Job's response to the Problem of Evil

[dostoyevskyfan]

I know that the augustinian position with respect to the problem of evil is that God only creates good. Evil is a lack, a privation, much like a hole in a shirt. It is just the absence of Good and doesn’t necessarily have a positive ontology.

What about Job’s position(said to his wife) “You speak as one of the foolish speaks. Shall we receive good from God, but not evil?”

also,

“the Lord has given and the Lord has taken away. Blessed be the name of the Lord.”

I kind of see this as the importance of praising God even while suffering. I believe it is more difficult to praise God in suffering rather than when things are going all going our way…wealth, wife, kids, etc. Therefore, God probably values praise to him more highly from a suffering man, than one who has been given much.

Is Job’s idea that God administers both good and evil in conflict with Augustine? Discuss.

 

[Katholish]

Job does imply, it seems, that God is the author and cause of some of his evils. (Even though the text at the beginning seems to indicate that God *merely allows *the devil to harass Job).

Even St. Augustine will that that while evil may not be a “thing”, there are still instances when it is willed by God.

The two are not in conflict. What you need, however, is to understand the distinction between moral evil and physical evil. Job underwent only physical evils as part of his trial. A good example of a physical evil is when a lion kills a zebra. It is an evil for the zebra to die, get God established this as the way of things and is the cause of all things, so He wills this evil so that the lion may live (i.e. for the sake of some good).

Moral evil, which is always an act of the will, cannot be willed by God, which is a central point for St. Augustine. Augustine defines both kinds of evil as privations but claims that God can and does will one, but not the other.

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

Job does imply, it seems, that God is the author and cause of some of his evils. (Even though the text at the beginning seems to indicate that God *merely allows *the devil to harass Job).

Even St. Augustine will that that while evil may not be a “thing”, there are still instances when it is willed by God.

The two are not in conflict. What you need, however, is to understand the distinction between moral evil and physical evil. Job underwent only physical evils as part of his trial. A good example of a physical evil is when a lion kills a zebra. It is an evil for the zebra to die, get God established this as the way of things and is the cause of all things, so He wills this evil so that the lion may live (i.e. for the sake of some good).

Moral evil, which is always an act of the will, cannot be willed by God, which is a central point for St. Augustine. Augustine defines both kinds of evil as privations but claims that God can and does will one, but not the other.

I didn’t know the last paragraph you wrote. Thank you. Seems like a tough distinction though; two different forms of “non-being” ie …evil. Makes me think of the difference between a square circle and and the answer to 5 divided by 0, which I don’t see. Or a rectangular octagon if 5 divided by 0 is actually something, I forget.

How would someone like Job undergo a “moral evil” or what is an example of a “moral evil”? The Armenian genocide? The birth of a child who suffers from down-syndrome?

Also I thought physical evils don’t really exist. Doesn’t the church teach that when a lioness rips open a zebra’s ribcage, consumes, and then regurgitates the meat to her young ones, that that is morally neutral?

I think the paradox of Job is that it’s even sinful to question God, since no one was around when he created the universe, yet is it sinful to try an understand? And doesn’t understanding require questioning? Jesus said something about when the apostles are in heaven, “On that day you will have no questions.” John 16:23 So are all these inquiries pointless?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I think the paradox of Job is that it’s even sinful to question God, since no one was around when he created the universe, yet is it sinful to try an understand? And doesn’t understanding require questioning?

It’s sinful to *demand *understanding (and offer faith in return), but not sinful to seek understanding. God doesn’t take bribes, but He does share secrets. And I don’t think Job was sinning in questioning God, either.

 

[rvilbig]

Moral evil, which is always an act of the will, cannot be willed by God, which is a central point for St. Augustine. Augustine defines both kinds of evil as privations but claims that God can and does will one, but not the other.

There’s an interesting passage in 2 Samuel in which it seems that God wills David to suffer moral evil. Unless I’m misunderstanding this passage:

"As David was approaching Bahurim, a man named Shimei, the son of Gera of the same clan as Saul’s family, was coming out of the place, cursing as he came. He threw stones at David and at all the king’s officers, even though all the soldiers, including the royal guard, were on David’s right and on his left. Shimei was saying as he cursed: “Away, away, you murderous and wicked man!”… Abishai, son of Zeruiah, said to the king: “Why should this dead dog curse my lord the king? Let me go over, please, and lop off his head.” But the king replied: “What business is it of mine or of yours, sons of Zeruiah, that he curses? Suppose the LORD has told him to curse David; who then will dare to say, ‘Why are you doing this?’” Then the king said to Abishai and to all his servants: "If my own son, who came forth from my loins, is seeking my life, how much more might this Benjaminite do so! Let him alone and let him curse, for the LORD has told him to. (2 Sam 16:5-7,9-11)

This may qualify as moral evil: cursing him and retaliating by throwing stones. Certainly such actions aren’t morally good. And God seems to have ordained this to occur. What are your thoughts?

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[Katholish]

dostoyevskyfan,

I didn’t know the last paragraph you wrote. Thank you. Seems like a tough distinction though; two different forms of “non-being” ie …evil. Makes me think of the difference between a square circle and and the answer to 5 divided by 0, which I don’t see. Or a rectangular octagon if 5 divided by 0 is actually something, I forget.

