How could good God create creatures with evil and good being?

[Bahman]

Try this link for your reading and thinking in your quest to know self, creation, and Self (as you call God).
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p4.htm

Thank you very much for the link, I read it but I unfortunately had problem with the first line, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” and “holy trinity”. I didn’t read all the document to very detail.

 

[Bahman]

More for your reading and thinking on your quest.

Read and think on the whole page including Paragraph 391.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm

I have a quick look at the document especially paragraph 391 and I didn’t find it convincing. I already have a long discussion with people here about falling angel.

 

[Starrsmother]

I was atheist for several years, having a couple faiths but eventually decided to go without faith as I believe that God as the baseline for any faith could never be comprehended by us. Thank you very much for your writing anyway.

The first premis is wrong I think.
God CAN stop it–he can stop anything he chooses to.
Go ahead and accept the 2nd premises’
The 3rd premis is not one that can be proved true other than by faith or lack of same so leave it off totally. It’s a mere hypothesis.
The rest of the last 3 premises may end up with the conclusions being very different.

 

[Bahman]

Just my opinion. The concept of free will has been explained in great detail over and over and the author who started the thread doesn’t seem to grasp it. I apologize for my two cents–will butt out and let you guys continue your little argument. Please enjoy…

The concept of free will cannot explain the fall of angels for the following specific reasons:

1. What was the origin of evil thought of rebellion? There is God and angels being in state of love and harmony. How possibly an evil thought could arises from such a state of being?
2. Assuming that this evil thought arose from a specific reason/situation that you have to explain it, then we reach to a situation as following: there are two choices a) to stay with God and receive all the benefit of being with God, 2) to rebel against God and have the consequences, namely rejection from Haven, knowing the fact that it is impossible to beat God. To decide about this situation you don’t need to even strive to concept of free will since logical thinking provide an clear solution for this situation which is option (a).

 

[Starrsmother]

The concept of free will cannot explain the fall of angels for the following specific reasons:

1. What was the origin of evil thought of rebellion? There is God and angels being in state of love and harmony. How possibly an evil thought could arises from such a state of being?
2. Assuming that this evil thought arose from a specific reason/situation that you have to explain it, then we reach to a situation as following: there are two choices a) to stay with God and receive all the benefit of being with God, 2) to rebel against God and have the consequences, namely rejection from Haven, knowing the fact that it is impossible to beat God. To decide about this situation you don’t need to even strive to concept of free will since logical thinking provide an clear solution for this situation which is option (a).

I don’t think any human has one right answer–though I’ll bet that just by my posting this someone will say I’m 100% crazy and that they do know the real deal! LOL! I’ll say up front that I do NOT know the real deal. I have read, heard and studied two basic theories, and while there may be other theories, these are the only two I’ve heard of–and I can’t prove or disprove either one? Okay?

The first theory is that God created the angels as perfect beings to serve Him in whatever capacity they do–or for Him to enjoy in whatever capacity He does–but when they became aware of God’s plan to create human beings and and that these humans would have a special and elevated place in God’s over all plan and eventually be with Him body and soul in heaven–and some also believe and say that eventually the angels were made aware that God the Son would become one of us humans and have a human body, that some of them became very envious and full of pride–even to the point of leading Adam and Eve into original sin. Now of course if you believe this theory then you also have to believe that somehow–or for some reason—God allowed the angels to know his ultimate plan for Jesus–and that plan would not have been necessary if Adam and Eve hadn’t sinned–so you go in a bit of a circle there. Unless God for some reason only shared part of the plan–the part about Jesus becoming man–but not the part of His doing so as a result of original sin which Satan certainly contributed to. This is why I say it’s unproveable–something happened–but God hasn’t revealed exactly what to mankind. Basically–it was a sin of pride–that some of the angels felt that they could do what they chose over what God told them to do and boy were they wrong as HELL–pun very much intended–LOL! In this theory, their sin of pride–of not wanting whatever God told them that His plan was to occur—supposedly resulted in some of the angels rebelling–at which point God basically squashed them like bugs! I can see how this COULD be true–even though you’d think any angel with half a brain–who lived with God and knew His power, majesty etc would be scared to death to trifle with Him–but then rethink that possibility and add the fact that we humans also sometimes use our free will to disobey God–even though we too have been warned not to trifle with Him–however, we humans haven’t seen Him face to face yet if that counts for anything. Maybe it counts–maybe it doesn’t–I don’t pretend to know. Bottom line–angels and humans both have free will–and sometimes free will sucks. Animals like dogs don’t have free will–which is probably why you don’t usually expect to find pit bulls in hell! LOL! Anyway, that is theory #! 1 as I read and understand it.

