Mystery of Evil

[AlanFromWichita]

clarkal:

I personally don’t find the story of the fall of Lucifer and the other angels plausible. Well, at least how I understand it. Feel free to criticize.

OK, God is perfect divine being, and unless you are willing to admit that god created Lucifer imperfect, he was also a perfect being – a perfect creation with free will.

Dear clarkal,

I like your line of reasoning.

Why not admit that God created Lucifer imperfect, if God created man imperfect. If either truly had a “free will” then they either were imperfect or we need to accept that “perfect” does not necessarily mean “all good” or “obedient.”

Why would God allow such a thing? Is it because He was taken by surprise? If so, then God is not omniscient. If not by surprise, then He knew it would happen and allowed it anyway. If you don’t accept that, then you must accept the fact that God was helpless to prevent it from happening, in which case not all things would be possible with God.

Therefore, “free will” must be a relativistic sort of thing, where each mortal or angelic being believes its actions are free and feels no external force guiding it when it makes “free will” decisions, but if God knew those decisions in advance then they were predestined. I’m not trying to get into an argument of destiny v free will; I’m saying that from the points of views of God and man, the same act can be viewed both ways so there really they coexist and there is no logical need to exclude either from the scenario.

Ultimately if I continued this line of reasoning, I’d come to this conclusion:
Rom 8:28:

We know that all things work for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose.

According to a footnote, some manuscripts could be translated, “We know that God makes everything work for good for those who love God. . . .”

Either way, loving God is all that is required. Whether God “accidentally” allowed evil to come into the world, or whether He “purposely” allowed it, it all works for good for those who love God.

How would we even know good if we did not know evil? Love if we did not know hate? Unity without separation? Life without death?

It’s all part of life, and it all works for good. If God gave us free will but did not let us get a taste of evil and disobedience, life would be meaningless. I’m convinced that God designed human beings to contain both good and evil, and that is much more interesting or meaningful to him than a bunch of sycophant angels singing endless praises or He wouldn’t have created man and Lucifer the way He did.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

JimG:

But keep in mind that Adam and Eve did NOT have a fallen human nature before they sinned.

Dear JimG,

They did not have a fallen nature, but were designed in such a way that they were susceptible to temptation. Perhaps they were perfectly obedient, but until Satan came in they had never been given a suggestion that was disobedient.

It’s kind of like a computer that is perfectly obedient to its programming, but it’s a machine and not divine so it doesn’t know when it’s running a “good” program or a “virus” unless it’s been specifically taught to know the difference, such as with anti-virus software.

Adam and Eve wanted to know good and bad, but since they were not God they didn’t realize how complicated the whole good/bad issue was. They were like Microsoft Windows; they would allow daemons to remote control them and required complex and extensive programs to distinguish good and bad in any given case, seeing as how things change and decisions must be made under differing circumstances all the time. Of course, antivirus software can do no better than the Church at keeping every unit current and sin-free, even those who keep their subscriptions up to date and religiously install them and follow safe computing practices. Still some evil gets through, whether by stealth or by deception.

Alan

 

[clarkal]

JimG:

But keep in mind that Adam and Eve did NOT have a fallen human nature before they sinned. They were “perfect” human beings, without concupiscience, and without being inclined to evil, and also having the preternatural gifts. So you have the same problem trying to explain their sin, since at that time they were not inclined to do evil. They only had to obey a command of God, as did the angels. What reason was there for them to give in to temptation?

Well, what was Satan’s temptation to them? If you eat of the fruit of the (forbidden) tree, “you shall be like gods.” Sounds pretty similar to what might tempt Satan himself.

Yes, I know that they had a perfect nature before they sinned. I had in mind your modern human being.

But, yes, the same question could be asked of Adam and Eve. However, I think that there are different variables involved, slight differences in the situation that make it different from that of the angels. Let’s stick to the angels for the moment. I’ll talk about temptation in a second.

 

[clarkal]

Alan,

I suppose that it could be argued that Lucifer’s essence was perfect, but that did not preclude him from doing a moral wrong.

However, even if we grant the above, I still don’t quite understand how an essentially perfect and holy being could fall from grace. For example, how could thoughts of pride be alluring and tempting to him? If they were, something in his essence was not perfect. He cannot be blamed for being tempted; he has no control over his essence – god created it.

And this here isn’t about that he chose the sin. It’s about how his perfect essence could be tempted in the first place. How could the first unholy affection arise in such a being?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

clarkal:

How could the first unholy affection arise in such a being?

Dear clarkal,

I’m not sure I exactly understand what you mean, but maybe I didn’t leave a clear conclusion.

I can’t buy that Lucifer would have fallen due to poor design by God or by accident out of God’s control, so that leads me to believe Lucifer fell, and that Adam and Eve bought his lie, because God willed for it to happen, by His design.

