Is God responsible for evil for not offering Beatific Vision as a gift?

[Lucretius]

@STT

He knows everything, including foreknowledge.

He created things knowing they had a potential for evil, regardless of whether they would actualize it or not. God is not responsible for our sins.

Is that (bold part) written in Bible or the result of speculation?

Our theology of Original Sin is witnessed in the Scripture.

Christi pax.

 

[STT]

The bold part is restating. Just read it like this:

For Theosis one must be established in charity but to express charity one must have free will. Free will allows for charity or malice, so one must prove their charity to be established in virtue.

You are saying first that there is evil to be resolved. But we know that for moral evil there must be free will. To then destroy the evil without any individual act of free will means to remove free will.

What is the basis of the statement that: God can simply reveal himself to us [to] resolve all evils?

It is church teaching. What Beatific Vision is supposed to mean?

In Christian theology, the beatific vision (Latin: visio beatifica) is the ultimate direct self communication of God to the individual person.

 

[STT]

There is no link between his knowledge vs responsibility for evil. You already agreed foreknowledge does not equate to cause so why bring it up? One can’t be responsible for something not caused by you. You didn’t mention freewill in your rebuttal so I’ll ignore this late addition and treat it as a dodge.

There is a link between His knowledge and responsibility for evil. It is like making a car which is not perfect knowing that it would have an accident soon or late.

You are resorting to fallacious argument. The Beatific Vision is not the cause of evil. There is no requirement that one must be able to resist sin 100%. The Beatific Vision is the reward. If there is no such reward or the reward is of a different type, your argument falls completely. Whether God offers this reward or not has no bearing on whether one chooses evil or not.

I said that the Beatific Vision prevents evil.

It is not an entitlement. It is a reward for choosing the correct path. It is plain that you can not see the distinction or that you are choosing to ignore its implications.

Here we are arguing that Beatific Vision should have been shared to Adam and Eve. It shouldn’t be a reward since otherwise evil is unavoidable.

 

[STT]

He created things knowing they had a potential for evil, regardless of whether they would actualize it or not. God is not responsible for our sins.

Yes, we are arguing that He is responsible for making imperfect thing which has potential for evil. Is a company is responsible for an accident if there is a failure in their car?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

That’s not a valid analogy. The car cannot chose whether or not it malfunctions, we CAN chose whether or not we sin.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

The bold part is restating. Just read it like this:

For Theosis one must be established in charity but to express charity one must have free will. Free will allows for charity or malice, so one must prove their charity to be established in virtue.

You are saying first that there is evil to be resolved. But we know that for moral evil there must be free will. To then destroy the evil without any individual act of free will means to remove free will.

What is the basis of the statement that: God can simply reveal himself to us [to] resolve all evils?

It is church teaching. What Beatific Vision is supposed to mean?

In Christian theology, the beatific vision (Latin: visio beatifica) is the ultimate direct self communication of God to the individual person.

So this is what the Church teaches, from Modern Catholic Dictionary, that for others than Jesus Christ, the souls of the just that have departed this life may have the Beatific Vision. See the edict – Benedictus Deus – Jan. 29, 1336.

BEATIFIC VISION. The intuitive knowledge of God which produces heavenly beatitude. As defined by the Church, the souls of the just “see the divine essence by an intuitive vision and face to face, so that the divine essence is known immediately, showing itself plainly, clearly and openly, and not mediately through any creature” (Denzinger 1000-2). Moreover, the souls of the saints “clearly behold God, one and triune, as He is” (Denzinger 1304-6). It is called vision in the mind by analogy with bodily sight, which is the most comprehensive of human sense faculties; it is called beatific because it produces happiness in the will and the whole being. As a result of this immediate vision of God, the blessed share in the divine happiness, where the beatitude of the Trinity is (humanly speaking) the consequence of God’s perfect knowledge of his infinite goodness. The beatific vision is also enjoyed by the angels, and was possessed by Christ in his human nature even while he was in his mortal life on earth. (Etym. Latin beatificus, beatific, blissful, imparting great happiness or blessedness; from beatus, happy.)

 

[Lucretius]

@STT

Yes, we are arguing that He is responsible for making imperfect thing which has potential for evil.

And no one said otherwise. I said God isn’t responsible for our sins, not that he isn’t responsible for our creation (things that are not God by nature have a potential for evil).

Christi pax.

 

[Gorgias]

Yes, we are arguing that He is responsible for making imperfect thing which has potential for evil. Is a company is responsible for an accident if there is a failure in their car?

Wrong analogy. A better one might be: “is a parent held legally responsible for the crimes of his adult children?”

 

[Aloysium]

. . . I said God isn’t responsible for our sins, not that he isn’t responsible for our creation (things that are not God by nature have a potential for evil).

Christi pax.

