J
jonfawkes
Guest
No, I’m not questioning the nature of God nor his omnipotence. I’m affirming it,
God made everything, so God made evil. It’s part of everything. People try and take credit for His creation.
- Status
God made everything, so God made evil. It’s part of everything. People try and take credit for His creation.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Again, this concept was put to rest by St. Augustine:
St Augustine: “[God] is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills” and thus argues that the definition that “Y is omnipotent” means “If Y wishes to do X then Y can and does do X”. Thus, If God does not wish to do X (where X = evil), X is not attributed to him.
What you are affirming as omnipotence is not the Catholic Church’s (nor, the rational person’s) understanding of omnipotence.
J
jonfawkes
Guest
It’s a non sequitur.That is like saying because choose not to swim I can’ t swim.
My non action speaks nothing to my ability. I still can have the ability to swim even though I choose not to.
P
PRmerger
Guest
I am saying that your definition of omnipotence is a beginner’s definition. It’s like someone who ask the very beginner’s question: if God is omnipotent, why can’t God make a rock so big he can’t lift it?
It’s a nonsensical question.
Just like your question is.
God is omnipotent but did not create evil.
How?
Because God’s omnipotence consists in doing what he wills. He does not will evil.
J
jonfawkes
Guest
No - I’m asking how is evil not a part of creation? Even if it’s just a negative. It still manifests. It’s still part of creation.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yes, it’s part of creation. It’s just not part of God’s will.
As you maintained, when you stated that you were “on to something”:
[SIGN]“Revelation teaches that the power to decide what is good and what is evil does not belong to man, but to God alone.”[/SIGN]
Thus, you can see that evil exists, is not part of God’s will and God determines what is good and evil, not man.
J
jonfawkes
Guest
Determination doesn’t equal creation.
Being the creator nothing exists without His will.
Just saying “He doesn’t will evil” makes evil an exception to creation, and more powerful than His will if it can exist despite His will.
Being the creator nothing exists without His will.
Just saying “He doesn’t will evil” makes evil an exception to creation, and more powerful than His will if it can exist despite His will.
P
Porcupine
Guest
One more try:
The Christian formulation on this is simple:
Premise one: Human authenticity and autonomy require free will.
Premise two: God wanted to create humans capable of authenticity and autonomy.
Conclusion: God gave humans free will.
This is the Christian conception of the thing, as I understand it. And it works because Christians take as an axiom Aquinas’s belief that God is not above the laws of logic. Why can’t God create a piece of paper with just one side? Because “a piece of paper with just one side” is just a particular kind of verbal nonsense. Just because you can say the words doesn’t give them meaning. The exact same thing is true of the words “humans who are capable of authentic love but who do not have free will.” From the Christian view, that’s precisely the same species of nonsense. Omnipotence, in this view, which is based in Aristotelian reason and logic, doesn’t excuse God from the laws of logic.
There are other viewpoints, some of them more sympathetic to the view you’re trying to encompass, but they’re not the Christian understanding. I think it’s just that simple. Your argument is basically, “but God is supposed to be above all that and can do anything he wants.” But that argument is a nonstarter within the Christian system, for the reasons stated above.
The Christian formulation on this is simple:
Premise one: Human authenticity and autonomy require free will.
Premise two: God wanted to create humans capable of authenticity and autonomy.
Conclusion: God gave humans free will.
This is the Christian conception of the thing, as I understand it. And it works because Christians take as an axiom Aquinas’s belief that God is not above the laws of logic. Why can’t God create a piece of paper with just one side? Because “a piece of paper with just one side” is just a particular kind of verbal nonsense. Just because you can say the words doesn’t give them meaning. The exact same thing is true of the words “humans who are capable of authentic love but who do not have free will.” From the Christian view, that’s precisely the same species of nonsense. Omnipotence, in this view, which is based in Aristotelian reason and logic, doesn’t excuse God from the laws of logic.
There are other viewpoints, some of them more sympathetic to the view you’re trying to encompass, but they’re not the Christian understanding. I think it’s just that simple. Your argument is basically, “but God is supposed to be above all that and can do anything he wants.” But that argument is a nonstarter within the Christian system, for the reasons stated above.
J
jonfawkes
Guest
I do understand the premise I just don’t agree that it is logical. For the reasons that I’m trying to lay out.
The first part that God didn’t create evil.
By saying God didn’t create evil because God is all Good is the logical equivalent of a front without a back.
I can accept that God with an infinite nature is beyond duality. Then Good vs Bad is only from our perspective but it doesn’t mean that God didn’t create evil, everything is still part of his creation.
