God responsible for evil?

[fhansen]

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.

Yes, our faith teaches that God deemed it worthwhile to create, and ultimately bring an even greater good out of the evil he knew would occur by the abuse of free will. The ‘knowledge of good and evil’, to be gained as a consequence of eating of the tree that goes by that name, has the purpose of helping us learn to run to the good alone, to come to know what Adam apparently didn’t yet know, of our need for the Ultimate Good, apart from Whom we can do nothing (John 15:5).

 

[oldcelt]

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).**

With all that said, the historic reality is somewhat different isn’t it? There is another thread about the Immaculate Conception and Aquinas that is case in point. So really, the passages mean little if a Church Father disagreed vehemently with what is now dogma. The Holy Spirit would have been around in the 1300s just as it would have been in 1854…why the difference? Was Aquinas out of touch and Pius in touch?

Do you see what problems this causes? Neither approach can answer the OP question and many, many more.

 

[MacQ]

Yes, our faith teaches that God deemed it worthwhile to create, and ultimately bring an even greater good out of the evil he knew would occur by the abuse of free will. The ‘knowledge of good and evil’, to be gained as a consequence of eating of the tree that goes by that name, has the purpose of helping us learn to run to the good alone, to come to know what Adam apparently didn’t yet know, of our need for the Ultimate Good, apart from Whom we can do nothing (John 15:5).

:bowdown:

 

[davidv]

If nothing exists outside the will of God, then God actively allows evil to exist. It doesn’t exist by accident.

Why do you state “actively allows” Church teaching indicate that God will is two-fold, active and passive. The existance is evil is the consequence of free will and God’s passive will.

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.

There is an answer. That you call it a platitude doesn’t make it so.

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.

Your are forgetting Jesus’ passion, death and resurrection is one of the things He has done about it. God’s revelation of the life after death is evidence. Whether you accept it is your call.

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.

Who is the “we”? I have much hope that true justise will be served. For both those who have suffered from evil and those who have perpetrated it.

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.

A value judgement that seems to be made without all of the facts.

 

[Counterpoint]

The flaw in your argument is that we are always faced with a meaningless dilemma…

I will take this as your way of conceding the point.

 

[scwendy]

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…

I know this struggle and hope he finds peace.

I have no recommendations as I continue to struggle.

 

[Counterpoint]

Give me a philosophy lesson.

I have already given you a philosophy lesson - the most essential lesson in regards to religious matters: Either everything is determined or it is not. (If we can’t agree on this, then there is really no point in continuing this discussion.)

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?

If everything is predetermined by God, then it logically follows God is ultimately responsible (causally responsible, not morally responsible) for whatever happens. This is not debatable.

Adding to that… why were the Apostles and New Testament evangelists so focused on moral rights and wrongs in teaching the people about salvation?

The Calvinists speak of two wills: God’s “decretal will” and his “prescriptive will.” If you violate God’s prescriptive will (the moral law), then you will be held morally responsible by him. However, whether or not you violate God’s prescriptive will is ultimately determined by his decretal will. IOW, if you violate the moral law, then it was God’s decretal will for you to violate it. So, while you may not always be in God’s prescriptive, you are always in his decretal will. (Hopefully, that clarify things for you.)

 

[Sochi]

I have already given you a philosophy lesson - the most essential lesson in regards to religious matters: Either everything is determined or it is not. (If we can’t agree on this, then there is really no point in continuing this discussion.)

the third way, of course, is both/and.

 

[tonyrey]

I will take this as your way of conceding the point.

That is another flaw!

 

[fhansen]

With all that said, the historic reality is somewhat different isn’t it? There is another thread about the Immaculate Conception and Aquinas that is case in point. So really, the passages mean little if a Church Father disagreed vehemently with what is now dogma. The Holy Spirit would have been around in the 1300s just as it would have been in 1854…why the difference? Was Aquinas out of touch and Pius in touch?

Do you see what problems this causes? Neither approach can answer the OP question and many, many more.

Like I said, the Church defines the faith, not a Church father including Augustine or Aquinas except to the extent that she accepts and embraces a particular teaching of theirs.

