Orignal Sin

[jonfawkes]

How do the means become the cause?

Why not? If civil law is just, it will reflect God who is perfectly just.

How is this relevant?

Yes. Will He? No.

Part of some humans’ plans, but not Gods.

Because if take away the means you take away the act. By allowing the means you allow the act.

Civil law isn’t always just. Is abortion being legal just?

It is relevant Romans had laws but not our faith. The USSR had no faith but laws. We are held responsible for civil laws than run counter to God’s law. It is a system of ethics although it may not be our ethics.

Its not about what he will and won’t do but what is He capable of doing. If God allows sin to exist He must want it to exist.

 

[larkin31]

Because if take away the means you take away the act. By allowing the means you allow the act.

Civil law isn’t always just. Is abortion being legal just?

It is relevant Romans had laws but not our faith. The USSR had no faith but laws. We are held responsible for civil laws than run counter to God’s law. It is a system of ethics although it may not be our ethics.

Its not about what he will and won’t do but what is He capable of doing. If God allows sin to exist He must want it to exist.

Or, it could be that God has a hierarchy of values, and is unwilling to sacrifice higher values for lower values. If freedom to choose evil (or turn away) is more important than the eradication of evil, then God may be tolerating the presence of evil rather than negating the higher power of freedom (well, until he wipes out a city or planet in dismay). But you are still basically right: if God is all-powerful AND tolerating evil, then at least part of the plan is satisfied by the presence of evil, even if it is not particularly wished for.

 

[Porcupine]

I’m not joining this discussion for the long haul, but I just want to make the point that there’s a difference between actively willing something and simply permitting something. I take it as a given that God’s gift of free will *permits *us to do things that he’d rather we not do. That’s what free will means.

As an example: I give my son the latitude to hold his own opinions and to disagree with me. Does that mean I’m *willing *that my son disagrees with me? No, it’s a broader kind of willing that I’m “granting” him. I’m willing a greater good–that my son learns to form, express, and defend his own opinions. And for that to happen in any authentic way, he has to be free to take contrary positions as his conscience and reason dictate.

So am I willing his contrariness, his occasional disobedience? In a way, yes—in that broader way. But really, maybe the word “will” is causing the trouble here. *Permit *might be better.

My two cents.

 

[jonfawkes]

But the difference lies in your human nature. You have no ultimate control over your son. You can’t redesign your son. You have to work with what you were given. You have no foreknowledge of what your permissiveness might bring.

God if He is omnipotent and omniscient knows what his permissiveness will bring and also has the power to change it, if He wishes. You don’t.

 

[davidv]

Because if take away the means you take away the act. By allowing the means you allow the act.

This does not answer the question asked. Allow does not equal will. Definitions:

al·low (-lou)
v. al·lowed, al·low·ing, al·lows
v.tr.

1. To let do or happen; permit: We allow smoking only in restricted areas.
2. To permit the presence of: No pets are allowed inside.

tr.v. caused, caus·ing, caus·es

1. To be the cause of or reason for; result in.
2. To bring about or compel by authority or force:

v. willed, will·ing, wills
v.tr.

1. To decide on; choose.
2. To yearn for; desire:
3. To decree, dictate, or order.

Civil law isn’t always just. Is abortion being legal just?

Not relevant. my example was of just civil law.

It is relevant Romans had laws but not our faith. The USSR had no faith but laws. We are held responsible for civil laws than run counter to God’s law. It is a system of ethics although it may not be our ethics.

I don’t get the point of this. It still doesn’t seem relevant to original sin.

Its not about what he will and won’t do but what is He capable of doing. If God allows sin to exist He must want it to exist.

You have failed to show how this is a true statement. I reject it as being false because it is contrary to Church teaching on the nature of God.

 

[ERose]

God gave us free will because it is a greater good to give human beings free will than for them to be automatons. Did he know that this free will would bring evil into this universe that He created? Yes for He is All-Knowing. Did He will that evil be brought into this universe? No.

We are given free will for a reason. God wants us to be His children and not His slaves. To be His children, requires us to freely choose Him.

Even Adam and Eve who where originally without sin had to choose God and in the process they chose to turn away from Him and brought sin and evil into the world. God did not will Adam and Eve to sin, even though He knew when He created them that they would.

But which condition of man is better? Man who has free will or man who does not? To have the opportunity to be His child or to be His slave? I choose the former even though I strive to be the later.

 

[jonfawkes]

You are saying that the only choice is free will or slave ( sometimes people say puppet as well) what about Animals and trees and the ocean, and the land were all created by God without free will. He called them Good. Why are we to believe God is wrong and they are not good - very good?

 

[Porcupine]

But the difference lies in your human nature. You have no ultimate control over your son. You can’t redesign your son. You have to work with what you were given. You have no foreknowledge of what your permissiveness might bring.

God if He is omnipotent and omniscient knows what his permissiveness will bring and also has the power to change it, if He wishes. You don’t.

But (a thought experiment here), even if I had those god-like qualities—omnipotence, omniscience—and the power to change the situation, what would I change? That is to say, if I want my son to learn from his own mistakes and think for himself, and if I want to create a family in which expressions of love, anger, agreement, disagreement are genuine instead of coerced? I can’t think of any other way to reach those ends without everyone’s having a will that is as free to disappoint me as to delight me.

I know this kind of guesswork and anthropomorphizing of God and his motives/plans is fraught with potential problems, but we’re anthrops… what’re you gonna do? And I find this way of thinking about it makes sense to me.

 

[davidv]

You are saying that the only choice is free will or slave ( sometimes people say puppet as well) what about Animals and trees and the ocean, and the land were all created by God without free will. He called them Good. Why are we to believe God is wrong and they are not good - very good?