To blame man means that God creates the multiplicity of creation except one thing, evil. Evil is the one thing that runs contrary, creates discord and rot and ruins the rest of creation. This is a logical problem to me. First that God isn’t the creator of everything, which runs contrary to God is the creator. We are then Co-creators. So that would mean that Man has the power equal to God’s. Iron and rust.
In another vein there is for a lack of better term a " sin of omission " if man is the creator of evil. God creating man with free will and being omniscient knew that it would bring evil into the world. So if I know my actions is going to cause harm and don’t prevent it then I am responsible.
The response I keep getting is God can’t create evil because he is good. Front without a back. Start at the beginning.
I am perfectly comfortable saying that God is the creator of all things which includes evil. I think that the designation of Good and Evil is from our perspective, not God’s. We live in a dualistic world. This is logical - front with a back. Black with white. Evil must serve a purpose as it part of creation. I might love health and hate cancer but they must both serve a purpose because they are here.
Then the notion that free will let’s us deny God, there by causing evil. I cannot suspend the laws of nature and creation So I can’t deny God’s will. I can be a pain but I can’t deny. That is the tide analogy, I can swim against it but I can’t leave the water. If God wills a flood I can’t counter will it. So then the power of free will is limited to the natural world, which is dualistic and there are two sides to everything, including good and evil. So it must be part of God’s will. That seems logical.
D
davidv
Guest
Your response is not logical. There is no meantion of evil in the argument that you are responding to. This does nothing to diminish the validity or soundness of the argument presented.
Not a valid conclusion based on the premises presented.
I don’t think you understand the difference between good/evil and front/back. This is a false analogy. Good exists without evil. God being the finest example. Cannonized saints being another.
Illogical. Good/evil is not the same relationship as front/back.
Your response is not logical.
No laws need to be suspended for mans wrong choice to bring evil into the world.
J
jonfawkes
Guest
You are still saying you can front without a back.
p.s. I don’t think any Saint ( or the church) would say they are wholly good. We are all sinners.
p.s. I don’t think any Saint ( or the church) would say they are wholly good. We are all sinners.
P
Porcupine
Guest
I think the logic itself is airtight on the syllogism I laid out. I also think Christians would say the premises are true, thus making the conclusion true. The God of nonduality you’re describing might be fine, it might even be the case, and it’s obviously OK for you to think about God any way you want to–there are many opinions on the matter–but it’s not the God posited or defended by the RC church or most other Christians.
There’s a great body (and variety) of thought on the origin of evil, and to think we’re going to get to the bottom of it here is silly. There’s a good overview at the Catholic Encyclopedia.
newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm
C
CEM5
Guest
Hi larkin,
No, this is what the Church teaches. The writing genres (styles) still hold a truth that is taught: God created all things from nothing, God is eternal - not a created being, etc…
J
jonfawkes
Guest
I don’t see myself as outside Christian teaching -
Clarke, moreover, has aptly remarked (Correspondence with Leibniz, letter ii) that the apparent disorder of nature is really no disorder, since it is part of a definite scheme, and precisely fulfills the intention of the Creator; it may therefore be counted as a relative perfection rather than an imperfection. It is, in fact, only by a transference to irrational objects of the subjective ideals and aspirations of human intelligence, that the “evil of nature” can be called evil in any sense but a merely analogous one.
Thus it will be seen that evil is not a real entity; it is relative. What is evil in some relations may be good in others; and probably there is no form of existence which is exclusively evil in all relations, Hence it has been thought that evil cannot truly be said to exist at all, and is really nothing but a “lesser good.” But this opinion seems to leave out of account the reality of human experience. Though the same cause may give pain to one, and pleasure to another, pain and pleasure, as sensations or ideas, cannot but be mutually exclusive. No one, however, has attempted to deny this very obvious fact; and the opinion in question may perhaps be understood as merely a paradoxical way of stating the relativity of evil.
The features which stand out in the earlier Christian explanation of evil, as compared with non-Christian dualistic theories are thus
• the definite attribution to God of absolute omnipotence and goodness, notwithstanding His permission of the existence of evil;
• the assignment of a moral and retributive cause for suffering in the sin of mankind; and
• the unhesitating assertion of the beneficence of God’s purpose in permitting evil, together with the full admission that He could, had He so chosen, have prevented it (City of God XIV).
How God’s permission of the evil which He foreknew and could have prevented is to be reconciled with His goodness, is not fully considered; St. Augustine states the question in forcible terms, but is content by way of answer to follow St. Paul, in his reference to the unsearchableness of the Divine judgments (Contra Julianum, I, 48).