I can see were talking about two kinds of “nothing” could sound stupid. The distinction between the two kinds of evil doesn’t arise from evil itself (because evil is nothing), but arises from the different kinds of things that experience the privation. I’ll explain more as we discuss moral evil…

How would someone like Job undergo a “moral evil” or what is an example of a “moral evil”? The Armenian genocide? The birth of a child who suffers from down-syndrome?

A moral evil, some times simply called sin, is a privation of a good that is supposed to be there, resulting from an act of the will. The Armenian genocide is a good example. The moral evil is not that hundred of thousands of people died, but rather that someone killed those people. A moral evil can only be the result of someone with free will, like God, angels, or human beings. A child with down’s syndrome is not an example of moral evil because no one maliciously willed for that child to be harmed.

While not always 100% precise, it is sometimes helpful to think of physical evil as something that one experiences or suffers and moral evil is something that one commits or does (passive vs. active).

I suppose it would be logical to ask that since God willed for a down’s syndrome child to be born that way, hasn’t God committed a moral evil. Just because an evil is willed doesn’t necessarily make it a moral evil (for instance, I will to kill a pig so that I may feed my family). It is only when the will chooses what it is not supposed to (for humans this is determined by the natural law and the divine law, or God it is determined by His very nature-which happens to be reflected in natural law.)

Also I thought physical evils don’t really exist. Doesn’t the church teach that when a lioness rips open a zebra’s ribcage, consumes, and then regurgitates the meat to her young ones, that that is morally neutral?

It is physically evil because the perfection of the zebra is to maintain bodily unity and not be torn to bits. The zebra is experiencing a privation of its bodily integrity. It is not a moral evil, however, because of a couple reasons. #1 the lioness has no will and hence is completely incapable of committing moral evil, and #2 because lions are by nature carnivores and God ordained that they feed on other animals, there is no violation of the moral or divine law. Physical evils are not real in the sense that they are not “things” but merely “privations”, but they do exist insofar as the privation is a real condition experienced by something else (like the zebra).

I think the paradox of Job is that it’s even sinful to question God, since no one was around when he created the universe, yet is it sinful to try an understand? And doesn’t understanding require questioning? Jesus said something about when the apostles are in heaven, “On that day you will have no questions.” John 16:23 So are all these inquiries pointless?

Trying to understand is certainly not in itself sinful, or is asking questions. “questioning” could sometimes refer to more than just asking questions, but could mean an actual denial or at least serious doubting. This kind of “questioning” could simetimes be the subject of moral evil if the truth at stake is something which should be known with certainty and the person has made a willful decision to shut themselves off from the truth. For example, a German citizen during WWII might “question” whether the Allies were the better side because he chose to ignore the evidence of Jewish extermination even though he was witness to mass deportation to camps. In such a case, one might say that this German had moral responsibility to open his eyes and see the truth (and hence not oppose the Allied occupation).

 

[Katholish]

rvilbig

This may qualify as moral evil: cursing him and retaliating by throwing stones. Certainly such actions aren’t morally good. And God seems to have ordained this to occur. What are your thoughts?

It might qualify as a moral evil, but I would not say that is certain. I can think of instances when throwing stones and yelling at someone could be morally praise worthy (for instance, opposing men who have come to harm your family). To determine whether a particular action is morally evil requires of knowledge of the person’s intentions and the circumstances surrounding the action. In this particular case, it does seem that the Scripture is implying these actions are unjustified. The conclusion that God sent this protester is David’s, and it isn’t obvious to me whether this is the conclusion the author of the Scripture is trying to convey.

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

A moral evil, some times simply called sin, is a privation of a good that is supposed to be there, resulting from an act of the will. The Armenian genocide is a good example. The moral evil is not that hundred of thousands of people died, but rather that someone killed those people. A moral evil can only be the result of someone with free will, like God, angels, or human beings. A child with down’s syndrome is not an example of moral evil because no one maliciously willed for that child to be harmed.

Well, God willed it, although probably not maliciously. He may be preventing that person from sin in order to give them eternal life. Although the church teaches that a water baptism is necessary for salvation and you must not be in a state of mortal sin or you go to hell forever. I’m sure they’re have been many cases of mentally-challenged people who don’t have the processing power or the resources to join the church and, much like aborted babies, are damned. The degree of their suffering in hell…we do not know. I know people who have turned away from God because their child was born with Downs syndrome. Its tragic. Where exactly does Augustine make the distinction between “moral” and “physical” evil? I’d like to read it.

I suppose it would be logical to ask that since God willed for a down’s syndrome child to be born that way, hasn’t God committed a moral evil. Just because an evil is willed doesn’t necessarily make it a moral evil (for instance, I will to kill a pig so that I may feed my family). It is only when the will chooses what it is not supposed to (for humans this is determined by the natural law and the divine law, or God it is determined by His very nature-which happens to be reflected in natural law.)

