T
Truthstalker
Guest
Age old problem.
- God created all things good.
- So where did evil come from?
- Status
W
WanderAimlessly
Guest
“Free Will” to accept or reject God. Not only to us humans have this free will, but also the angles, of which Satan was one of them, before the fall.
P
Phat
Guest
God created all things good, but not all things are infinitely good in themselves since all things of this world are limited. Since all things are limited, due to constraint of time, age, etc., we can never be infinitely good. Evil arises because of our lack of infinite goodness. Evil then is the lack/ absence of good.
A
anthony022071
Guest
Evil came about through the initial turning away from God,because of pride,hard-heartedness,selfishness.
God gave us free will,but God has his own will for us. We are free to defy God’s laws and subvert his plans, but in the long run God quietly gets his way,drawing good from our evil. A small,apparently harmless sin can lead to the commiting of other,greater sins to cover up or nullify the effects of the initial sin. And the willingness to commit one minor sin which can apparently be gotten away with leads to self-justification,hard-heartedness toward God which becomes the point of departure,the foundation of a cynicism which allows for the normalized commiting of sins. We can easily observe how this works in everyday life,even in our own lives.A very minor lie or theft can easily necessitate other lies,which in turn forces us to harden our hearts defensively,which may lead to mistrust,suspicion,acrimony,anger.And these feelings may in turn lead to vindictiveness and violence.Great evils like war,persecution,race riots can be ignited by particular incidents over the fuel of hard-hearted feelings among men,which in turn go back to particular sins by particular persons.We are all too willing to pass on the evil done to us or our own onto others,and we often don’t know what we are doing. It’s like a domino effect being played out through history on a global scale.
There is a constant
stuggle through history between man’s will and God’s will.It is comparable to two contrary winds which blow through thwart,and intermingle with one another so that it becomes difficult to tell where they go,or which direction they tend,or which wind is dominant.
God gave us free will,but God has his own will for us. We are free to defy God’s laws and subvert his plans, but in the long run God quietly gets his way,drawing good from our evil. A small,apparently harmless sin can lead to the commiting of other,greater sins to cover up or nullify the effects of the initial sin. And the willingness to commit one minor sin which can apparently be gotten away with leads to self-justification,hard-heartedness toward God which becomes the point of departure,the foundation of a cynicism which allows for the normalized commiting of sins. We can easily observe how this works in everyday life,even in our own lives.A very minor lie or theft can easily necessitate other lies,which in turn forces us to harden our hearts defensively,which may lead to mistrust,suspicion,acrimony,anger.And these feelings may in turn lead to vindictiveness and violence.Great evils like war,persecution,race riots can be ignited by particular incidents over the fuel of hard-hearted feelings among men,which in turn go back to particular sins by particular persons.We are all too willing to pass on the evil done to us or our own onto others,and we often don’t know what we are doing. It’s like a domino effect being played out through history on a global scale.
There is a constant
stuggle through history between man’s will and God’s will.It is comparable to two contrary winds which blow through thwart,and intermingle with one another so that it becomes difficult to tell where they go,or which direction they tend,or which wind is dominant.
C
cor
Guest
I think you either have to accept some kind of Dualism (Goodness/Evil dualism not mind/body) or you have to say with Augustine that evil is not a substantive thing but merely the lack of a thing that ought to be there.
R
Rach620
Guest
Evil is a lack of a good that should be present.
God created everything good–but then, where did Adam and Eve, or Satan before them, ever get the idea to go against the good which God intended? How can perfectly good creation desire anything less than the good for which they were made?
I know free will is part of it–but how does it even enter into the realm of possibilities, this choice of evil?
God created everything good–but then, where did Adam and Eve, or Satan before them, ever get the idea to go against the good which God intended? How can perfectly good creation desire anything less than the good for which they were made?
I know free will is part of it–but how does it even enter into the realm of possibilities, this choice of evil?
N
Nullasalus
Guest
My own answer to this would go as follows.
An individual is composed of their past - what they’ve done, what they’ve experienced, etc. A different past ultimately means a different person. If God were to allow no evil, willful or otherwise, it would mean the non-existence of all of us. Each of us has (I’m willing to bet) experienced evil in the past. Those experiences comprise who we are in the present. In a way, I see the possibility of evil as an aspect of God’s benevolence, especially given the alternative.
So it makes sense to me that evil is allowed in this world; freedom to do evil brings about other kinds of particular freedoms as well. The benefit isn’t only our existence, but that whatever evil we experience is ultimately transient - through God, that which is flawed can be made better. I don’t think there’s an end to it, personally; an eternity of improvement.
B
blessedtoo
Guest
Let me take a stab at it, although I am certain it will be feeble since I too wrestle with this notion of evil as simply the absence of good.
Grapes are good. Fermented grapes become wine. Wine is good. I have a glass of wine and that is good. I have two, three, four and I’m drunk. I have now eliminated the good, subtracted it by abusing it’s purpose. I have now entered into a situation that has no redemptive quality. I can apply this formula to just about every life circumstance: sexuality, eating, working, playing, etc. IMO (pedestrian as it is), the good is the essence of all life and once it is removed we are left we what we term “evil”.