Leibniz founded his views mainly on those of St. Augustine and from St. Thomas, and deduced from them his theory of Optimism. According to it, the inverse is the best possible; but metaphysical evil, or perfection, is necessarily involved in the constitution, since it must be finite, and could not have been endowed with the infinite perfection which belongs to God alone. Moral and physical evil are due to the fall of man, but all evil is overruled by God to a good purpose. Moreover, the world with which we are acquainted is only a very small factor in the whole of creation, and it may be supposed that the evil it contains is necessary for the existence of other regions that are unknown to us.
This is accordingly the sufficient reason for the existence of the universe, and even for the suffering which moral evil has introduced into it. God has not made the world primarily for man’s good, but for His own pleasure; good for man lies in conforming himself to the supreme purpose of creation, and evil in departing from it (C.G., III, xvii, cxliv). It may further be understood from St. Thomas, that in the diversity of metaphysical evil, in which the perfection of the universe as a whole is embodied, God may see a certain similitude of His own threefold unity (cf. I, Q. xii); and again, that by permitting moral evil to exist He has provided a sphere for the manifestation of one aspect of His essential justice (cf. I, Q. lxv, a. 2; and I, Q. xxi, a. 1, 3).
It is obviously impossible to suggest a reason why this universe in particular should have been created rather than another; since we are necessarily incapable of forming an idea of any other universe than this. Similarly, we are unable to imagine why God chose to manifest Himself by the way of creation, instead of, or in addition to, the other ways, whatever they may be, by which He has, or may have, attained the same end. We reach here the utmost limit of speculation; and our inability to conceive the ultimate reason for creation (as distinct from its direct motive) is paralleled, at a much earlier stage of the enquire, by the inability of the non-creationist schools of thought to assign any ultimate cause for the existence of the order of nature.
C
CEM5
Guest
Hi jonfawkes,This is my current reading - it may change tomorrow
It seems to me that it is more of a story to tell us of our nature (not sinful) but the reality of life - we live in a dualistic world, represented by “Good and Evil”, God cautions us and the snake entices. But they are both saying the same thing, once you enter you can’t turn back. One says You will Die the other You will be like God, But you will be changed.
Once we enter we with are then bound by duality.
Creation is dualistic so you have to have good with evil. Front with Back, Up with Down. etc. Any judgment of Good or Evil is solely from our perspective. The infinite is one.
Alot of good responses from everyone (and I like the way your mind questions and searches!). You see the world as a place of dualities: front/back, good/evil, and so on…however, IMO, I see it as more complex than just a front/back reasoning. We have 6 sides (or more!) such as front, back, top, bottom, left and right, as well as having a middle section, which all are joined together to be ONE…We have many “colors” in life - it is not just black and white, and this is how I see our world: It is not just “dualistic”.
God does caution us, but that caution comes from great love and the desire that “not one of us should perish” – but that choice is up to us. The “snake” (the devil/satan) is a consummate liar and deceivingly tempts us so that “not one of us should live”. God’s truth was that if we disobeyed, we would die (and that is what happened!!), yet the snake’s great lie was that if we disobeyed, we *wouldn’t *die. Well…we did die - ***we ***brought death into the world. God and the devil are ***not ***saying the same thing. Becoming like God did not happen either: We lost our physical immortality, and our goodness, and consequently are no longer innocent, but sinful creatures.
Yes, the snake did tempt mankind because the devil’s purpope is to make us turn away from God.
1 Peter 5:8 NRSA
Discipline yourselves, keep alert. Like a roaring lion your adversary the devil prowls around, looking for someone to devour.
Luke 8:12 NRSA
The ones on the path are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved.
John 8:44 NRSA
You are from your father the devil, and you choose to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
Revelation 12:12 NRSA
Rejoice then, you heavens and those who dwell in them! But woe to the earth and the sea, for the devil has come down to you with great wrath, because he knows that his time is short!"
When we turn away from God, we turn away from “good”. The absence of good is the negative form which is “evil”. Good contains “love” (and this is a charitable love - the willingness to sacrifice oneself for the good of another). Love embodies so much more than we can fathom: God IS love. This word contains forgivness, kindness, self-giving/sacrificing, guidance, consoling, protection, and so on…God is LIGHT.
Evil is the absence of all this and this is the word used to describe the absence of love, just as the word “dark” is used to describe the absence of light. The color “white” contains ALL the colors of the universe, whereas the color “black” is the absence of all color.
Therefore, nature and the world cannot be simiplified as being dualistic, for there is never just one or the other of something. One contains EVERYTHING (which is multiplistic), whereas the other contains the absence of everything which equates to NOTHING.
Ergo, logically it can be shown that by humans turning away from Love (which is God and all that emboies), we placed ourselves outside of that love, thus introduced “evil” into the world that God created “good” (for good exists where evil is not found).