The second possible idea that I’ve heard bandied around is drawn from that little statement at the end of one of the chapters in Genesis where it says something–kind of in a passing kind of way–that some of the angels came to earth, saw the women who were described in that chapter of Genesis as the "comely"daughters of Cain who were dancing and partying, and these angels were smitten and took some of these women as wives or concubines or whatever, , therebye having offspring that were part human and part supernatural–or angel if you will. the scriptural basis for this is definitely possible as in in Genesis it definitely speaks of angels taking mortals for wives and producing a race of offspring “…and these were the giants and heroes of old”. (a quote) People who believe that version, say that the angels who did this, did so in strict disobedience to God’s law and plan which He had told them of and that by doing so defiled the world and basically created a race of almost hybrid monsters. The folks that believe this version also seem to connect it with the flood–that the flood (Noah’s Ark story) was God’s means of ridding the earth of these “whatever-they-were’s”.

Either way, the fallen angels apparently did something they knew they were not supposed to do–in the same way that we humans sometimes choose to do what we want rather than what we should–because angels, like humans, have the gift of free will. I totally agree that it would seem like fallacy for an angel to take on God. However, we humans do it all the time if you think about it. So, we can’t assume that somehow the angels were not as open to sins of pride or lust as any other creature given free will–ie humans! The bottom line–and i mean this with all respect to your question–you certainly come up with intelligent well thought out questions–but the central flaw is that you cannot expect to be able to figure out the mind of God or thee mind of angels–we can’t even really figure out the minds of humans! Sometimes, you just have to accept that there are things that no matter how intelligent you are–you don’t have enough rational information to discover a one correct answer for.

I’m not sure I answered your question–not sure there is an answer on this side of the grave…

 

[Bahman]

Thank you very much for your long post. Please read my answer in the following.

I don’t think any human has one right answer–though I’ll bet that just by my posting this someone will say I’m 100% crazy and that they do know the real deal! LOL! I’ll say up front that I do NOT know the real deal. I have read, heard and studied two basic theories, and while there may be other theories, these are the only two I’ve heard of–and I can’t prove or disprove either one? Okay?

Please read my opinion about these theories.

The first theory is that God created the angels as perfect beings to serve Him in whatever capacity they do–or for Him to enjoy in whatever capacity He does–but when they became aware of God’s plan to create human beings and and that these humans would have a special and elevated place in God’s over all plan and eventually be with Him body and soul in heaven–and some also believe and say that eventually the angels were made aware that God the Son would become one of us humans and have a human body, that some of them became very envious and full of pride–even to the point of leading Adam and Eve into original sin. Now of course if you believe this theory then you also have to believe that somehow–or for some reason—God allowed the angels to know his ultimate plan for Jesus–and that plan would not have been necessary if Adam and Eve hadn’t sinned–so you go in a bit of a circle there. Unless God for some reason only shared part of the plan–the part about Jesus becoming man–but not the part of His doing so as a result of original sin which Satan certainly contributed to. This is why I say it’s unproveable–something happened–but God hasn’t revealed exactly what to mankind. Basically–it was a sin of pride–that some of the angels felt that they could do what they chose over what God told them to do and boy were they wrong as HELL–pun very much intended–LOL! In this theory, their sin of pride–of not wanting whatever God told them that His plan was to occur—supposedly resulted in some of the angels rebelling–at which point God basically squashed them like bugs! I can see how this COULD be true–even though you’d think any angel with half a brain–who lived with God and knew His power, majesty etc would be scared to death to trifle with Him–but then rethink that possibility and add the fact that we humans also sometimes use our free will to disobey God–even though we too have been warned not to trifle with Him–however, we humans haven’t seen Him face to face yet if that counts for anything. Maybe it counts–maybe it doesn’t–I don’t pretend to know. Bottom line–angels and humans both have free will–and sometimes free will sucks. Animals like dogs don’t have free will–which is probably why you don’t usually expect to find pit bulls in hell! LOL! Anyway, that is theory #! 1 as I read and understand it.