V
Valke2
Guest
Why do people keep assuming that evil is best defined as an absence of Good? That definition might work for indifference. But evil involves, generally, positive actions. It requires work on the part of the doer. The man who went on a murder spree was not simply suffering from an absence of goodness. He was evil in a physical form. He committed evil acts driven by hatred, anger and pain.
Saying evil is the absence of good makes as much sense as saying that not praying is the absence of prayer. Yes, it is true that when I am not praying, prayer is absent from my life. But that definition leaves a lot to be desired.
Saying evil is the absence of good makes as much sense as saying that not praying is the absence of prayer. Yes, it is true that when I am not praying, prayer is absent from my life. But that definition leaves a lot to be desired.
C
cpayne
Guest
Well, in one sense, you’re right–evil can result in actions. But the philosophic definition of evil as a lack or privation is still valid, I think. Although God created all things, God did not create evil, since evil is not a thing. To address your specific concern, you’d have to add (as many posters have already done) the good of free will, which can be readily misused to turn away from goodness. Is God morally responsible for something (like a murder) a human chooses to do? God is responsible for the existence of the freedom; the human is responsible for the use of that freedom.
In one sense, the notion of evil human action is sort of a compliment to God. Evidently the good of human choice (and hence the opportunity to choose God) is such a blessing, it is worth even the abundant misuses of freedom we see all the time.
Maybe this is what Paul means when he says the sufferings of this present life are “not worthy to be compared to the glory which shall be revealed in us.”
A
anthony022071
Guest
Evil in it’s “concrete” forms may involve positive actions or work on the part of the doer,but the evil in spiritual form,the will to sin, is already there in the hearts of men.This goes back to what Jesus said about evil coming from within,from the heart (Mark 7,20-23). It is a matter of the transference,or transposition, from the spirit to the physical world,from the unseen to the seen,the conceptual to the actual. So the origin of evil is our own hearts. The violence and cruelty that we witness in the world is the out-going manifestation of the goings-on in men’s hearts.
B
blessedtoo
Guest
Where did this “evil in men’s hearts” come from? Was it created by God? Where did the “will to sin” come from in the Garden of Eden where our first parents experienced the presence of God and complete perfection? Who wrote the “evil” on their hearts?
A
anthony022071
Guest
I remember reading in the Old Testament where God says “I see they are but flesh,and incline toward evil.” Because we are “but flesh”,we lean,naturally,in the direction of selfishness. We need food,drink,pleasure,attention,affection,love.But these needs can easily incline further,through temptation,into greed,self-justification,and pride.We are tempted to become hard-hearted when we are ambitious for ourselves,when our selfhood,or pride, is wounded, when we are not getting what we think we deserve,when we see others with more of what we want for ourselves. This hard-heartedness makes it possible for men to do evil to each other, to not realize what we are doing as evil,to become morally blind,to convince ourselves that we are always in the right,that what we would like for ourselves is what we deserve, to continually self-justify and to even show off in front of others,saying “and I’ll do it again,too!” or “you should be thankful I didn’t do something worse!”
Men often make a kind of idolatry of their own needs,wants,
desires,ambitions,and pride,to the extent of engaging in inhuman,monstrous behavior.
The story of the Fall of Man suggests that Eve,then Adam, wanted to be like gods,to not be dependent on God,to have more self-sufficient power,and to do as they pleased.They were curious
for “forbidden knowledge” and tempted to doubt and disobey God,thereby upsetting the balance in Creation.The evil was written upon their hearts by doubting and disobeying God,and believing the serpent.
K
Kristopher
Guest
All things were created good. Here is an analogy: every living thing in some manner of speaking is born with a sexual reproductive system: this in and of itself is good. There is dispute about the usage of it: to increase intimacy within a marriage, or to have children. Beyond a certain age: some maintain, or maybe even many, that masturbation, or hedonistic usage of the sexual organs is “bad”, a disorder. Nothing bad has been created. There is something good created. Nonetheless, the usage of the sexual organs may be one of two sequences of thought, either for its apparent intended usage, or its usage within a hedonistic capacity.
The angels, apparently pure beings, with freewill “rebelled” against God. There was no creation of anything evil. There was a destructive decision against some “proper” order of creation, as it concerned the heavens, which led to the fall of some angels. They had their attention on God, though, they sought ends suitable only to God: power, domain, and whatnot.
There is never any abscence of good: this denies God’s existence.
Intrinsically, how it could be possible, that with freewill–there may suddenly be a choice, either one good, or one bad: would apparently have nothing to do with the creation of anything good, or bad–it has only to do with order. There is not an unreasonable account within Genesis, the first few words, that extant is both chaos and order, the earth is initially chaotic, a wasteland: this would allow for the creation to exist neither as good, nor bad, only two poles: chaos and order, perhaps essential to creation, and certainly to change. Homeostasis, the ability of the body to fluctuate in order to maintain health is apparently never achieved, only in flux, to be maintained incessantly until death: there is something good about homeostasis; though, there is nothing bad about the fact, it never really is obtained; everything outside homeostasis must be in flux, that will allow for homeostasis to be within a livable range; therefore, without the fight to maintain homeostasis, we have a condition that is unhealthy, rather than either evil, or bad.