We were already “born” into the world - a world that God created “good”, however, as I tried to explain, because evil is the absence of good, it is where we placed ourselves (per se), for evil cannot exist where God’s “dwelling place” is. The world is still a “good” place, for it sustains life and happiness exists, however, evil (both physical and moral) can still have a foothold because everytime one of us sins, we “bring evil to the forefront”, by the absence of good.
It is complex, and a mystery, for God exists everywhere, yet “hell” is the absence of all that is “good”, and in the end, we choose our final destination by our actions on earth.
I apologize if I don’t make sense, but I “know” it in my mind, and yet am limited by words.
blessings,
CEM
J
jonfawkes
Guest
I’m just seeing it from a different perspective, not a contrary one.
The other part of this story we haven’t even touched on is the other tree. The tree of immortality. That part of the story the second Adam, Jesus offers us that fruit. First Adam births us to the world of duality, the second Adam to immortality.
The other part of this story we haven’t even touched on is the other tree. The tree of immortality. That part of the story the second Adam, Jesus offers us that fruit. First Adam births us to the world of duality, the second Adam to immortality.
C
CEM5
Guest
P.S. addendum
In addition to my explanation of why the world is not really a place of duality, I would like to point out that the sphere of the world is not a place having a top/bottom or sides. It is “all around”. We humans have used words to describe a “top” of the world (North pole), and “bottom” of the world (South pole), yet in reality, the world neither has a top or a bottom, for then those on the bottom would fall off!!
Same with the “four corners” of the world: East, West, South, North. We humans place limitive descriptive terminologies to those things we cannot fully fathom in life, but try to make reasonable sense of mysteries around us. God is a mystery, but we can get to know Him through Jesus, although we can never fully understand Him for now.
blessings,
CEM
In addition to my explanation of why the world is not really a place of duality, I would like to point out that the sphere of the world is not a place having a top/bottom or sides. It is “all around”. We humans have used words to describe a “top” of the world (North pole), and “bottom” of the world (South pole), yet in reality, the world neither has a top or a bottom, for then those on the bottom would fall off!!
Same with the “four corners” of the world: East, West, South, North. We humans place limitive descriptive terminologies to those things we cannot fully fathom in life, but try to make reasonable sense of mysteries around us. God is a mystery, but we can get to know Him through Jesus, although we can never fully understand Him for now.blessings,
CEM
C
CEM5
Guest
Hi jonfawkes,
There was no tree of immortality in the garden. It was the Tree of life. Adam and Eve were created to live forever, should they not eat of the fforbidden fruit of the Tree of the Knowlegde of Good and Evil. When God warned them that they would die, this was a truth of ***physical ***death, of corporeal bodies returning to the dust of the earth. Our souls, on the other hand, NEVER cease to exist: they are immortal. When the Lord returns, at the Parousia, (the end of time), we will all be resurrected. This entails that we, just as Jesus evidenced at His resurrection, will all get our new, immortal, reusrrected bodies enjoined with our souls. It is our souls that are immediately “judged” upon our death (of our corporeal bodies) and this is the particular judgement. After the resurrection, we will all then face the “general judgement”: some to everlasting life (heaven) and some to everlasting death (hell - the absence of God) where the torment is eternal.
Jesus is described in the New Testament as the “second Adam” for through the first Adam, death entered the world (separation from God), and through Jesus, the "second Adam), death was destroyed, and mankind was redeemed (reconciliation to God). Before Jesus, no one could enter heaven (where the Glory of God’s presence is, and we can see Him face to face). After Jesus’ resurrection and ascension into heaven, we can now enter heaven, and dwell with God, face to face, once again. Jesus is the “bread of life” of which we eat.
John 6:
48 I am the bread of life… 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh."… 53 So Jesus said to them, "Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; 55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me
J
jonfawkes
Guest
what do immortal beings need with a tree of life - it was planned - gen 3
22
Then the LORD God said: “See! The man has become like one of us, knowing what is good and what is bad! Therefore, he must not be allowed to put out his hand to take fruit from the tree of life also, and thus eat of it and live forever.”
23
The LORD God therefore banished him from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he had been taken.
24
5 When he expelled the man, he settled him east of the garden of Eden; and he stationed the cherubim and the fiery revolving sword, to guard the way to the tree of life.
22
Then the LORD God said: “See! The man has become like one of us, knowing what is good and what is bad! Therefore, he must not be allowed to put out his hand to take fruit from the tree of life also, and thus eat of it and live forever.”
23
The LORD God therefore banished him from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he had been taken.
24
5 When he expelled the man, he settled him east of the garden of Eden; and he stationed the cherubim and the fiery revolving sword, to guard the way to the tree of life.
P
Porcupine
Guest
I’m not seeing anything in here that contradicts my earlier statements. If you see a Christian defense of nondualism here, then you’ve got your answer. Praise God!
- Status