1. Do you believe that God’s love is perfect toward angels, humans and others which means that God love them in the same level?
2. If God has higher levels of love for human than angel based on your statement then that means that is God who was initial cause for fall of angels.
3. Why such an important issue like falling angels which lead to original sin and presence of evil in creation is not described well in revelation as you said “This is why I say it’s unprovable–something happened–but God hasn’t revealed exactly what to mankind.”

The second possible idea that I’ve heard bandied around is drawn from that little statement at the end of one of the chapters in Genesis where it says something–kind of in a passing kind of way–that some of the angels came to earth, saw the women who were described in that chapter of Genesis as the "comely"daughters of Cain who were dancing and partying, and these angels were smitten and took some of these women as wives or concubines or whatever, , therebye having offspring that were part human and part supernatural–or angel if you will. the scriptural basis for this is definitely possible as in in Genesis it definitely speaks of angels taking mortals for wives and producing a race of offspring “…and these were the giants and heroes of old”. (a quote) People who believe that version, say that the angels who did this, did so in strict disobedience to God’s law and plan which He had told them of and that by doing so defiled the world and basically created a race of almost hybrid monsters. The folks that believe this version also seem to connect it with the flood–that the flood (Noah’s Ark story) was God’s means of ridding the earth of these “whatever-they-were’s”.

1. I don’t know why you mention this story since the story of fallen angel must happen before creation of Adam and Eve, since otherwise Satan could not tempt Eve to eat the fruit. I don’t really understand this story and its relation with original sin since apparently this story is related to when the earth was well populated, namely after fall of Adam and Eve.
2. I don’t know, but based on what I read from Christian theology, angels are made of only spiritual substance as humans are made of spiritual and materiel substance so they could not choose any woman (human female) as wife as they don’t have any material body.

 

[SentinelofTruth]

1) What was the origin of evil thought of rebellion? There is God and angels being in state of love and harmony. How possibly an evil thought could arises from such a state of being?

There was never any restriction on thought, except that it’s a temporal process and so couldn’t take place in eternity. But free will can choose evil even if there’s no temporal, cognitive intellectual process (thought) preceding it. It can do irrational things. Also KIM (keep in mind) the angels weren’t created good, they were created neutral, because their decisions, which are what qualify them as good or evil, can’t be made for them. This is why it is impossible for God to create a soul that is benevolent at the point of creation. They can become good afterward, they don’t have to. Therefore satan wasn’t in a state of harmony yet because since his decision couldn’t be made in light of everyone else’s, he was not in a state of “love and harmony” with God and all the other angels.

 

[RoseMary131]

My quest is to understand my self, creation and Self (God) **without accepting any faith **since I believe that our journey toward God, understanding self and creation is never paradox/anomaly free, hence we have to be open with new ideas, discuss them openly and accept them as temporary substrate to see and look farther.

Originally Posted by Bahman forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
I continue my quest by reading, thinking, discussing.

*I unfortunately don’t believe on praying. *

Originally Posted by Bahman

                 [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=11229550#post11229550)                 
             I have several problem with Christian God, *

Thank you very much for the link, I read it but I unfortunately had problem with the first line, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” and “holy trinity”. I didn’t read all the document to very detail.

Dearest Bahman, I respect your ideas as your ideas (even though you and I have different ideas on faith, on God, on prayer, etc.)

Let me challenge you a bit on your own quest.

Your quest, you write, “is to understand my self, creation and Self (God)”

At the same time you imply this self-imposed element of limitation,“without accepting any faith”. Whereas, you come to a forum of faith in your quest.

You justify your self-imposed element of limitation with “I believe that our journey toward God, understanding self and creation is never paradox/anomaly free” while at the same time your own paradox/ conflict has been created. That of a quest to “understand self, creation and Self (God)”, with the intention “without accepting any faith”. Further expressed as conflicting with "unfortunately had problem with the first line, " you have already closed your own desire of being open to new ideas.

You state, “I continue my quest by reading,thinking, discussing.” Yet, when I offered you two readings from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, you write “I didn’t read all the document to very detail.”

Do you see your conflict in saying you “continue my quest by reading”, yet chose not to read the Church teaching?

I offered you the writings of the Church, the teaching through the Catechism of the Catholic Church - because it is expressed much better than my own writing - its straight from the Source - not my expression of the teaching.

Yet in your words, you “unfortunately had problem with the first line.” Do you see your own conflict within your own quest “to continue your quest to understand my self, creation, and Self (God)” “by reading”, to “have to be open with new ideas”?