Further to what you say here, what makes it a great offense is that we are created with the capacity to love by Love Himself, and we choose not to love one another as ourselves, and God with all our hearts and minds. We as one humanity, in fact, have chosen to be gods, to place our selves at the centre of the garden that is our relationship with and within creation. We should consider what God does, observing Jesus on the cross, taking all sin upon Himself and in the dying and through His resurrection overcoming death, nonbeing, which lies at the heart of evil. In Adam, we chose to die, in and through Christ, we are reborn into the Trinity itself. We are on the path towards the Beatific Vision, that Way that is Jesus Christ, but our free will enables us to as to remain in the darkness of our selfishness cutting us off from the goodness from which all creation springs.

 

[eddietoo]

the idea that we can only choose to do right if we are experiencing the beatific vision is an erroneous and unsupportable premise.

there are many people who choose to do the right thing every day. some people make the choice to do the right think heroically, take st. maximilian kolbe for one example.

to have a fruitful discussion, we must reject and avoid all erroneous and unsupportable premises.

 

[eddietoo]

it is illogical to conclude that God is not Perfect and All Loving because He chose to create human beings that would reject Him.

why is it illogical? for two reasons:

first, it results in the conclusion that not creating human beings to enjoy eternal life with Him is more loving than creating them to enjoy eternal life with Him. it is like saying it is better for no one to have eternal life than for some to have eternal life.

second, it results in the conclusion that God should let those who would reject Him prevent those who would love Him from having eternal life. it is like saying God should have given evil power over Himself.

what kind of nonsensical being would draw those two conclusions and thus not share His eternal life with His creatures?

i believe the erroneous premise comes from a deficit of understanding the meaning of love.

 

[STT]

That’s not a valid analogy. The car cannot chose whether or not it malfunctions, we CAN chose whether or not we sin.

It is a valid analogy since we sin because we are imperfect. We wouldn’t sin otherwise, if we were created perfect or we were shared Beatific Vision.

 

[STT]

So this is what the Church teaches, from Modern Catholic Dictionary, that for others than Jesus Christ, the souls of the just that have departed this life may have the Beatific Vision. See the edict – Benedictus Deus – Jan. 29, 1336.

The main question is whether we would sin or not if we perceive Beatific Vision? If yes we all sin even after going to Heaven otherwise the question is why God didn’t share Beatific Vision knowing that we would sin.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Incorrect. Our first parents were created perfect. They had no natural inclination towards sin (concupiscence), and yet still chose to sin.

 

[STT]

And no one said otherwise. I said God isn’t responsible for our sins, not that he isn’t responsible for our creation (things that are not God by nature have a potential for evil).

Christi pax.

So according to your argument we are responsible for our creation?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Lucretius:

And no one said otherwise. I said God isn’t responsible for our sins, not that he isn’t responsible for our creation (things that are not God by nature have a potential for evil).

Christi pax.

So according to your argument we are responsible for our creation?

That is literally the opposite of what he wrote…

 

[STT]

Wrong analogy. A better one might be: “is a parent held legally responsible for the crimes of his adult children?”

No, you get me wrong. They are responsible for act of procreation knowing the fact that it would eventually leads to sin/crime.

 

[STT]

the idea that we can only choose to do right if we are experiencing the beatific vision is an erroneous and unsupportable premise.

there are many people who choose to do the right thing every day. some people make the choice to do the right think heroically, take st. maximilian kolbe for one example.

to have a fruitful discussion, we must reject and avoid all erroneous and unsupportable premises.

Even if that premise is erroneous, God is still responsible for creating beings which have potential for evil.

 

[STT]

it is illogical to conclude that God is not Perfect and All Loving because He chose to create human beings that would reject Him.

why is it illogical? for two reasons:

first, it results in the conclusion that not creating human beings to enjoy eternal life with Him is more loving than creating them to enjoy eternal life with Him. it is like saying it is better for no one to have eternal life than for some to have eternal life.

second, it results in the conclusion that God should let those who would reject Him prevent those who would love Him from having eternal life. it is like saying God should have given evil power over Himself.

what kind of nonsensical being would draw those two conclusions and thus not share His eternal life with His creatures?

i believe the erroneous premise comes from a deficit of understanding the meaning of love.

We either have a reason for not choosing God or we don’t have. Knowing the fact that God just wants our goodness then it make no sense to say that the rejection of God is rational because we are all looking for goodness. The next question is that why we do sin, reject God for example? We sin because we are imperfect since perfect being, God for example, cannot sin. The next question is why then God created imperfect beings?

 

[STT]

Incorrect. Our first parents were created perfect. They had no natural inclination towards sin (concupiscence), and yet still chose to sin.

A car which is perfect doesn’t fail. A perfect being who is rational doesn’t sin.