So God can “will evil” but He cannot be charged with “Moral evil” because He is God? That actually makes sense from the perspective of the book of Job. By right of his absolute authority, no one can “question” Him in the sense that He doesn’t have to be held accountable before anyone. He is the supreme being. Would it be safe to say that God is “Beyond Good and Evil” or Transmoral? If you’ve ever read Kierkegaard’s “Fear and Trembling” there’s another discussion we can have on the teleological suspension of the ethical…ie…Was it moral of Abraham, the father of faith, to be willing to stab his son to death? He was going to do it until the angel stopped him. How did he know he wasn’t insane? I mean we know that it was “divine foreshadowing” of God’s sacrifice of His son Jesus, but still…tough moral questions there.

It is physically evil because the perfection of the zebra is to maintain bodily unity and not be torn to bits. The zebra is experiencing a privation of its bodily integrity. It is not a moral evil, however, because of a couple reasons. #1 the lioness has no will and hence is completely incapable of committing moral evil, and #2 because lions are by nature carnivores and God ordained that they feed on other animals, there is no violation of the moral or divine law. Physical evils are not real in the sense that they are not “things” but merely “privations”, but they do exist insofar as the privation is a real condition experienced by something else (like the zebra).

You’re the first person to tell me that animals are capable of “physical evil”. I don’t know where it is in the catechism, maybe someone else does, but I think it states animals don’t have a soul or freewill and aren’t capable of any kind of evil. I read a thread from an apologist on here…I think someone asked why animals are sexually promiscuous, masturbate, and/or are gay, and they said all actions of animals are “morally neutral” because they act on instinct. The apologist didn’t cite a source though. Someone else told me the animal kingdom reflects “the fall” but didn’t cite their source either and I’m not sure the Church teaches that either. Did the Church adopt that teaching of Augustine on physical evil or not? If so, where is it found? Some of what Augustine thought was rejected by the church, which is infallible on faith and morals.

 

[Katholish]

Well, God willed it, although probably not maliciously. He may be preventing that person from sin in order to give them eternal life. Although the church teaches that a water baptism is necessary for salvation and you must not be in a state of mortal sin or you go to hell forever. I’m sure they’re have been many cases of mentally-challenged people who don’t have the processing power or the resources to join the church and, much like aborted babies, are damned. The degree of their suffering in hell…we do not know. I know people who have turned away from God because their child was born with Downs syndrome. Its tragic. Where exactly does Augustine make the distinction between “moral” and “physical” evil? I’d like to read it.

The Church does teach Baptism of Desire, but for those who are not capabl;e of expressing that desire in this life, the Church has not defined what happens to them. I would personally speculate that they are enlightened and given a choice upon death, but that is speculation.

As for where in Augustine you can find the distinction made, I am sure it is in many places throughout his work since it was one of his biggest contributions, but I am pretty sure that I personally read it in his treatise “On the Free Choice of the Will” This Church fully accepts this distinction, so you can find it also in almost every moral theologian since Augustine.

So God can “will evil” but He cannot be charged with “Moral evil” because He is God? That actually makes sense from the perspective of the book of Job. By right of his absolute authority, no one can “question” Him in the sense that He doesn’t have to be held accountable before anyone. He is the supreme being. Would it be safe to say that God is “Beyond Good and Evil” or Transmoral? If you’ve ever read Kierkegaard’s “Fear and Trembling” there’s another discussion we can have on the teleological suspension of the ethical…ie…Was it moral of Abraham, the father of faith, to be willing to stab his son to death? He was going to do it until the angel stopped him. How did he know he wasn’t insane? I mean we know that it was “divine foreshadowing” of God’s sacrifice of His son Jesus, but still…tough moral questions there.

It is correct to say that God can will physical evil, but this might also be a good time to bring up the distinction between God’s Antecedent Will and His Consequent will. God never wills physical evil antecedently (i.e. for its own sake), but only consequently (for the sake of some greater good).

God’s inability to commit moral evil doesn’t stem so much from his authority as it does from His Goodness. God cannot act in contradiction with His nature. It is His Nature to be Goodness itself, hence God cannot act in a manner which is not good. I would certainly NOT say that God is transmoral or “beyond Good and Evil” because it is a de fide teaching of the Church that God is identical with Goodness itself.

I have read Kierkegaard’s treatment of the topic of Abraham (though I haven’t read Fear and Trembling in its entirety). I agree that it is an interesting moral question, and it is a huge topic. I am going to pass on it for the time being though.

You’re the first person to tell me that animals are capable of “physical evil”. I don’t know where it is in the catechism, maybe someone else does, but I think it states animals don’t have a soul or freewill and aren’t capable of any kind of evil. I read a thread from an apologist on here…I think someone asked why animals are sexually promiscuous, masturbate, and/or are gay, and they said all actions of animals are “morally neutral” because they act on instinct. The apologist didn’t cite a source though. Someone else told me the animal kingdom reflects “the fall” but didn’t cite their source either and I’m not sure the Church teaches that either. Did the Church adopt that teaching of Augustine on physical evil or not? If so, where is it found? Some of what Augustine thought was rejected by the church, which is infallible on faith and morals.

As I tried to emphasize earlier, physical evil not something “bad” for the animals to do, and it is largely understood in a passive sense. Animals suffer physical evil, but you wouldn’t normally say that animals “commit” physical evil. The active language of “committing” applies more to moral evil.

Animals do not have free will, hence they are not capable of any kind of moral evil. They do have souls though, but that is another topic. It would be fair to say that the animal kingdom reflects the fall. This is in fact strongly implied in Genesis.

