Good and evil question

[Nazianzen]

Then you might have noticed how Screwtape kept pointing out to Wormwood that they could not create anything of their own; they could only take things which “the Enemy” had made and twist them to their own ends. This is what happens with all persons who we call “evil.” They are beings God created as good who have made bad use of their free will.

 

[Franciscan]

Then you might have noticed how Screwtape kept pointing out to Wormwood that they could not create anything of their own; they could only take things which “the Enemy” had made and twist them to their own ends. This is what happens with all persons who we call “evil.” They are beings God created as good who have made bad use of their free will.

Nazianzen, thanks.
I understand what you are saying.

Just one more Q…

Would you hesitate to call people evil. For example:

“Hitler was evil” or would you just assume people knew what you really meant in saying that. (That Hitler chose to do evil).

In other words do you have a problem calling people evil rather than sinful or immoral?

P.S. Im not trying to argue in a negative way. I think these are important questions that are helping me and others to develop a corrrect understanding.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

So if I understand you,

To say “evil does not exist”

is not the same as saying

“there is no such thing as evil”.

It seems we are caught in a tangled net of sematics.

For me it would be better expressed as:

There is the Good.

There is the defacement or obscuring of the Good.

That defacement or obscuring of the Good we call evil.

Evil cannot exist in any way without the Good.

But Good can exist in every way without evil.

No one, men or angels, can actually “BE” evil but they can bring about evil as an “offense or perversion of good”.

I think so. They can twist themselves and their actions–both of which are perversions of the good.

We have…
Sacramentals and Sacramental Matter : physical objects that are signs of the sacred. In the case of Sacraments-efficacious signs which actually bring about grace.

According to your understanding of evil, there is no evil counterpart to these physical manifestations of grace.

I don’t think there is a counterpart. Because ultimately there can be no blasphemy great enough to “equal” (in a negative sense) the sacraments. Using “blasphemy” and “great” in the same sentence is even a bit misleading.

Even the “Black Mass” is no more than a parody. And those who would attempt to perform it in the name of “evil” only make fools of themselves.

If evil has sacraments, one could argue that they are these from Ezekiel’s description of the sin of Sodom:

Pride, fullness of bread, and not stengthening the hand of the poor.

To that I would add: complicity.

It takes no special act of evil to partake of these dark sacraments, but still, they cannot equal the sacraments of the church in any way.

For example: Hitler’s book Mein Kampf. It does not have an evil “presence” within its pages? Or let’s say ouija bords, we cannot say that these may bring evil into your home?

I don’t think Mein Kampf does have an evil presence in it. The ideas in it may be twisted, may be infected with evil, but the book itself is not and may be read, I think, with the understanding that reading it requires one to resist evil and not succumb to it. Not be seduced by it.

If Ouija boards serve as gateways to malevolent entities, it is not the Ouija board that is evil, but the spirit. What is evil surrounding the use of the Ouija board, apart from any wicked spirits contacted, is the intent of the user. The use for which it was designed is also questionable, to say the least–which, to me, precludes its use for any purely good end but does not make it (the board, the planchette in and of themselves) evil.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Once again, Nazianzen has been much more succint than me!

Thank you, Nazianzen!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[Franciscan]

Grace & Peace!

For me it would be better expressed as:

There is the Good.

There is the defacement or obscuring of the Good.

That defacement or obscuring of the Good we call evil.

Evil cannot exist in any way without the Good.

But Good can exist in every way without evil.

I think so. They can twist themselves and their actions–both of which are perversions of the good.

I don’t think there is a counterpart. Because ultimately there can be no blasphemy great enough to “equal” (in a negative sense) the sacraments.

Even the “Black Mass” is no more than a parody. And those who would attempt to perform it in the name of “evil” only make fools of themselves.

If evil has sacraments, one could argue that they are these from Ezekiel’s description of the sin of Sodom:

Pride, fullness of bread, and not stengthening the hand of the poor.

To that I would add: complicity.

It takes no special act of evil to partake of these dark sacraments, but still, they cannot equal the sacraments of the church in any way.

I don’t think Mein Kampf does have an evil presence in it. The ideas in it may be twisted, may be infected with evil, but the book itself is not and may be read, I think, with the understanding that reading it requires one to resist evil and not succumb to it. Not be seduced by it.

If Ouija boards serve as gateways to malevolent entities, it is not the Ouija board that is evil, but the spirit. What is evil surrounding the use of the Ouija board, apart from any wicked spirits contacted, is the intent of the user. The use for which it was designed is also questionable, to say the least–which, to me, precludes its use for any purely good end but does not make it (the board, the planchette in and of themselves) evil.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

Good Stuff… Thanks.

 

[Keikiolu]

As Catholics informed by the Faith would you agree with the following…

Individual people have the capacity to do good or evil.

When good people cooperate with evil or bring about evil that is “immoral”.

When evil people bring about good or cooperate with Good it is a “deception”.

Hmmm…

Good cooperating with evil is doing evil, and characterizes the “good” as an evil.

Evil cooperating with good brings good out of evil, is an attempted deception by evil, but is a reversal of evil accomplishing good.

Since evil ALWAYS tries to be evil, any good that comes of evil came from good, and no credit for the good can be claimed by evil.

God = good.

What’s your REAL question?

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Nazianzen]

Nazianzen, thanks.
I understand what you are saying.

Just one more Q…

Would you hesitate to call people evil. For example:

“Hitler was evil” or would you just assume people knew what you really meant in saying that. (That Hitler chose to do evil).

In other words do you have a problem calling people evil rather than sinful or immoral?

P.S. Im not trying to argue in a negative way. I think these are important questions that are helping me and others to develop a corrrect understanding.

No problem. I think to say someone is sinful is synonymous with saying someone is evil. I would not hesitate to call Hitler evil as long as we understand evil to be an adjetive describing his actions. If I were saying that he WAS evil (in other words, another way of saying evil is Hitler), then that would be wrong. Evil does not exist, ontologically speaking. It is only a quality that some things posess. Rather, it means that they lack a certain goodness.

Thanks, Deo Volente, for being so thorough and well spoken.

 

[Franciscan]

peterkreeft.com/topics/evil.htm

Kreeft agrees with your point too…You guys are right.

I understand evil better. Thanks