Please note within your own writing your choice of words:
"I read it but I unfortunately had problem with the first line, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” and “holy trinity”.

I unfortunately don’t believe on praying."

There is a reason you continue to refer to your ideas as being unfortunate. Dwell on why you write “unfortunately.”

If you are looking for understanding self, creation, and Self (God), and you search out a part of your quest from Catholics and you already do not accept the Theology of God, of prayer, of “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” and the “Holy Trinity”… where can your quest go while walking through this section called Catholic Theology?

If you picture your quest as a literal walk down a path ending with “understanding self, creation, and God”, and you see a trail marked Catholic Theology or a trail marked Christian Theology - and those trails begin with God whom you have “problems with Christian God” - and you choose not to be open to the problems with this God - you can not mindfully take that path. You have closed the possibilities of taking that path. Even if you walk that path (in this case the path marked Catholic Answers Forums), you are not open to anything in the path, therefore, you are not mindful of anything present.

If your true quest is to understand self, creation, and Self (God), you need to remove some of your self-imposed limitation. You need to reflect what being open truly means.

Why do you search in your quest for God in the place of the Christian God if you are not open to the Christian God? The Christian God “lives” within the basis for the entire Christian teaching.

May the Christian God - the only God - free you to walk your true quest. May you find True Peace.

(I do not offer you that prayer to insult you - but the only way I can offer you a prayer is through the Christian God. I do not offer prayer for you to offend your disbelief in prayer, but because prayer is my highest gift I can offer you.)

 

[tonyrey]

We are created with the power to choose

We have a conscience, i.e. an ability to distinguish good and evil.

I mean normally we had a bad feeling when we perform something bad and vice versa.

I agree.

Moreover your definition provide a neutral definition of human being, neither good nor evil.

We are fundamentally good because we are created by God, the Source of all goodness. That doesn’t mean we are compelled to do something good or bad. Otherwise we wouldn’t be responsible for anything - and the distinction between good and evil would be meaningless.

 

[SentinelofTruth]

RoseMary131:

Dearest Bahman, I respect your ideas as your ideas (even though you and I have different ideas on faith, on God, on prayer, etc.)

Let me challenge you a bit on your own quest.

Your quest, you write, “is to understand my self, creation and Self (God)”

At the same time you imply this self-imposed element of limitation,“without accepting any faith”. Whereas, you come to a forum of faith in your quest.

You justify your self-imposed element of limitation with “I believe that our journey toward God, understanding self and creation is never paradox/anomaly free” while at the same time your own paradox/ conflict has been created. That of a quest to “understand self, creation and Self (God)”, with the intention “without accepting any faith”. Further expressed as conflicting with "unfortunately had problem with the first line, " you have already closed your own desire of being open to new ideas.

You state, “I continue my quest by reading,thinking, discussing.” Yet, when I offered you two readings from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, you write “I didn’t read all the document to very detail.”

Do you see your conflict in saying you “continue my quest by reading”, yet chose not to read the Church teaching?

I offered you the writings of the Church, the teaching through the Catechism of the Catholic Church - because it is expressed much better than my own writing - its straight from the Source - not my expression of the teaching.

Yet in your words, you “unfortunately had problem with the first line.” Do you see your own conflict within your own quest “to continue your quest to understand my self, creation, and Self (God)” “by reading”, to “have to be open with new ideas”?

Please note within your own writing your choice of words:
"I read it but I unfortunately had problem with the first line, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” and “holy trinity”.

I unfortunately don’t believe on praying."

There is a reason you continue to refer to your ideas as being unfortunate. Dwell on why you write “unfortunately.”

If you are looking for understanding self, creation, and Self (God), and you search out a part of your quest from Catholics and you already do not accept the Theology of God, of prayer, of “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” and the “Holy Trinity”… where can your quest go while walking through this section called Catholic Theology?

If you picture your quest as a literal walk down a path ending with “understanding self, creation, and God”, and you see a trail marked Catholic Theology or a trail marked Christian Theology - and those trails begin with God whom you have “problems with Christian God” - and you choose not to be open to the problems with this God - you can not mindfully take that path. You have closed the possibilities of taking that path. Even if you walk that path (in this case the path marked Catholic Answers Forums), you are not open to anything in the path, therefore, you are not mindful of anything present.

If your true quest is to understand self, creation, and Self (God), you need to remove some of your self-imposed limitation. You need to reflect what being open truly means.