Yes, Augustine’s distinction was adopted by the Church at large, though I cannot think of an individual instance off-hand when this would have been the subject of an infallible decree.

 

[R_Daneel]

Isaiah 45:7 (New International Version)

I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the LORD, do all these things.
Enuff said.

 

[tonyrey]

It is simplistic to believe God creates evil. He is** ultimately** responsible for everything but that is a far cry from being directly responsible for disasters - which have physical or human causes.

St Augustine’s view of evil as negative is correct if it is linked with the **consequences **of events and decisions. A brain tumour is a privation in the sense that it deprives a person of life. Similarly disease, disasters, and deformities are all destructive but they are permitted by God because they are the consequences of an immensely complex system in which there are billions of living organisms pursuing different goals. As Leibniz remarked, houses are far more common than hospitals! Conflict and competition are inevitable in a physical world but they occur within a framework of order, harmony, development and fulfilment.

It is absurd to expect to have everything for nothing… There is always a price to pay for every gift we receive: every advantage has a corresponding disadvantage. The more sensitive we are the more we can enjoy life but also the more we can suffer…

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

Isaiah 45:7 (New International Version)

I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the LORD, do all these things.
Enuff said.

I’ve seen translations of that using the word “Evil” instead of disaster. The fact remains that the Tanach wasn’t written for personal interpretation by 21st century skeptics or believers; it was written for the Jewish people. I don’t know Hebrew and can’t accurately translate that verse.

It’s not “enuff said”, on the contrary, it leads to a whole series of other questions such as “Do we have the right to question our creator?” If I were capable of writing a novel with characters who were self aware, do those fictitious creations of mine have any right to criticize my plot line? Well, they may…but I could always erase them from the book. I created them, they belong to me, I can do anything I wish with them, and they can’t do anything about it.

Lastly, if we take a literal interpretation of the Old Testament, which I believe most of the Church fathers strongly discouraged including augustine (this is why the protestants complain about science) and I highly do not recommend, if God creates disaster, why does he do it, and is it necessarily bad? Could it just be awe inspiring and sublime, rather than “evil”? Why do we label earthquakes as “evil”…because people die? What if their existence was “evil” and their extermination, “good”? How can you prove any of it?

 

[R_Daneel]

I’ve seen translations of that using the word “Evil” instead of disaster. The fact remains that the Tanach wasn’t written for personal interpretation by 21st century skeptics or believers; it was written for the Jewish people. I don’t know Hebrew and can’t accurately translate that verse.

Ah, so now it was “written” by some Jewish people, and it is NOT a direct quote from God’s mouth itself?

It’s not “enuff said”, on the contrary, it leads to a whole series of other questions such as “Do we have the right to question our creator?” If I were capable of writing a novel with characters who were self aware, do those fictitious creations of mine have any right to criticize my plot line? Well, they may…but I could always erase them from the book. I created them, they belong to me, I can do anything I wish with them, and they can’t do anything about it.

This is just a reiteration of the “might makes right” principle - a very repugnant concept. But you might not realize that the quote was submitted as a reply to the claim that God does not create “bad” things. According the Bible he most certainly did. He ordered genocides, he personally “erased” the whole human race in the Flood (ok, he kept eight). So let’s not try to “whitewash” God. If you wish to serve the worst mass-murderer ever, that is your business. But don’t try to transform him into a “benevolent, loving, caring” being, because you lose your credibility in the process.

Lastly, if we take a literal interpretation of the Old Testament, which I believe most of the Church fathers strongly discouraged including augustine (this is why the protestants complain about science) and I highly do not recommend, if God creates disaster, why does he do it, and is it necessarily bad? Could it just be awe inspiring and sublime, rather than “evil”? Why do we label earthquakes as “evil”…because people die? What if their existence was “evil” and their extermination, “good”? How can you prove any of it?

If torturing someone to death is evil, then allowing someone to be crushed to death is also evil. It may be that the event of death is necessary - after all we all die, eventually. But the way it is accomplished can be quick and easy (dying in your sleep) or can be a horrible agony (burned to death in a wildfire).

Of course we should never label the earthquakes themselves as “evil”, that is just a sloppy phrase. For atheists the natural disasters are just that - disasters. It is the hypothesis of loving and caring God, who allows (or personally creates) these events which are judged as “evil”. It is very interesting to hear the believers to say about the “good things” that they are “God’s blessings” and then blame the disasters on “Mother Nature”. This is called hypocrisy in my book.

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

Ah, so now it was “written” by some Jewish people, and it is NOT a direct quote from God’s mouth itself?

I take the Bible as inspired because of the authority of the Catholic Church. To claim that the Bible is inspired because it says in the Bible that it is inspired is your error(interpretation without authority) and the error of the Protestants (a circular argument). It then follows that the Church that Christ established (matt16:18) has the sole right of interpretation. More on this here: catholic.com/library/What_Your_Authority.asp
and here:
catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp

This is just a reiteration of the “might makes right” principle - a very repugnant concept. But you might not realize that the quote was submitted as a reply to the claim that God does not create “bad” things. According the Bible he most certainly did. He ordered genocides, he personally “erased” the whole human race in the Flood (ok, he kept eight). So let’s not try to “whitewash” God. If you wish to serve the worst mass-murderer ever, that is your business. But don’t try to transform him into a “benevolent, loving, caring” being, because you lose your credibility in the process.

