How does God bring good out of evil: When a 5 year old girl is raped and murdered?

[Todd_Easton]

Do we just say Heaven awaits such victims?

Not only that we have a reasonable hope heaven awaits them but, also, because there are various degrees of beatitude in heaven, such young such victims will receive a greater degree of beatitude than they would otherwise.

 

[SteelArchangel]

That took place in India. Chances are they’re Hindu, and they subscribe to reincarnation.

There it will be viewed that she’ll be born into a better life while the murderer is reincarnated as something lowly.

 

[Wesrock]

stpurl:

No, we can’t. Any ‘good’ that comes out of evil never comes through us, but through God.

As for humanity doing ‘far greater good than evil’, a brief perusal of world history would put that notion to rest quickly.

We don’t have the capacity for the good that we do without God, nor would God permit the evil if a greater good wasn’t brought out of it.

So the consensus among theists is that we give the credit to God, and the blame to man.

But this combination of good and evil would seem to indicate that God is neither omniscient nor omnipotent, for simple evolution can do as good of a job as God has at creating good. Evolution has led to mass extinctions, and the suffering and death of the innocent and the weak, but out of it has also come a greater good, for out of it has come life, and us, and of course we consider that to be a greater good. So even mindless evolution can create a world with a greater good.

In a world that’s a combination of good and evil there is no evidence of God, only the law of survival of the fittest. If this is a world designed by God, then even the mindless laws of nature can do as well.

So I say give man the blame for the evil, he deserves it, but give him the credit as well, he’s earned that too.

This follows from a misunderstanding of God’s moment-to-moment relationship to creation.

 

[StAugustine]

Love necessitates freedom and therefore the possibility of evil. Show me a world where freedom is never abused and your God is merely a dictator. Love and goodness are risky business.

 

[phujosh]

How does God bring good out of evil?

Easy… God uses the most evil thing that humans have committed by allowing Jesus to be humiliated, ridiculed, judged, scourged, to carry - to be crucified - and to die on the cross FOR THE SALVATION OF SOULS. Likewise, God uses human sufferings and misery to fill up what is lacking in Christ’s sufferings on the cross to change the hearts and minds of people, for the transformation, conversion, redemption, purification and salvation of souls. The pains and sorrows of the grieving family of the little girl united with the petitions, prayers, penances, mortifications, sacrifices of the living saints on earth must be offered in union with Jesus’s sufferings on the cross to change the hearts and minds of people, for the transformation, conversion, redemption, purification and salvation of souls.

 

[StAugustine]

Certainly it does, for freedom and love have no moral meaning apart from God. Animals do not strive for love and freedom, they strive for dominance and reproduction. And in fact, quite opposite of the animals, we are capable of altruistic self-sacrifice, contrary to the supposed reality of natural selection. If we all evolved in the same way from a common ancestor, at what point in our development did we obtain the capacity to die for truths that we find ennobling? Freely and lovingly mind you. Something cannot come from nothing, and the self-sacrifice in the name of truth gene does not exist in irrational creatures. Therefore where else would our need to lay down our life for truth come from if not from that which is outside, not only us, but the laws of nature and the universe and truth itself, as origin and cause of all truth and all being?

 

[stpurl]

But I didn’t say that. I said “perhaps”. I also said she might have suffered a different kind of pain. IOW, I offered two things which might have been, as far as the person’s ultimate salvation, worse (eternally) than what happened. I didn’t say it was why it happened, or that it would have happened, or tell a grieving family’ that this is why their daughter died. So please, don’t try to give ME a bad name I do not deserve.

The use of "perhaps’ is a conditional kind of “what if”. It means that what follows might be an explanation, or it might not, not that it absolutely is what would have happened.

 

[Annie]

for simple evolution can do as good of a job as God has at creating good. Evolution has led to mass extinctions, and the suffering and death of the innocent and the weak, but out of it has also come a greater good, for out of it has come life, and us, and of course we consider that to be a greater good. So even mindless evolution can create a world with a greater good.

You are assuming that “simple evolution” --by which I assume you mean evolution without the guidance of any greater intelligence–can bring about the incredible complexity of life that we see on this world.

I think that without God, the universe would not exist, but if it did, the conditions would not be right for life to arise, but if they were, that life would not have started, because that is a huge leap.

 

[goout]

Do we not expect God to prevent these kinds of things in His Providence?

Do we expect God to give us life? Maybe we should expect God to prevent our existence, then no need to worry about any of this. Would that be better?
Why do we not call God into the dock for an explanation of what we consider good?

We take good for granted, and we blame someone God for everything that is bad.
The problem is that our gratitude does not match our outrage.

But at the end of our lives we all die a temporal death. So I guess we can all lament the injustice of death. Will our outrage at God prevent out temporal deaths? Good luck.