Perhaps God understood good and evil, and thus far had created everything good, and maybe that was fine for Him. He knew, though, that his human creations would have a better appreciation for what is joyful and good if they also experienced sorrow and evil.

Alan

 

[clarkal]

Alan,

I’m not sure if I can make myself clearer at the moment, because it is somewhat early in the morning, and I’m running low on brain fuel. I’ll give it a go tomorrow.

But thanks for clearing up your position. I should also state mine, excluding the specifics of the discussion:

I do not believe in god, but I do not positively deny his existence. I believe that the chances of him existing are small.

Concerning the story of the fall of Lucifer and the other angels, I think that, based on what I have read and general reflection, it is impossible, but I am open to other possibilities, and I do enjoy discussing it. I also thank you and the other posters for the (name removed by moderator)ut and perhaps future (name removed by moderator)ut.

clarkal

 

[AlanFromWichita]

clarkal:

I do not believe in god, but I do not positively deny his existence. I believe that the chances of him existing are small.

Concerning the story of the fall of Lucifer and the other angels, I think that, based on what I have read and general reflection, it is impossible, but I am open to other possibilities, and I do enjoy discussing it. I also thank you and the other posters for the (name removed by moderator)ut and perhaps future (name removed by moderator)ut.

If that is your position, then I suppose this discussion is rather academic for you. That is fine; I like academic discussions because without emotional bias we don’t have to worry about hurting each others’ feelings. Please don’t think you’ll hurt mine. I spent many years neither believing in nor denying God’s existence. Eventually I came back, and to ge honest I still have moments, sometimes lasting hours or more, when I am back to doubting the existence of God. I don’t claim that makes it OK to be like this, but that’s how it is and I’m learning to deal with it while still strengthening myself overall.

For discussion sake I normally don’t bring up my own doubts in God, because without that this whole system of discussion would have no basis. Given that, I have a lot of ideas about what God isn’t – probably more than about what God is. Therefore, I often argue against people who think they know something about God, when it sounds to me it is presumptuousness rather than faith from which they speak.

Actually there is a tradition within the Catholic Church called the “apophatic” tradition which sort of gives this whole side of what God isn’t, and considering God as the “Cloud of Unknowing,” where God is essentially so far beyond us that no matter how much we know, we still do not presume to know God. It gives hope and mystery, and looks at God as something to be understood, but always to be seeked in the faith of unknowing. Most Catholics have never heard of anything like this, and that’s because this type of thinking is only prevalent among monasteries and cloisters and unfortunately deemphasized for the mainstream “go to church on Sunday” Catholics and even in the seminaries that train diocesan priests. Sometimes I think of the apophatic tradition as quite a great “light” that is hidden “under a bushel” by the trappings of the business end of the Church, one that was known to mystics of all ages.

Alan

 

[JimG]

Perhaps what we’re really asking is how could an all-good, all-knowing, and omnipotent God create any being which is capable of disobedience to Him?

The answer has to lie in what we call free will. God can give us free will. But God as an all good being, could not reveal himself directly to anyone–human or angel–even though that person has free will, without the person being inevitably drawn to Him. That is because our wills are drawn toward the good. Even in sin, we are drawn toward the perceived good.

So God cannot reveal Himself fully to us without effectively destroying our free will. We would have no choice but to be drawn to Him.

And that would not be a freely chosen union. So he gives both angels and humans a test, before revealing Himself, to allow them to choose freely. In the case of angels, the choice must be irrevocable, because that is how their wills are made. As spiritual beings, they do not change their minds.

In the case of humans—because we are matter and spirit—we do have the ability to change our minds.

As for angels, I do not know what their test was. But I still like my prior conjecture. Angels as a species {actually, it is said that each angel is a separate species} are so much higher than human beings, that the thought of the Second Person of the Trinity taking on a human nature, could have wounded their pride, or tempted them to envy.

 

[clarkal]

Alan,

Cool.

And I’ll check out the apophatic stuff. I have heard the word before but know nothing specific about it.

 

[clarkal]

JimG:

Perhaps what we’re really asking is how could an all-good, all-knowing, and omnipotent God create any being which is capable of disobedience to Him?

What I am asking is the following (unsure how to be clearer, tho):

Clarkal:

I suppose that it could be argued that Lucifer’s essence was perfect, but that did not preclude him from doing a moral wrong.

However, even if we grant the above, I still don’t quite understand how an essentially perfect and holy being could fall from grace. For example, how could thoughts of pride be alluring and tempting to him? If they were, something in his essence was not perfect. He cannot be blamed for being tempted; he has no control over his essence – god created it.

And this here isn’t about that he chose the sin. It’s about how his perfect essence could be tempted in the first place. How could the first unholy affection arise in such a being?