I am attempting to support, that creation is good, that will may be ordered, or disordered–clearly the destruction wrought by rebellious angels is toward the ability of others to love; though, the ability to love must be maintained with a fight, even under attack.
Why is God alone, good? It makes no difference. You have to know your place.
D
dessert
Guest
We are all vulnerable to the power of suggestion. If I think I am not then that is my pride and boasting and there will be a fall. Famous last words I would never do that, watchout there the devil(evil) is lurking.
You have not told me where I am going Lord but you have told me to follow you. Dessert
You have not told me where I am going Lord but you have told me to follow you. Dessert
G
Greg27
Guest
Christian and Catholic Theology has examined this problem over the centuries and proposed various solutions. However, these are ones that have traditionally been rejected:
- Evil is a divine property or is a direct creation of God
- The material cosmos has been created by an evil or inferior principle of being
- The world and humanity are fundamentally evil
J
jules208
Guest
I was listening to a Catholic Answers radio program a few weeks ago and the topic of original sin came up. The caller wanted to know how Our Blessed Mother was different from us by her mark of having been born without sin. Father Mitch Paqua explained that, like Adam and Eve before the fall, and like Jesus, Mary did not know interior temptation as we do; she was only tempted from without.
That answer did not satisfy me because there still remains the question of why Adam and Eve, being without sin initially, sinned at all. I understand the concept of free will, but it does not address the issue of temptation (interior or external).
THE QUESTION: If Adam and Eve’s temptation was solely an external temptation because they were without sin, why couldn’t they resist external temptation? If anyone would argue that Adam and Eve’s temptation came from within, you will have to revisit the Church’s explanation of “original sin” and how it was manifest only AFTER temptation occurred.
If I am not a gambler by nature and someone tries to entice me to go gambling with them all night, I will not be moved because it is not an interior temptation I struggle with. But if I struggle with that temptation, and someone inveigles me to join them on the boat, I may be too weak to resist.
So it does not make sense to me that one would sin if tempted only from without. As Scripture points out, sin comes to fruition only when we harbor interior desires and begin to savor them, entertain them (James 1:14-15).
If anyone can shed a little more light on this topic, I would like a better understanding of the psychology or mentality of how our first parents could have sinned if temptation (or sinful desire) did not emerge from within them. There are a whole lot more questions that arise from the Garden of Eden account alone, but I’d like to tackle this one for now.
C
cpayne
Guest
I read a really good answer for this question (previous post); this was a question I also had. But now I’m trying to find the answer. Will get back.
N
Nita
Guest
The “temptation” consisted of the words (external to them) spoken to them by the serpent. BUT, they chose to listen to someone who was contradicting God,
chose to ponder those words,
chose to believe them,
and finally they chose to act in accord with them.
These choices were made in their soul (intellect and will) and were sins. It may seem like a small sin for them to just be hanging around the forbidden tree and then to choose to stay and listen to the serpent, but serious sin often begins with small sins. Their smaller sins resulted in two very serious sins - pride (an interior sin) and disobedience to God’s direct command (external sinful act).
For us, pride can be a sin when we freely choose it. But it can also be just a temptation - part of the concupisence present in our human nature as a result of original sin. As long as we refuse to indulge it, it remains just a temptation and not a sin.
Nita
J
jules208
Guest
I understand what you are saying. However, the issue I’m trying to tackle is why Adam and Eve’s initial lack of original sin did not keep them from sin in the first place. Contrasted with Mary and with her Beloved Son, both of whom were also free from the effects of original sin, what was different about Adam and Eve’s condition? They all entered this world without the stain of original sin. What gives? Why were Adam and Eve more vulnerable? Why did Mary and Christ remain always in the Father’s will and Adam and Eve did not?
I understand from Scripture that Adam and Eve, before the fall, did not yet know good and evil and they had no self-awareness until they had chosen to disobey God. And while we call it original sin, it really sounds as if the experience for them was something like cheese on a mouse trap. You can have the cheese, but it’s going to be at a cost. And they chose the cheese - the knowledge of good and evil, self-awareness, and the freedom and power to act apart from God’s will - at the expense of peace and good will. So we get the freedom and the burden of responsibility that comes with it.
In that context then, it was inevitable that Adam and Eve would choose to have that knowledge of good and evil and self-awareness. In order to love the Master, one must know what it is like not to have the Master. Mary and Christ saw the effects of original sin all around them - the selfishness, fear, pride, envy, arrogance - effects that Adam and Eve did not know yet, hence they chose to know. Perhaps that is why Mary and Christ could be externally tempted but never internally.
Then was Father Pacwa’s statement wrong, or only half the story, when he said that Adam and Eve were only tempted externally before the fall? Nita, your reply seems to contradict his statement. If you’re saying that Adam and Eve were tempted internally (as only sinful thoughts give rise to action), from what did the internal temptation arise? If there was no original sin yet, there could not have been internal temptation, I don’t believe. Maybe that is the fallacy in my understanding…
- Status