Or, on the other hand, we can be thankful in the midst of everything, to the best of our ability.

 

[Sarcelle]

I do not intend to give you a bad name. If that’s how you feel like this is what I am doing then I apologize.

I still think it still is best not to speculate on what God’s intentions are especially when it comes to difficult circumstances. Our limited intellectual capacity does not even compare to God’s omniscience so we often end up being wrong on our speculations.

 

[pacloc]

1. This life is transient like the wind and we will all die.
2. Only God is permanent.
3. We can not protect ourselves or others.
4. There is a huge sexual disease in humanity.
5. There is a huge violence disease in humanity.
6. Do we have faith that we will live eternally beyond this life and that any injustice in this life will be made right?
7. Do we protect our children adequately?
8. Are we able to forgive something so ugly since it really is only temporary? Only Sin is truly dangerous.
9. A future life of sin was prevented.
10. A possible conversion or condemnation for the attacker.
11. A renewed view of important things for family members.
12. A deeper love for the girl and an eternal positive memory of her.
    etc., etc.

Infinite blessings, while the act had nothing Godly in it and could not have happened without the actions of evil men and angels. But God is able to make right all injustices and we mature in ways that are very difficult to learn from just hearing without experiencing. It takes almost all of us to experience very trying events to finally begin to think straight and stop living in delusion.

 

[AlNg]

No, we don’t look to him to prevent these things because this is part of the punishment of Original sin

So God allowed this five year old girl to be tortured and raped and killed because Adam and Eve committed a sin thousands of years ago? BTW, I thought that the stories in Genesis were not taken literally? Or should they be taken literally?

 

[stpurl]

I totally agree with you on that, and I am certain you meant nothing bad by your post. God bless.

 

[StAugustine]

They are to be taken literally and at face value.

And yes, suffering in this life is a punishment for Original Sin.

Now, God is foremost the Good.

And being the good, he is perfectly just and perfectly merciful.

Therefore, at the final judgment, justice will be perfectly dispensed to the victim and perpetrator and mercy will be perfectly dispensed to the victim and perpetrator in accordance with his full and complete knowledge.

This is our consolation- God is the supreme Good.

 

[AlNg]

BTW, I thought that the stories in Genesis were not taken literally? Or should they be taken literally?

They are to be taken literally and at face value.

OK. the stories in Genesis are to be taken literally. However,
according to Catholic teaching, God is immovable. If God is immovable, how come He was observed walking in a garden in the cool of the day?
Genesis 3:8.
And Enoch walked with God also. Genesis 5:22, 24. And Noah walked with God. Genesis 6:9.
How can God be immovable if He was walking around on earth?
And Genesis also reports that God repented and grieved that He had made man upon the earth. Gen 6: 6. For God to repent, would that not mean that He thought that He had done something that He wished He had not done? Since this is to be taken literally, and at face value, would that strike a blow at the perfection of God since He already knew ahead of time that He would repent of what He was planning to do?

 

[stpurl]

Um, you are confining the meaning of ‘immovable’ to motion.

Suppose you ask a person to change his mind on a topic. He says, "No, I am immovable’. Does it follow then that the person never moves?

 

[StAugustine]

Actually the Catholic Church teaches in Trent and Vatican I that the proper interpretation of scripture is found in the unanimous consensus of the fathers. And they are literalists so I am too. Read St. Basils Hexameron on the six days of creation.

I don’t know more than the Church, I abide by her traditional teachings and interpretations. If others don’t, well I guess they’re simply ignorant or lazy. Or any combination. Most likely just unaware of the dogmas. Which isn’t surprising given our culture of subjectivism and the current idolatry of sentimentality.

 

[StAugustine]

Vatican I dogmatically says-

1. Apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and all other observances and constitutions of that same Church I most firmly accept and embrace.
2. Likewise I accept Sacred Scripture according to that sense which Holy mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures; nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers.

 

[StAugustine]

Literal interpretation is not literalistic. The literal interpretation of a passage is that interpretation which corresponds with the intent of the sacred writer.

Moreover, the Church has dogmatically established at least some of the aspects that are to be taken literally, as in her account of original sin- it’s nature and it’s effects. Distinctions.

 

[goout]

There are 4 senses of scripture.
The primary sense of scripture is the literal sense, and the Church doesn’t use the word literal the way 21st century English speakers use it.
The literal sense should not be conflated with historical and scientifically factual. That’s not what is meant by the literal sense. The bible is not a work of journalism, although it has elements of it. The bible is not a science textbook, although it has elements of science. The bible is rooted in history, but is not a history textbook.

Once a literal sense is established and respected, spiritual senses derive from them.
The danger of biblical fundamentalism is that it locks the scriptures in the reader’s context and understanding. And scripture was not written in the reader’s context and understanding, but rather in the human author’s context and understanding.