Hold on there six-shooter, the “might makes right” principle is the guiding principle in nature, natural selection, and the governing concept of the whole history of human civilization. Early empires were able to survive because they vanquished their enemies in combat, enslaved them, and thrust their culture and traditions upon the conquered culture. Cavemen asserted their dominance over competing males via physical aggression, and the alpha males mated with the most females. Weak or “unmighty” animals die off. Nature is a cruel beast. The atheist Nietzsche described this phenomenon as the “will to power” and Sartre (also atheist) poses the hypothesis that “man actually desires to become God” desires to be the “causa sui” in Being and Nothingness. **So it logically follows that since you find the “might makes right” principle to be repugnant, you also, out of necessity, find humanity repugnant, nature repugnant, and the history of all civilization to be repugnant, then you claim be appalled at the genocide or mass murder of “repugnant” people and “repugnant” beasts? Talk about hypocrisy. **

The quotation (not “quote”) from Isaiah may have poetic significance. It’s difficult to tell what exactly in the Old Testament is meant to be “mystical allegory” as in the case with Noah’s Ark. No, I don’t buy it, even if there is a “flood story” in every single creation myth in every single isolated culture that has emerged. God is benevolent, loving, caring, and merciful, but only if you fear Him. If you don’t fear Him, then he’s “Just”; in the sense that you will get what you deserve…be it dying in a fire, or getting crushed by an earthquake. If you lack it, reading the Old Testament might be a great way to motivate that necessary fear, which precedes wisdom.

If torturing someone to death is evil, then allowing someone to be crushed to death is also evil.

Logical fallacy of false analogy. Here’s your structure in a nutshell:

If A = C, then Q = C…you haven’t shown the relationship between A and Q. Not to mention you haven’t proved that A (torture to death) actually equals C (evil)…you’re just “appealing to common sense”, although who said, “Common sense isn’t that common”. I’m not disagreeing with you, but just being technical and trying to take the logical approach with you, divorced from highly charged emotion; which damages reason and rationality. If you can objectively prove A = C, I will let you go with it.

Of course we should never label the earthquakes themselves as “evil”, that is just a sloppy phrase. For atheists the natural disasters are just that - disasters. It is the hypothesis of loving and caring God, who allows (or personally creates) these events which are judged as “evil”. It is very interesting to hear the believers to say about the “good things” that they are “God’s blessings” and then blame the disasters on “Mother Nature”. This is called hypocrisy in my book.

I’m well aware of all the common atheist presuppositions and objections–I used to be one. You believe that disasters are morally neutral, “natural” if you will (not “evil”), so then…who are these people who “judge these events as evil”? Not you…and not I.

Lastly you are having a conversation with me, not the entirety of “believers”—so what these believers do or say is irrelevant to me, because I do not do those things. I learned my lesson from reading the Book of Job.

 

[R_Daneel]

I take the Bible as inspired because of the authority of the Catholic Church. To claim that the Bible is inspired because it says in the Bible that it is inspired is your error(interpretation without authority) and the error of the Protestants (a circular argument). It then follows that the Church that Christ established (matt16:18) has the sole right of interpretation.

I know that this is what you sincerely believe. But I hope you don’t expect me to just fold my cards and say: “Whoa, the Catholic Church claims that only the Catholic Church is authorized to interpret the Bible… so I must just bow down to the self-proclaimed authority of the Church!”. Don’t you see the irony of it? When the “plain text” supports your beliefs, then the Bible’s “correct interpretation” is that it is literally “true”. When it does not, then the “plain text” is just an incorrect interpretation. Of course there is nothing to “interpret” here. The text I quoted plainly says that God uttered those words, simple and unambiguous utterance: “I the LORD do all these things”. So, my friend, I will not concede defeat.

Hold on there six-shooter, the “might makes right” principle is the guiding principle in nature, natural selection, and the governing concept of the whole history of human civilization.

No doubt it used to be just like that.

So since it is a time-honored principle, let’s stick to it. “Might makes right”, so let’s go and rape and pillage, put everyone to the sword - just like the Bible says when God orders genocides. Yippie-yeah, burning down villages is fun, and we have the right, since we have the might.

So it logically follows that since you find the “might makes right” principle to be repugnant, you also, out of necessity, find humanity repugnant, nature repugnant, and the history of all civilization to be repugnant, then you claim be appalled at the genocide or mass murder of “repugnant” people and “repugnant” beasts? Talk about hypocrisy.

I do find most our past repugnant, and there is nothing hypocritical about it. I am glad that nowadays such an attitude is also found repugnant. Maybe you don’t, though I doubt it. If you and your family would be on the receiving end of a marauding gang, if your loved ones were raped - then you would be upset - though, according to your words you should not be. After all “might makes right”.

The quotation (not “quote”) from Isaiah may have poetic significance.

How I love that it “may” have a poetic significance. May have…

God is benevolent, loving, caring, and merciful, but only if you fear Him. If you don’t fear Him, then he’s “Just”; in the sense that you will get what you deserve…be it dying in a fire, or getting crushed by an earthquake. If you lack it, reading the Old Testament might be a great way to motivate that necessary fear, which precedes wisdom.