 

[LongingSoul]

The Calvinists speak of two wills: God’s “decretal will” and his “prescriptive will.” If you violate God’s prescriptive will (the moral law), then you will be held morally responsible by him. However, whether or not you violate God’s prescriptive will is ultimately determined by his decretal will. IOW, if you violate the moral law, then it was God’s decretal will for you to violate it. So, while you may not always be in God’s prescriptive, you are always in his decretal will. (Hopefully, that clarify things for you.)

But then to what end will God be judging people?Is there no sin great enough to warrant damnation? Does hell even exist in this plan?

 

[Counterpoint]

the third way, of course, is both/and.

Even if “both/and” were a logical possibility it wouldn’t change the moral implications. Why? Because I cannot be held any more morally responsible for some action that ultimately reduces to pure chance than for some action that was completely predetermined.

 

[fhansen]

The Calvinists speak of two wills: God’s "decretal will"and his “prescriptive will.” If you violate God’s prescriptive will (the moral law), then you will be held morally responsible by him. However, whether or not you violate God’s prescriptive will is ultimately determined by his decretal will. IOW, if you violate the moral law, then it was God’s decretal will for you to violate it. So, while you may not always be in God’s prescriptive, you are always in his decretal will. (Hopefully, that clarify things for you.)

So, in that scenario, does God possess two, opposing, wills? A related question: when God told Adam not to eat of the fruit did He want Adam to eat of the fruit?

 

[Counterpoint]

But then to what end will God be judging people?Is there no sin great enough to warrant damnation? Does hell even exist in this plan?

Yes, it does. It’s called the doctrine of double predestination - some (the “elect”) are predestined to eternal life (“reconciliation with God,” “heaven”), others (the “reprobate”) to eternal death (“separation from God,” “hell”).

By the way, unconditional election was first taught by St. Augustine.

 

[MacQ]

Yes, it does. It’s called the doctrine of double predestination - some (the “elect”) are predestined to eternal life (“reconciliation with God,” “heaven”), others (the “reprobate”) to eternal death (“separation from God,” “hell”).

By the way, unconditional election was first taught by St. Augustine.

The idea of a God who would pre-destine beings for destruction is a pretty noxious one.
I prefer the catholic notion that he loves us all a desires us to love him back.

 

[Counterpoint]

So, in that scenario, does God possess two, opposing, wills? A related question: when God told Adam not to eat of the fruit did He want Adam to eat of the fruit?

God prescribed (the prescriptive will) that Adam should not eat of the fruit. However, he decreed (the decretal will) that Adam would eat of the fruit.

 

[Counterpoint]

The idea of a God who would pre-destine beings for destruction is a pretty noxious one.
I prefer the catholic notion that he loves us all a desires us to love him back.

It’s biblical.

"14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. 15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. 17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth

19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23 and that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory" Romans 9:14-23

And as I have already stated in a previous post, St. Augustine (a doctor of the Church) was the first to articulate the doctrine of unconditional election.

 

[GaryTaylor]

He had to grasp for twigs and fig leaves while in a state of nakedness and shame. They were probably shocked and scared and confused. Imagine what they thought when all this dawned on them scurrying around for leaves.

That wasn’t the path to being like God, God commanded them not to eat of that tree.

Then what happened when God said; “Where are you”… the folly continued. Adam said something about he wasn’t responsible…she did it!!!. And the rest of the cowardly story.

Bad choice resulted in Justice-Responsible Love and Concern. And we now know good AND…evil!

 

[tonyrey]

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.

On the contrary, it’s remarkable how for all its shortcomings the monotheism of a primitive tribe revealed unique insight into the nature of the Creator (He Who Is) and predicted the coming of the Messiah whose teaching is the basis of modern civilisation with its universal principles of liberty, equality and fraternity. The flaws in the Old Testament are corrected by the precepts of Jesus who perfected the Law by revealing that God is a loving Father who cares for all His creatures and wants mercy rather than sacrifice.

 

[MacQ]

It’s biblical.

"14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. 15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. 17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth

19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23 and that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory" Romans 9:14-23

And as I have already stated in a previous post, St. Augustine (a doctor of the Church) was the first to articulate the doctrine of unconditional election.

Yes, I know that is a favorite cut and paste for folks. Paul’s letters seem to be suitable for all kinds of assertions.
I think Jesus’ words and actions speak better to the matter.
He went after lost sheep.