Why do you search in your quest for God in the place of the Christian God if you are not open to the Christian God? The Christian God “lives” within the basis for the entire Christian teaching.

May the Christian God - the only God - free you to walk your true quest. May you find True Peace.

(I do not offer you that prayer to insult you - but the only way I can offer you a prayer is through the Christian God. I do not offer prayer for you to offend your disbelief in prayer, but because prayer is my highest gift I can offer you.)

RoseMary131, do you have to write posts this long?

tonyrey:

We are fundamentally good because we are created by God, the Source of all goodness. That doesn’t mean we are compelled to do something good or bad. Otherwise we wouldn’t be responsible for anything - and the distinction between good and evil would be meaningless.

I disagree. Only moral actions can qualify us as “good” or “evil”, so how can we be either of those just by virtue of who our creator is?

 

[tonyrey]

We are fundamentally good because we are created by God, the Source of all goodness. That doesn’t mean we are compelled to do something good or bad. Otherwise we wouldn’t be responsible for anything - and the distinction between good and evil would be meaningless.

Individual actions do not determine our entire moral status… “fundamentally” is the key word.

 

[SentinelofTruth]

tonyrey:

Individual actions do not determine our entire moral status… “fundamentally” is the key word.

Agreed, but what of it?

 

[Bahman]

Dearest Bahman, I respect your ideas as your ideas (even though you and I have different ideas on faith, on God, on prayer, etc.)

Let me challenge you a bit on your own quest.

Your quest, you write, “is to understand my self, creation and Self (God)”

At the same time you imply this self-imposed element of limitation,“without accepting any faith”. Whereas, you come to a forum of faith in your quest.

You justify your self-imposed element of limitation with “I believe that our journey toward God, understanding self and creation is never paradox/anomaly free” while at the same time your own paradox/ conflict has been created. That of a quest to “understand self, creation and Self (God)”, with the intention “without accepting any faith”. Further expressed as conflicting with "unfortunately had problem with the first line, " you have already closed your own desire of being open to new ideas.

You state, “I continue my quest by reading,thinking, discussing.” Yet, when I offered you two readings from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, you write “I didn’t read all the document to very detail.”

Do you see your conflict in saying you “continue my quest by reading”, yet chose not to read the Church teaching?

I offered you the writings of the Church, the teaching through the Catechism of the Catholic Church - because it is expressed much better than my own writing - its straight from the Source - not my expression of the teaching.

Yet in your words, you “unfortunately had problem with the first line.” Do you see your own conflict within your own quest “to continue your quest to understand my self, creation, and Self (God)” “by reading”, to “have to be open with new ideas”?

Please note within your own writing your choice of words:
"I read it but I unfortunately had problem with the first line, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” and “holy trinity”.

I unfortunately don’t believe on praying."

There is a reason you continue to refer to your ideas as being unfortunate. Dwell on why you write “unfortunately.”

If you are looking for understanding self, creation, and Self (God), and you search out a part of your quest from Catholics and you already do not accept the Theology of God, of prayer, of “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” and the “Holy Trinity”… where can your quest go while walking through this section called Catholic Theology?

If you picture your quest as a literal walk down a path ending with “understanding self, creation, and God”, and you see a trail marked Catholic Theology or a trail marked Christian Theology - and those trails begin with God whom you have “problems with Christian God” - and you choose not to be open to the problems with this God - you can not mindfully take that path. You have closed the possibilities of taking that path. Even if you walk that path (in this case the path marked Catholic Answers Forums), you are not open to anything in the path, therefore, you are not mindful of anything present.

If your true quest is to understand self, creation, and Self (God), you need to remove some of your self-imposed limitation. You need to reflect what being open truly means.

Why do you search in your quest for God in the place of the Christian God if you are not open to the Christian God? The Christian God “lives” within the basis for the entire Christian teaching.

May the Christian God - the only God - free you to walk your true quest. May you find True Peace.

(I do not offer you that prayer to insult you - but the only way I can offer you a prayer is through the Christian God. I do not offer prayer for you to offend your disbelief in prayer, but because prayer is my highest gift I can offer you.)

Thank you very much for you long post.

I choose this forum since I know I share some concepts, like God, self, etc with others.

You offered some Church teaching but I have the problem with those teaching from very starting. I don’t believe that God created Heaven and earth at first place as there is a long story for creation of our universe and Earth is not one of the early creation but very late one.

I was open to a few Gods but unfortunately non of them could possibly provide me a self-consistent picture of God and creation so I left them aside.