Hehe… just imagine those toddlers burning to death and they start to “fear” God.

Logical fallacy of false analogy.

False analogy? On the contrary. The analogy is not a simple analogy. Here it comes, spelled out: “to do something personally and to allow something, if you have the knowledge beforehand, and you have the power to prevent it - are indentical”. The guilt by commission and the guilt by omission are only different, if you don’t have the knowledge and/or don’t have the power to prevent it.

Not to mention you haven’t proved that A (torture to death) actually equals C (evil)…you’re just “appealing to common sense”, although who said, “Common sense isn’t that common”. I’m not disagreeing with you, but just being technical and trying to take the logical approach with you, divorced from highly charged emotion; which damages reason and rationality. If you can objectively prove A = C, I will let you go with it.

If you agree with the principle, then what are we talking about? Though I have doubts that you really agree - after all you affirmed that “might makes right”. Which one will it be?

 

[PJM]

=dostoyevskyfan;6899709]I know that the augustinian position with respect to the problem of evil is that God only creates good. Evil is a lack, a privation, much like a hole in a shirt. It is just the absence of Good and doesn’t necessarily have a positive ontology.

What about Job’s position(said to his wife) “You speak as one of the foolish speaks. Shall we receive good from God, but not evil?”

also,

“the Lord has given and the Lord has taken away. Blessed be the name of the Lord.”

I kind of see this as the importance of praising God even while suffering. I believe it is more difficult to praise God in suffering rather than when things are going all going our way…wealth, wife, kids, etc. Therefore, God probably values praise to him more highly from a suffering man, than one who has been given much.

Is Job’s idea that God administers both good and evil in conflict with Augustine? Discuss.

Excellent question!

The answer of couse lies with God; a God who can ONLY do good; but also a God who Permits evil, so that some good MIGHT COME FROM IT?

Evil allows humanity to freely choose:

**Ps.37: 27 **“Depart from evil, and do good;so shall you abide for ever.”

Rom.12: 21 “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”

It is NOT GOD who sends us to either heaven or hell. That is a freewill choice of all humanity. God only affirms and confirms our personal choices.

By providing us with a mind, intelect, freewill and soul humanity is well equipted to make these decisions.

Also some things we perceive as “evil” serious sickness, death, clamity in nature are in fact opportunities for others to turn BACK TO GOD.

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

I know that this is what you sincerely believe. But I hope you don’t expect me to just fold my cards and say: “Whoa, the Catholic Church claims that only the Catholic Church is authorized to interpret the Bible… so I must just bow down to the self-proclaimed authority of the Church!”.

Strawman fallacy. The authority of the church is not self proclaimed, it is divinely ordained and guided by the Holy Spirit, which is a member of the holy trinity that is God. This makes the church infallible on faith and morals. He’s the argument so I don’t have to type it out.

catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp

catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp

I do find most our past repugnant, and there is nothing hypocritical about it. I am glad that nowadays such an attitude is also found repugnant. Maybe you don’t, though I doubt it. If you and your family would be on the receiving end of a marauding gang, if your loved ones were raped - then you would be upset - though, according to your words you should not be. After all “might makes right”.

The might makes right principle still triumphs today. Only in place of “physical strength” which constituted “might” in the past, we have “wealth”. Wealthy corporations, people, and countries are, for all intensive purposes, exempt from the law. Why? Well they can afford better lawyers, bribe corrupt judges, and pay people off. OJ Simpson murdered his wife and then wrote a book about how he did it. He couldn’t do that if he wasn’t famous and made minimum wage. Wealthy nations can invade other countries and do all the raping, pillaging, and killing they want. If other countries don’t have nuclear weapons, then there isn’t really anything they can do about it, since they just have empty threats. One of the biggest reasons my country has been on relatively peaceful terms with other “mighty” and powerful countries is…paradoxically…the threat of nuclear annihilation.

So then, by your own standard, you find our past repugnant and also our present, and then by some leap of logic you detest the actions of God. That’s hypocritical.

Let me simplify it for you: You can’t qualify the term “evil” or you believe it is relative. What you really mean when you say that God in the Old Testament is “evil” is that you “don’t approve of his actions”. You don’t have an objective standard for “good” and “evil”. The term “evil” for you is synonymous with “what is displeasing to me”.

You haven’t proved that genocide or mass murder is absolutely wrong, or “evil”. If a race of people collectively broke out into an deadly epidemic that would eventually spread to people of other ethnicities and wipe out the population of the planet, …would it then be wrong to commit genocide to save the human race and save yourself? You will probably say yes.

What if you were numbered one of the infected? You would probably say no, because human morality is built on the survival of the species; what enables us to survive is labeled “good” and what is detrimental to the development of the species is labeled evil. Read Nietzsche.

How I love that it “may” have a poetic significance. May have…

I’m not a Catholic Theologian; I’m a layperson who reads a lot of philosophy…so I don’t know. If you are genuinely curious, why don’t you ask someone else?

Hehe… just imagine those toddlers burning to death and they start to “fear” God.

