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

  • Thread starter Thread starter STT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Opinion only right or wrong in pondering heavily questioning, that God is responsible for evil for not offering Beatific Vision as a gift. But oh!! He did, stating other wise, is one who Knows not His Spoken Word and All His instructions given, to all the prophets who came before us, to give us Knowledge, Truth and HIS Spoken Word?

God is NOT responsible for evil, for we would be calling God a liar would we? For HE is Truth, clearly tells us All I created is Good, VERY GOOD! I have chosen to dare not judge the ONE who created me,sorry?

He came physically to those, who ate with, talk with, waked among, stayed with, cried with, defended, taught, all those who would become HIS physically witnesses ( bring 2 or more?) thus their testimony was also written not only in HIS Time, but to those in the future who would come after them, to read and to hear, to testify, to spread HIS Word into all nations?

God our Heavenly Father makes it clear, right in the beginning of HIS Word, all He created was Good, very Good, no evil there is there? But He clearly identifies what HE did not create>>The Tree of Good and Evil,do not eat from? Free Will sadly rejected the truth and choose the lie?

And in the beginning gives Knowledge, of what is good , leaves us not ignorant, gives continually HIS Knowledge to us? Does God not also have Free Will, chooses and creates what HE wills also?

God gives us all Free Will? No one has power over you, nor can force you can they? Thus He gives us Free Will also? Not responsible then for what we choose for ourselves is He?
All He created was Very Good, we by our own Free Will choose what defiles us, do we not?

What does good and evil have in common? Nothing! God makes that very clear and that HE does not join to either?

HE gave more then a vision Mother Earth for He created all our eyes rest upon, but He came in the flesh, using what was >>Visible, what we only knew or understood, to teach us about what was>> Invisible, did He not?

In All His Infinite Wisdom, he left us not helpless, orphans, telling us through His Spoken Word, sending us his prophets, since the beginning of time, I do not want you to be ignorant, thus gives us Knowledge to know what is right or wrong, example Ten Commandments? Sermon on the Mount?
Eyes to see and ears to hear?
A Conscious MIND? A heart? Soul? The 4 Senses? He equipped our Being with all that was needed?
All that was needed was common sense stating it is not difficult even a child could comprehend?

Thus even giving us the gift of Free Will?
To share in All that was HIS Freely, all He created was good very good and what HE created, He provided for All our Spiritual and Physical needs to continue to exist?

He also had Free Will, did HE not? Thus within HIS Desire, His own Desire of Free Will, He choose to give Free Will to all, to experience for ourselves the great Love, Joy, Peace, Free Will offers and to help share in continuing to build upon His Creation, upon all His Goodness?

A Gift is not a Gift if one takes it back right? Thus Free Will>>I believe He will never take back, for then it would make HIM responsible, God would then be held accountable for our personal choices we make, oh the depth of such Infinite Wisdom!

What is Love if one is forced to Love?

With Free Will it gives us all the Freedom and right to choose, to question, to examine, but what comes also with Free Will, it makes US >ALL responsible and accountable for our own choices, whether they are good or bad and how our own Free Will choices will effect the very lives of others and those around us? Just opinion not to offend either, but pondering on what one as stated. Peace
 
opinion only. Plus through out His Spoken Word He gives us a Vision, Signs to know, identify the evil ones, He will deceive the whole world? Give lying signs and wonders? Goes around masquerading as being God himself, even can transform himself as being an angel even? Will work all miracles and lying wonders, even if he prophecies he can bring fire down from the sky, and it happens leave that lying prophet? You will know them by their fruits, good or bad? Common sense is all that is needed, we all know what is good for us do we not? Those are our gifts, the gift of our Conscious to determine, to think and to ponder on? Provides the tools needed, within our being, eyes to see, ears to hear? Visions of good and bad unfold in front of us daily do they not? Peace
 
STT said:
40.png
ProdglArchitect:
Incorrect. Our first parents were created perfect. They had no natural inclination towards sin (concupiscence), and yet still chose to sin.
Click to expand...
A car which is perfect doesn’t fail. A perfect being who is rational doesn’t sin.
Click to expand...
This is nothing more than a baseless assertion, not an argument or proof.
 
STT said:
So lets start from these: Did our parents have the potential to sin? Does a rational person sin?
Click to expand...
I’m pretty sure you and I had this exact same conversation about a month ago, and we wound up talking circles around eachother.

Rational people can sin, period. Just because an action is irrational doesn’t make the person choosing that action irrational. I am a rational person, I make rational decisions each day. However, I also occasionally make the irrational decision to sin. That does not change my state as a rational person, it just means that I chose poorly.

I’m not going to get drawn into this debate with you again, because it is fruitless and all you do is repeat yourself. If you’d like a refresher, maybe our last go-around survived the transition.
 
Last edited:
STT said:
40.png
Gorgias:
is a parent held legally responsible for the crimes of his adult children?
Click to expand...
No, you get me wrong. They are responsible for act of procreation knowing the fact that it would eventually leads to sin/crime.
Click to expand...
Fine: parents know that the children they procreate will not be perfect. Are they held legally responsible for the crimes their adult children may commit? Are they held morally responsible for the sins their adult children will commit.

The answer is the same to both questions: no. Therefore, neither does your point hold up to scrutiny. 🤷‍♂️

(You can make the case that the parents are responsible for procreation, but that’s about all. Analogously, God is responsible for creation, but not for our sins.)
 
ProdglArchitect said:
I’m pretty sure you and I had this exact same conversation about a month ago, and we wound up talking circles around eachother.

