God responsible for evil?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DonQuichote1235
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Augustine City of God page-380

Chapter 13

As soon as our first parents had transgressed the commandment divive grace forsook them, and they were confronted with their own wickedness, thus they took fig leaves which was possibly the first that came to hand in their troubled state of mind, and they covered their shame, for though their members remained the same they had shame now and they had none before. They experienced a new motion of the flesh, which had become disobedient to them, in strict retribution of their own disobedience to God. For the soul reveling in its own liberty, and scorning to serve God, was self deprived of the command it had formally maintained over the body. And because it willfully had deserted its superior Lord, it no longer held its own inferior servant, neither could its hold the flesh subject as it would always had been able to do had it remained subject to God. Then the flesh began to lust against the spirit in which strife we are born, deriving from the first transgression a seed of death and bearing in our members, and in our vitiated nature, the contest, or the victory over death.

Chapter 14

For God the author of nature, not vice, created man upright, being of his own will corrupted and justly condemned, begot condemned and corrupted children. For we all were in that one man, who fell into sin by the women who was made from him before the sin. For not yet was the particular form created and distributed to us, in which we as individuals were to live, but already the seminal nature was therefrom which we were to be propagated; and this being vitiated by sin, and bound by the chains of death, and justly condemned, man could not be born of man in any other state. And thus from the bad use of free will, there originated the whole train of evil, with its concatenation of miseries, convoys the human race from its deprived origin, as from a corrupt root. on to the destruction of the second death, which has no end, and those only being accepted are freed by the grace of God.

I think we are doing to much sola scripture reading of the Saints and Scripture. That’s why God left the Church so in our vitiated state as Augustine put it we might avoid further confusion, bad choices and scurrying for leaves wondering how you wound up with Eve.
 
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.
I see. You reject Paul’s theodicy.
 
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.
Can you point me in the direction of St Augustines words on this point? I simply can’t understand how this theory can be incorporated into a religious identity. If I genuinely believed that some of us were predestined for heaven while others of us are predestined for hell… I would regard religious identity as an indication of my presumption and unwarranted pride. “I must be one of the elect so this is where I belong”. It would logically make me want to presume that others who don’t measure up to my virtues, are the ‘reprobate’ and therefore unteachable and to be avoided.

By what means can I judge if I’m one of the elect and if I identify as the elect can I be sure that others who identify as the elect have judged themselves accurately? Where does this conviction come from in a man?

If I believed in that theory, my human capacity for love would demand that I reject all notion of religious identity all together because humans in most cultures now have evolved to reject theories that are discriminatory at that level.
 
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.
If God decreed sin then He’s no better than satan. The Church, OTOH, teaches that God allowed, without causing or decreeing, sin. That could probably be a working definition of free will, in fact: the ability to oppose the will of God.
 
If God decreed sin then He’s no better than satan. The Church, OTOH, teaches that God allowed, without causing or decreeing, sin. That could probably be a working definition of free will, in fact: the ability to oppose the will of God.
He forbade and then placed the forbidden object in the middle of the garden. I have to be honest, it reminds me of a child placing his ball in the middle of the room and telling no one to play with it. Thankfully, I believe the story to be pure allegory.
 
He forbade and then placed the forbidden object in the middle of the garden. I have to be honest, it reminds me of a child placing his ball in the middle of the room and telling no one to play with it. Thankfully, I believe the story to be pure allegory.
The Catechism understands it this way:
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.

To disobey God, to eat of the Tree, is to argue with REALITY/NATURE. It’s like arguing with the laws of physics, as if to say, “I refuse to agree that jumping off that cliff will result in my serious bodily injury or death”. It’s to find ourselves in the situation we’re often in, making our own rules, determining our own morality, wanting our own way, even if it means compromising or denying the truth sometimes. All evil stems from human self-righteousness in one way or another; all wrong is done in the name of right.

The “forbidden object” is no more or less than the very act of disobedience A&E took it upon themselves to commit. IOW, creation cannot separate itself from subjugation to and communion with God and retain it’s integrity or wholeness any more than man can jump off a cliff and expect to remain in good health.
 
The Catechism understands it this way:
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.

To disobey God, to eat of the Tree, is to argue with REALITY/NATURE. It’s like arguing with the laws of physics, as if to say, “I refuse to agree that jumping off that cliff will result in my serious bodily injury or death”. It’s to find ourselves in the situation we’re often in, making our own rules, determining our own morality, wanting our own way, even if it means compromising or denying the truth sometimes. All evil stems from human self-righteousness in one way or another; all wrong is done in the name of right.