I’m a moral consequentialist when it comes to the actions of God. If God kills someone, then they deserve to die. If they don’t deserve to die, then God acomodates them in the afterlife. You don’t accept the premise of Original Sin though, which logically entails that all human beings are wicked, evil, and deserving of death, so I understand where you are coming from.

False analogy? On the contrary. The analogy is not a simple analogy. Here it comes, spelled out: “to do something personally and to allow something, if you have the knowledge beforehand, and you have the power to prevent it - are indentical”. The guilt by commission and the guilt by omission are only different, if you don’t have the knowledge and/or don’t have the power to prevent it.

It was actually the fallacy of equivocation, not analogy. Sorry.

“If torturing someone to death is evil” …it may not be evil, depends on the context.

“then allowing them to be crushed to death is also evil” …these two statements are not logically connected, you don’t qualify the term “evil”, and it’s just a bad exercise in logic in general.

“Allowing someone to be crushed to death” is not logically equivalent to “torturing them to death”. You’ve failed to demonstrate why…at least in a logical argumentative sense…

 

[R_Daneel]

Strawman fallacy. The authority of the church is not self proclaimed, it is divinely ordained and guided by the Holy Spirit, which is a member of the holy trinity that is God. This makes the church infallible on faith and morals. He’s the argument so I don’t have to type it out.

You don’t have to type it out. Let me see: “The Church claims, that the Bible says that the Church is the only one to interpret the Bible correctly”. How do we know that this claim about the Bible is correct? Well, the Church says so… And how do we know that the Church is correct? Well, the Bible says so… Come on. This is just a circular argument, like dog chasing its tail.

But let’s look a bit further. Just what is the official interpretation of those verses? is there one - offically? Is there a Catholic equivalent of the Skepitc’s Annotated Bible, which would list every line, verse and chapter and declare “infallibly” how should they be interpreted? I doubt it. And I doubt it, because just a list would be ripped apart by both skeptics anf believers. Don’t forget that good Catholics today dispute the authority of Rome when it comes to contraception (for example). Such a list would tear the Church apart. So the leaders in the Vatican - who are pretty smart people - would realize that to be explict would be the end of the Church. So they hide behind the ambiguity and don’t dare to come clean.

So then, by your own standard, you find our past repugnant and also our present, and then by some leap of logic you detest the actions of God. That’s hypocritical.

Certainly I find many things repugnant in the present, too. And of course I do not blame God for it. I am pointing out that the Christian belief system is self-contradictory.

Let me simplify it for you: You can’t qualify the term “evil” or you believe it is relative. What you really mean when you say that God in the Old Testament is “evil” is that you “don’t approve of his actions”. You don’t have an objective standard for “good” and “evil”. The term “evil” for you is synonymous with “what is displeasing to me”.

Nonsense. I can define evil just fine, and the God of the OT fulfills its criteria.

You haven’t proved that genocide or mass murder is absolutely wrong, or “evil”. If a race of people collectively broke out into an deadly epidemic that would eventually spread to people of other ethnicities and wipe out the population of the planet, …would it then be wrong to commit genocide to save the human race and save yourself? You will probably say yes.

Don’t assume, you know what it does to you and me. The wholescale genocide of those people would still be evil. The selective extermination of those who actively attempt to wipe out everyone else is not. Their children would not deserve to be held responisble for the acts of their fathers. That is a Biblical concept and guess what? It is also repugnant to me.

I’m not a Catholic Theologian; I’m a layperson who reads a lot of philosophy…so I don’t know. If you are genuinely curious, why don’t you ask someone else?

That is cool. You don’t know, and that is an acceptable answer. Is there anyone who knows? And is willing to come clean about it? I wonder.

I’m a moral consequentialist when it comes to the actions of God. If God kills someone, then they deserve to die. If they don’t deserve to die, then God acomodates them in the afterlife. You don’t accept the premise of Original Sin though, which logically entails that all human beings are wicked, evil, and deserving of death, so I understand where you are coming from.

I don’t accept a lot of things. Original Sin, for one. To punish the children to the seventh generation for the sins of their fathers is another one. To say that Isiah 45:7 does not say what it clearly says, is yet another one.

“Allowing someone to be crushed to death” is not logically equivalent to “torturing them to death”. You’ve failed to demonstrate why…at least in a logical argumentative sense…

I am standing on the principle that “guilt by commission” and “guilt by omission” are indentical, IF the person involved knows about the event and has power to prevent it.

Suppose yo would drop a child from the 20th floor of a house, and intend to catch him before he would fall. Your strength and speed are there, and you could catch him without any problem. Yet, as soon as you let him go, you change your mind. After all it is now the gravity that acts, not you, and as such you stand in the clear. You could prevent the event, but choose not to, you just let gravity do its “thing”. Is this guilt by commission, or a guilt by omission? Is there a difference?

 

[PJM]

**Originally Posted by R Daneel
I know that this is what you sincerely believe. But I hope you don’t expect me to just fold my cards and say: “Whoa, the Catholic Church claims that only the Catholic Church is authorized to interpret the Bible… so I must just bow down to the self-proclaimed authority of the Church!”. **

Partial Reply

Strawman fallacy. The authority of the church is not self proclaimed, it is divinely ordained and guided by the Holy Spirit, which is a member of the holy trinity that is God. This makes the church infallible on faith and morals. He’s the argument so I don’t have to type it out

Dear friends in Christ,

I don’t mean to be cruel or argumenative with the comment I’m about to make. I believe it to be largely true.