This is a wrong question. Neither animals, nor plants, nor inanimate objects were made in the image and likeness of God. Any moral comparison of them to humans is absurd.

 

[jonfawkes]

You have failed to show how this is a true statement. I reject it as being false because it is contrary to Church teaching on the nature of God.

This is your argument - it doesn’t give any proof why. All you are saying that if it is contrary to the church then it must be false.

I don’t see it as contrary though. God is omnipotent and omniscient ( not contrary ) He is the first cause( not contrary). The world was created to His plan (not contrary) He allows evil to happen. (not contrary) He gives us free will. ( not contrary) Free will allows us to sin ( not contrary).

All I am saying is if he allows it to happen HE must want it because He has the power to change it. Evil must serve some purpose. Wihtout creation there is no evil. Everything that stems from creation was caused by the act of creation.

 

[ERose]

You are saying that the only choice is free will or slave ( sometimes people say puppet as well) what about Animals and trees and the ocean, and the land were all created by God without free will. He called them Good. Why are we to believe God is wrong and they are not good - very good?

They are good because God created them. Who said they are not good? God is never wrong for He cannot be wrong. If God says the sky is green then it is green. If He says that the universe no longer exists it will cease to exist.

You are right we could have a third choice. We could also be like the animals. Of course the atheist would say that is the choice. But I think there is a significant difference between us and animals. God made us in His image, which He did not do in the case of animals. Because He made us in His image, He gave us free will to choose or reject Him. That is our choice not His. Even God promised He will not force us nor anything else in this universe can force us to choose freely.

 

[jonfawkes]

This is a wrong question. Neither animals, nor plants, nor inanimate objects were made in the image and likeness of God. Any moral comparison of them to humans is absurd.

How can something be called good without it being a moral judgment.

 

[davidv]

This is your argument - it doesn’t give any proof why.

Several posters including myself have explained why several times. Are you sure you want an explanation?

All you are saying that if it is contrary to the church then it must be false.

If this was all that was said, you might have a point.

I don’t see it as contrary though.

Of course you don’t. I don’t think you can accept anything the is contrary to your preconceived ideas of how things ought to be.

God is omnipotent and omniscient ( not contrary ) He is the first cause( not contrary). The world was created to His plan (not contrary) He allows evil to happen. (not contrary) He gives us free will. ( not contrary) Free will allows us to sin ( not contrary).

All I am saying is if he allows it to happen HE must want it because He has the power to change it. Evil must serve some purpose.

Is it God’s purpose? I say it is Satan’ purpose. God’s power allows Him to bring good out of Satan’s and man’s evil.

Wihtout creation there is no evil.

There would be no love either. Would that be better?

Everything that stems from creation was caused by the act of creation.

You have not demonstrated this to be a true statement.

 

[davidv]

How can something be called good without it being a moral judgment.

Are you serious? Animals and plants don’t have a rational soul and incapable of moral judgments and cannot sin. Comparing us to them is irrational.

 

[jonfawkes]

But (a thought experiment here), even if I had those god-like qualities—omnipotence, omniscience—and the power to change the situation, what would I change? That is to say, if I want my son to learn from his own mistakes and think for himself, and if I want to create a family in which expressions of love, anger, agreement, disagreement are genuine instead of coerced? **I can’t think of any other way to reach those ends without everyone’s having a will that is as free to disappoint me as to delight me. **

I know this kind of guesswork and anthropomorphizing of God and his motives/plans is fraught with potential problems, but we’re anthrops… what’re you gonna do? And I find this way of thinking about it makes sense to me.

You are still operating within your own restrictions. “I can’t think …”

 

[jonfawkes]

Are you serious? Animals and plants don’t have a rational soul and incapable of moral judgments and cannot sin. Comparing us to them is irrational.

God called them Good. Calling something good is a moral judgment. Are you calling God a liar?

 

[jonfawkes]

Several posters including myself have explained why several times. Are you sure you want an explanation?

If this was all that was said, you might have a point.

Of course you don’t. I don’t think you can accept anything the is contrary to your preconceived ideas of how things ought to be.

Is it God’s purpose? I say it is Satan’ purpose. God’s power allows Him to bring good out of Satan’s and man’s evil.

There would be no love either. Would that be better?

You have not demonstrated this to be a true statement.

God made Satan, is Satan as powerful as God? - no. So Satan must be operating with in the confines of God’s power.

Everything in creation stems from God’s will. He wills everything into creation. How can anything be outside his will.

 

[Porcupine]

You are still operating within your own restrictions. “I can’t think …”

As are we all. That’s why threads like this are such fun. If we had God’s mind, we wouldn’t need to have the conversation. But like I said, even though I realize my “argument” is one that is more or less anthropocentric, that’s the skin I’m in, and to me it makes sense.

What would you change if you were the father in my example, and you had unlimited powers?

 

[jonfawkes]

As are we all. That’s why threads like this are such fun. If we had God’s mind, we wouldn’t need to have the conversation. But like I said, even though I realize my “argument” is one that is more or less anthropocentric, that’s the skin I’m in, and to me it makes sense.

What would you change if you were the father in my example, and you had unlimited powers?

I don’t see free will as a prerequisite - animals prepare their young to face the world. Many have strong social bonds. Without free will they are incapable of sin.

 

[Porcupine]

I don’t see free will as a prerequisite - animals prepare their young to face the world. Many have strong social bonds. Without free will they are incapable of sin.

Well, I guess we disagree there. I don’t think animals have anything like the moral nature/apparatus/responsibility that human beings do, and I don’t see how humans can develop fully along those lines without free will.