Rational people can sin, period. Just because an action is irrational doesn’t make the person choosing that action irrational. I am a rational person, I make rational decisions each day. However, I also occasionally make the irrational decision to sin. That does not change my state as a rational person, it just means that I chose poorly.

I’m not going to get drawn into this debate with you again, because it is fruitless and all you do is repeat yourself. If you’d like a refresher, maybe our last go-around survived the transition.
Click to expand...
You have a better memory than I have. What is your solution for going out of this circle? Do you have an answer for this question: Why God cannot sin? Is He sinless because He is rational, perfect, etc.?
 
Gorgias said:
Fine: parents know that the children they procreate will not be perfect. Are they held legally responsible for the crimes their adult children may commit? Are they held morally responsible for the sins their adult children will commit.

The answer is the same to both questions: no. Therefore, neither does your point hold up to scrutiny. 🤷‍♂️

(You can make the case that the parents are responsible for procreation, but that’s about all. Analogously, God is responsible for creation, but not for our sins.)
Click to expand...
As I said parents are not responsible for their children faults. They are responsible for procreation know the fact that their children could not possibly be perfect.
 
God cannot sin because he is all good, he is the standard of good in fact.
We usually find out about darkness when we know what light is.
We know what negative numbers are when we learn what positive is.
I know what “no car” means when I learn what “car” means.
You might say we are defining God into exsistence, but I believe its still the truth.
God is by nature,definition good. Light can only be light, light can not be darkness.
Same goes for God.
We as human, our nature is to sin, but we are also inclined to something more.
Kinda if you ever felt empty, despite having all the material things you wanted.
Hope that helps. (I am not the best at explaining)
 
STT said:
You have a better memory than I have. What is your solution for going out of this circle? Do you have an answer for this question: Why God cannot sin? Is He sinless because He is rational, perfect, etc.?
Click to expand...
God is sinless because He cannot have an absence of Himself. Sin is the absence or rejection of God in some way, shape, or form. God cannot be absent from Himself, nor can He reject Himself, therefore He cannot sin.

As for getting out of the circle, there is no circle. We went round in circles because you kept repeating yourself, ignoring what anyone else wrote. You continue to assert that a rational being cannot sin, but you cannot or will not give justification for this. The argument you kept presenting was that a rational person would not sin, and therefore only irrational people sin. This is a baseless assertion, as there is absolutely no reason that a rational person would be incapable of making an irrational choice. As I said above, I am a rational person, but I still sin. This does not make me irrational, it just means that I chose against the rational decision.

All people sin, and so in order for your position to be true, all people would have to be irrational. As such, you yourself are also irrational, which means that you cannot trust your own judgment in determining what dictates rational or irrational behavior. If your premise is true, you cannot trust yourself to have arrived at the proper conclusion.
 
Last edited:
ProdglArchitect said:
God is sinless because He cannot have an absence of Himself. Sin is the absence or rejection of God in some way, shape, or form. God cannot be absent from Himself, nor can He reject Himself, therefore He cannot sin.
Click to expand...
Why sinning is absence of God?
 
Because that is its nature. Sin is a loss of “good.” God is Goodness itself, and the source of all Good. As such, any loss of “good” would be a loss of God.
 
Because God is not equal to sin, he can only be good, as I explained, just like darkness is the absence (or in a way you could also say “rejection”) of light, so is good absence of sin/bad. But let’s not make the false conclusion that therefore God is not in hell, because he is omnipotent as a spirit he is, but his relationship isn’t.
 
ProdglArchitect said:
Because that is its nature. Sin is a loss of “good.” God is Goodness itself, and the source of all Good. As such, any loss of “good” would be a loss of God.
Click to expand...
Well, you need to first prove that evil is absence of good. Moreover, if being good means sinless then Adam and Eve should be sinless because they were created good.
 
DetectiveNiko said:
Because God is not equal to sin, he can only be good, as I explained, just like darkness is the absence (or in a way you could also say “rejection”) of light, so is good absence of sin/bad. But let’s not make the false conclusion that therefore God is not in hell, because he is omnipotent as a spirit he is, but his relationship isn’t.
Click to expand...
I don’t like your analogy. To me evil is just opposite of good.
 
You gotta explain why though ? Evil is opposite of good to me too, but it does not change my statment at all.
 
DetectiveNiko said:
You gotta explain why though ? Evil is opposite of good to me too, but it does not change my statment at all.
Click to expand...
Well, we have good act, neutral act and evil act. Neutral acts exists and they reside between good and evil. Therefore good is opposite of evil and vice versa.
 
Natural acts subsequent unnatural acts, and how would you define those ? Or would you say that those are good and bad just like you have negative , 0 , positive on the number scale ? Besides, the exsistance of natural acts (however you define those) doesn’t elimnate the fact that the positive is not equal to the negative which is the whole point of my analogy. So let’s not diverge from the theme any further. Hopefully that helps, if not I can’t help much when we dont agree on the same standards.
 
STT said:
Well, we have good act, neutral act and evil act. Neutral acts exists and they reside between good and evil. Therefore good is opposite of evil and vice versa.
Click to expand...
Hold on a second… you’re playing fast and loose with your terms, and conflating pairs of them!

“Good acts” and “the good” are distinct terms (just as “evil acts” and “evil” are distinct). What you say about acts doesn’t necessarily hold for the basic moral categories of good and evil.

Therefore, you can’t really prove your assertions via “good and evil” simply by looking at acts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top