I contine to be puzzled and confused at the obvious [to me anyway] lack of logic applied to the Catholic Bible.

The position held by many that the CC is NOT the only one who can translate the Bible is not only without foundational merit; it is completely [100%] void of the most basic and common logic.

Indespuitable historial FACTS:

Because the CC was the ONLY Christian Church until hundreds of years AFTER THE BIBLE HAD BEEN SIGNED OFF BY GOD HIMSELF AND set in the Biblical Canon. THE ONLY ONE.

The Entire NT was written by and FOR the new emerging Catholic Church by men we know today to also be Catholics.

All of the books collected for the OT were collected by men we would know today as Catholics.

It was thee Catholic Church… The One Church Founded by Jesus Himself… That set the Canon of the Bible that was thee ONLY Bible of merit until the KJV in the 1600’s.

To assume that God would give His ONE CHURCH / One Faith [Eph. 4:4-8] the Bible, which was and is for the CC BOTH a Mission Statement and a Skematic on how to live, practice and share the Catholic Faith is completely illogical and without merit.

To presume a right to usurp the authority to translate this Book from God [2 Tim. 3:16-17] is simply silly and again void of common sense. READ john 17:14-19; Jesus Himself assures the accuracy and truth of the CC Teachings on Faith and Morals which cannot be in error!

Some calim that this may have been true at one time; “but the church blew it”

IMPOSSIBLE: God CAN"T Lie, not can the Bible not be TRUE. Please READ Carefully:

John 14: 1-17 " And I [Jesus Himself] will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you."

Do you presume to call Jesus a Liar? Or unknowing about the future [not really an all-knowing God"? Or simply wrong about what He said.

**Can you see why I say your position is completely without logic:shrug:

Consider: If your church wrote a book about your faith, beliefs and practices would you permit or allow or recogonize competing faiths to at will translate what you wrote? OF COURSE NOT. But that is precisely what you feel somehow justifed to do with the Bible which as shown was and is a Catholic book.

That friends is the very reason, the foundational cause of the MANY THOUSANDS of Protestant denominations. And this is as obvious as the nose on your face and yet is not seen, understood or comprehended. BECAUSE GOD HIMSELF BLOCKS AND LIMITS YOUR UNDERSTANDING.
The Can

Love and prayers,
Pat

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

You don’t have to type it out. Let me see: “The Church claims, that the Bible says that the Church is the only one to interpret the Bible correctly”. How do we know that this claim about the Bible is correct? Well, the Church says so… And how do we know that the Church is correct? Well, the Bible says so… Come on. This is just a circular argument, like dog chasing its tail.

You didn’t read those links did you? The Catholic Church historically decided what books would be included in the Bible. We compiled the Bible. The very first Bible was compiled in Latin by St.Jerome. It was called the vulgate. The reason other Christians have the Bible is because Catholics wrote it. The reason skeptics have the Bible is also because of Catholics.

Certainly I find many things repugnant in the present, too. And of course I do not blame God for it. I am pointing out that the Christian belief system is self-contradictory.

1. You find the Bible repugnant.
2. Therefore the Bible is false.

That’s an appeal to emotion, which is yet another logical fallacy. Your personal feelings toward a set of propositions do not somehow affect whether or not they are true or false.

Nonsense. I can define evil just fine, and the God of the OT fulfills its criteria.

What criteria? You have still omitted a definition. Lol does that make you “evil” via equivocation of “guilt by omission” and “evil”? haha What is your definition of evil? Please type it out so I can read it. Saying, “My definition of evil is the God of the OT” is not sufficient. You must extrapolate the term “evil” not just provide examples of people or items that fit your criteria.

Don’t assume, you know what it does to you and me. The wholescale genocide of those people would still be evil. The selective extermination of those who actively attempt to wipe out everyone else is not. Their children would not deserve to be held responisble for the acts of their fathers. That is a Biblical concept and guess what? It is also repugnant to me.

I think that aphorism may be self referential in your case. How can you make a distinction between genocide of people who actively seek to exterminate the human race and people who passively will exterminate the human race? Why is one “evil” and not the other? Still waiting for that definition.

I don’t accept a lot of things. Original Sin, for one. To punish the children to the seventh generation for the sins of their fathers is another one. To say that Isiah 45:7 does not say what it clearly says, is yet another one.

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

Robert Frost “clearly says” that he is walking in the woods. If someone were to say that he was actually not in the woods, but speaking about life decisions, how would you respond?

Who’s interpretation would you value more—Robert Frost’s or a rival poet?

I am standing on the principle that “guilt by commission” and “guilt by omission” are indentical, IF the person involved knows about the event and has power to prevent it.
. Is this guilt by commission, or a guilt by omission? Is there a difference?

You’re the one making the claim. The burden of proving:

A = torturing someone to death
B = allowing someone to be crushed to death
C = Evil
D = “guilt” by commission
E = “guilt” by omission

If A = D = C then B = E = C.

Is yours. Again, I’ll reiterate, it’s not logically valid. It’s equivocating.

btw ty PJM for your contributions. You saved me some typing.