The “forbidden object” is no more or less than the very act of disobedience A&E took it upon themselves to commit. IOW, creation cannot separate itself from subjugation to and communion with God and retain it’s integrity or wholeness any more than man can jump off a cliff and expect to remain in good health.
👍 Moral laws are essential conditions of personal development and fulfilment. We ignore them at our peril…
 
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.
👍 God is not the Destroyer but the Creator - and to reject free will is to destroy oneself as a person capable of love…
 
👍 God is not the Destroyer but the Creator - and to reject free will is to destroy oneself as a person capable of love…
So He didn’t include entropy? The natural decay of matter, the death of suns?
 
If God decreed sin then He’s no better than satan. The Church, OTOH, teaches that God allowed, without causing or decreeing, sin. That could probably be a working definition of free will, in fact: the ability to oppose the will of God.
I agree!
God placed the temptation and then “decreed” it would be violated?
So God is capricious and nasty!
What a bunch of tripe!
Methinks our friend there is getting herself tied up in calvinistic knots.
 
He forbade and then placed the forbidden object in the middle of the garden. I have to be honest, it reminds me of a child placing his ball in the middle of the room and telling no one to play with it. Thankfully, I believe the story to be pure allegory.
Gotta agree with your assessment there, oldcelt…as most catholics would. Not our idea of God!.
🙂
 
  • God is not the Destroyer but the Creator - and to reject free will is to destroy oneself as a person capable of love…*
The decay of matter and the death of suns are part of the creative process. It is results that count, not incidental events: “By their fruits you shall know them…”
 
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…"
I don’t know that you might mean by “determined”, because to me “determined” and “known” do NOT mean the same thing.

“Determined” to me means that God decided or determined what will happen as opposed to knowing what will happen, irregardless of whether you believe that this is possible is immaterial but the difference between the two is, to put it mildly, huge.

So what I am saying is that everything is NOT determined but everything is known.
Merriam-Webster defines “predestination” as “the belief that everything that will happen has already been decided by God or fate and cannot be changed.”
I disagree with the “Merriam-Webster definition of predestination” in that I do not believe “that everything that will happen has already been decided by God” but that God knows everything that will happen, you might not be able to see the difference in what I am writing but it is a huge difference.
 
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.
cul·pa·bil·i·ty
[kuhl-puh-bil-i-tee] Show IPA

noun
guilt or blame that is deserved; blameworthiness.

Are you saying that since God allows us to make choices, the whole concept of free will, that can be either good or bad that God is reponsible for our choices, since God made it so that there can be and are choices to be made?

Ultimately, everything in creation comes from God since God created everything except for God but if God, according to you, is responsible for our choices than we do not have free will.

If God deserves the “guilt or blame” of our actions which seem to be the definition of “culpability” than God also deserves the whatever of our “good” actions and if this were truly true than we would be nothing but “puppets on a string” on God’s stage.

I happen to believe that we are responsible for our choices whether or not we own up to this responsibility and that we do have free will.

Just because God “knows everything”, Omniscience, doesn’t mean that we do not make choices in this life, just means that God is, shall we say, somewhat beyond our “brain power”.
 
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
If God gave us free will with nothing to choose, how could we possibly use it, free will that is?
 
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.)
I’ve looked up “determinism and indeterminism” and I disagree, if I understand the definitions and I think I do, with both of them.

Just saying that one has a choice between “determinism and indeterminism” and only “determinism and indeterminism” doesn’t make this a choice that anyone has to agree with making.

As far as “going back in time” this is not possible now and may never be possible and I am talking about reality, even if this reality is beyond our ability to conceive of.

Also as far as the “coin toss”, it is pretty much a 50-50 deal but the coin could land on its edge and I would say that the chances of this happening are much greater that going back in time to “rebet”.
 
Counterpoint} said:
If God decreed sin then He’s no better than satan. The Church, OTOH, teaches that God allowed, without causing or decreeing, sin. That could probably be a working definition of free will, in fact: the ability to oppose the will of God.
Well, if God has endowed us with the capacity to oppose his will (what you are calling our “free will”), then it logically follows that he has decreed (this is his decretal will) that we can oppose his prescriptive will (that’s what you are calling sin). So, by proposing two divine wills - the decretal will and the prescriptive will, we resolve the problem that no one can resist God’s will as argued by Paul in Romans 9:19. (The resolution is that we can not resist his decretive will; but we can resist his prescriptive will.) And God is causally responsible (not morally responsible) for evil. Indeed, the Scriptures supports this claim, not only in Romans 9 but also in Isaiah 45.

“I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.” Isaiah 45:7
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top