is, we have no evidence of this. Not a shred. The church cannot even say if a single person is in hell.
We are left with the hopeless proposition that evil-doers might repent at the last minute and be received into heaven, thereby avoiding all punishment (or, at least, doing time in Purgatory rather than hell)–that god might be merciful, after all, and accept all repentant sinners, regardless of their deeds.
There is no sense of justice having been done, and being seen to be done, in this life.

I’d hesitate to say that God is “responsible” for evil. Responsible means “liable to answer for”, and that’s a tough one when it comes to the almighty. Nonetheless, God has freely allowed evil to occur in his creation, and that’s not good.
 
So which of the many interpretations is one to believe. Maybe it would be easier to acknowledge that the bible is a seriously flawed collection of ancient writings.
The Church defines the faith; she has the role of interpreting God’s word. These teachings from the Catechism should help explain:

**108 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living”.73If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."74

113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).**
 
Perhaps the things we call evil are intentionally there to try to cause us to change.
That would explain God being all-knowing and free will.
 
So which of the many interpretations is one to believe. Maybe it would be easier to acknowledge that the bible is a seriously flawed collection of ancient writings.
With all due respect to those who believe, of any religion, Abrahamic or not, ascending form or descending, it is one thing to be part of a lineage of belief and tradition, and another to have a scholarly view of any sorts of Scriptures, their interpretation, and the phenomenon of religion as such, apart from contents.

Precious few will go through a step by step analysis of how they acquired their faith and beliefs, no matter what it is, and in what area: political, social, or religious. So how many on here who are reading this have asked how they got theirs? Surely everyone knows the story of the Christmas ham: one time during the holiday preparations, when four generations of the family were present, the husband happens to ask his wife “Before you cook it, why do you cut the ends off the ham?” The wife says that it is because her mother taught her to do it that way. “But why?” he persists. Mom is right there, helping, ans says, “Well, because we always do it that way; Mom always cut the ends off and so I did too. It’s just how it’s done.” “But why?” persists the now beginning-to-be-irritating husband. His wife and m.i.l. huff, and they all decide to go ask Grandma. She thinks a bit, and then remembers: “When I was a young woman, just here in this country, we had just married and were very poor. But not so poor we couldn’t afford a small ham. But we only had a small pot as well. I had to cut the ham up to make it fit!” Mystery solved.

Of course, religion is another story, and of far more consequence. But I wonder if there is a family out there that doesn’t have some sort of tradition it just did because that is how it was done since… We were odd in our neighborhood because our Christmas tree went up on Christmas eve, because that is when the Baby Jesus came. St. Nick had already come on the 6th, also making us different, as did some of our foods, and in our community the young men sprinkling perfume on single ladies Easter day. Every nationality had their tradition, “because that is what came down; it is how it is done.” And in the cases of religions, this is invariably given Divine sanction.

So what was life like 4000 years ago for the people who wrote down already ancient oral traditions in what became parts of our Scriptures? The idea of God is a bit more important than how to fix a ham, yes? But we find, for instance, the case of the woman who refused to learn a second language when it would have advanced her greatly. When asked why, she said “God writ the Bible in English, and that makes it good enough for me!”

So when we consider what we find written, do we consider the people who wrote it originally? What was their science, medicine, literature, politics like? what were their daily needs and ides and idioms we really have no clue about? When they wrote RBM, did they mean “Arabim,” (Arabs) “Orabim,” (the people of nearby Orab) or lastly “orabim” or raven? Who fed Elijah? Which is most likely? Which s most piously impressive? Who decided on what basis? Is TZD “rib” or “side?” Does the Aramaic GML mean “camel” or “rope?” Which, in context, makes more sense? Which is more piously spectacular? And such are the relatively very simple questions when it comes to translation and interpretation. We also have to remember, that though they might have been closer in time, early scholars would not earn that title these days, nor would they have much of our methodology available to them.

Few people even know what “epistemology” means, especially now that our Country has slid from first in education among developed nations to somewhere past 20th, in about as many years. But epistemology, general semantics, history of languages and their idioms, meaning and it’s many aspects, translation, interpretation, the nature of collections, of witnessing, transcription, standards of reportage and purpose, science, tradition, the psychology of belief, neurology, all these things come to bear on Bibles and what one believes and why. It is a miracle sometimes that we understand each other face to face, never mind from two or four thousand years ago through innumerable and unimaginable filters.

All Scriptures of any faith contain questionable material of some degree or another. Of course it is far easier to see that in someone else’s books than our own. We have our own affinity for cutting our ham. So it isn’t that ham isn’t good, unless you are Jewish, but there might be some interesting history of how we came to prepare it the way we do. That is worth some consideration.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top