 

[Bahman]

We have a conscience, i.e. an ability to distinguish good and evil.

That means that our mind should reach to a specific state at which evil action exist there are a potential, so our inner mind could recognize the presence of evil thought and act accordingly, namely either resist it using free will or release it. The main question is what is the original source at which this state of mind arose from (it couldn’t arise from nothing)?

 

[Bahman]

There was never any restriction on thought, except that it’s a temporal process and so couldn’t take place in eternity. But free will can choose evil even if there’s no temporal, cognitive intellectual process (thought) preceding it. It can do irrational things. Also KIM (keep in mind) the angels weren’t created good, they were created neutral, because their decisions, which are what qualify them as good or evil, can’t be made for them. This is why it is impossible for God to create a soul that is benevolent at the point of creation. They can become good afterward, they don’t have to. Therefore satan wasn’t in a state of harmony yet because since his decision couldn’t be made in light of everyone else’s, he was not in a state of “love and harmony” with God and all the other angels.

First, what do you mean with neutral?

Second, what do you mean with that thought could do irrational thing? Why we should be responsible for our irrational thoughts?

Third, you said “They can become good afterward, they don’t have to”. Why they choose the be bad when the only thing they see is good God full of love toward them?

Thank you very much for reflecting your thought but I don’t think if it could describe the story of fall of angels.

 

[Bahman]

Individual actions do not determine our entire moral status… “fundamentally” is the key word.

Individual actions are the result of our moral mind status yet action good or bad could be resisted by free will.

 

[SentinelofTruth]

Bahman:

First, what do you mean with neutral?

I mean “neither good nor evil”.

Bahman:

Second, what do you mean with that thought could do irrational thing? Why we should be responsible for our irrational thoughts?

I said irrational choices, not irrational thoughts. Why can’t we make irrational choices?

Bahman:

Third, you said “They can become good afterward, they don’t have to”. Why they choose the be bad when the only thing they see is good God full of love toward them?

Cause they’re arrogant. Cause they don’t want to admit a superior.

Bahman:

That means that our mind should reach to a specific state at which evil action exist there are a potential, so our inner mind could recognize the presence of evil thought and act accordingly, namely either resist it using free will or release it. The main question is what is the original source at which this state of mind arose from (it couldn’t arise from nothing)?

If you are asking where temptation comes from, IMO it is a metaphysically necessary consequence of free will.

 

[Bahman]

I mean “neither good nor evil”.

If they are neither good nor evil with they nature then what are able to do? Like taking A from position X and putting it on position Y conditioned to that the outcome neither brings good nor evil.

I said irrational choices, not irrational thoughts. Why can’t we make irrational choices?

How a being with neutral nature could do, think, choose something irrational?

Cause they’re arrogant. Cause they don’t want to admit a superior.

How you could get arrogant behaviour from a creature which is neutral?

If you are asking where temptation comes from, IMO it is a metaphysically necessary consequence of free will.

Evil cannot be the consequence of free will. Evil has deep root in our self, like good each for a specific purpose. Free will in fact can control evil as we could resist against evil thought.

 

[SentinelofTruth]

Bahman:

If they are neither good nor evil with they nature then what are able to do? Like taking A from position X and putting it on position Y conditioned to that the outcome neither brings good nor evil.

I’m not sure what is being said here.
Bahmnan:

How a being with neutral nature could do, think, choose something irrational?

What is inherently rational about neutrality?

Bahman:

How you could get arrogant behaviour from a creature which is neutral?

We aren’t neutral anymore. As soon as we make a choice with moral value, we become either good or evil.

Bahman:

Evil cannot be the consequence of free will. Evil has deep root in our self, like good each for a specific purpose. Free will in fact can control evil as we could resist against evil thought.

I said temptation, not evil. And it should be clear that as long as there is the possibility of evil there will be temptation.

 

[Bahman]

I’m not sure what is being said here.

I meant the outcome of action of a being with neutral nature has to be neutral. You can expect any good and evil from them.

What is inherently rational about neutrality?

I think it is quite irrational to create a neutral being. A quality of being that its outcome is neutral. It does completely lack any purpose in being and in creation.

We aren’t neutral anymore. As soon as we make a choice with moral value, we become either good or evil.

Without concept of good and evil we can never exercise our free will. Evil is not outcome of our free will it is something intrinsic, as intrinsic as good, absence of one make another a neural quality and vise versa.