J
Joyousguard
Guest
post continued…
- Status
J
Joyousguard
Guest
If we did not have free will Adama and Eve would not have sinned to begin with and we would all be living happily in the Graden Of Eden where “Fraiser” was never canceled
.Free will means the ability and freedom to choose sin over truth and wrong over right. Adam and Eve chose to disobey God and thus caused the first sin.
There was no sin in the Garden of Eden nor evil (somewhat debatable considering the serpent). If we had no freedom of choice we would have also choosen what God told us to. And I think its safe to say that we would know what God would choose for us.
If we had no freedom of choice that would mean that God was choosing for us and there would be no possibility of choosing evil or sin.
I think I see what your trying to ask here but I want to make sure. Could you rephrase your question taking into account what I just wrote. I think I see where your going but I want to make sure first.
E
ErikaA
Guest
Here goes. Is evil contingent upon free will? I think you’re answer is yes. I think it has to be, doesn’t it?If we had no freedom of choice that would mean that God was choosing for us and there would be no possibility of choosing evil or sin.
I think I see what your trying to ask here but I want to make sure. Could you rephrase your question taking into account what I just wrote. I think I see where your going but I want to make sure first.
I ask for two reasons. First, because I’ve always had issues with free will, questions about it’s existence. However if I denote things as good and bad (or evil), then I am admitting the existence of free will. Secondly, I ask because I have long struggled with the idea that “all evil comes from the Fall”. It has been unsatisfying for me to believe that because we rejected God at the start, a child is then born with leukemia. It seems inherently unfair and naturally, wrong. However, by my reasoning (which may be bad here), that such a situation seems wrong means that I see a right in the course of human existence. And if right and wrong are contingent upon free will, then by your own argument, free will is responsible for evil. I guess I’m coming to the same conclusion you did, but I’m getting there a different way. However I may be comitting numerous logical errors along the path.
I see no need to argue that evil exists because I think anyone who contends otherwise, is being at best naive and at worst hypocritical. Every person I know makes value judgments. Ask an atheist if the pro-life advocate who killed an abortion doctor was right and you will usually get a most vitriolic “NO”. Instead of maintaining the existence of evil, I am more curious as to what its existence reveals about our role and God’s nature.
J
Joyousguard
Guest
Let us understand suffering and life for a moment. This reality or existence we call “life” is a means to bring us into creation and does not end when our bodies fail. This reality is almost a preparation for the next state of existence.
Now I will be honest, it angers me when I see children born with cancer or incurable diseases. I often times think I would be a terrible God but everyone would be happy. Why do children suffer and are made to suffer? Look at a kitchen knife. So long as the knife does its job we really don’t think much about it. But as soon as that knife become dull and inhibits our preparation of dinner we start to refelct on the dullness of the knife. When the knife is shapr we really don’t notice the knife doing its job or the fact that it is not a problem.
Humanity is like this. We don’t always notice when things are going well or more importantly we notice when things are going well in comparison to when they are not. Suffering and pain cause us to reflect, “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it”. If your life is going well then is there really need for improvement or reflection upon anything? The expression “we learn more from defeat then victory” can be very true even in a spiritual sense. Sometimes pain, suffering and anguish bring not only us but those who witness our pain closer to God or at least in that direction. We look for answers to our questions and demand solutions to our anger. Ultimately we are lead to God.
Christ on the cross is something similair. God showed His infinite love for mankind by allowing Jesus Christ to suffer and be hung on a tree. His suffering and anguished showed through action the love God has for us. Many of the Saints were over joyed to suffer we such things as the stigmata. They were thankful to be able to share in the suffering that Christ Himself endured. Through our pain and angusih we become closer to understanding and experienceing how much God loves us, and in a certain way how much it hurts God when we too are in pain or sin.
Catherine of Sienna suffered from an invisible stigmata, it was visible and then she prayed to God to make it invisible which God granted, the marks only appeared after her death. She was joyed to be bale to share in pain close to God. Through her joy in suffering she calls others to God through her own example.
Abortion upsets God because the sin hurts us. God does not weep for the child because the child is returned to Him. God weeps for us who have commited the sin and those who are saddened by it. Through saddness and suffering we come to understand and know who God is and appreciate the pain He feels for each and everyone of us.
E
ErikaA
Guest
Joyousguard, I do not disagree with you that suffering is and can result in good. However, does that necessarily mean that suffering in and of itself is good?
We certainly do not seek it, for we perceive suffering as bad. Any parent certainly perceives the loss of a child as bad, wrong, and unfair. That is beyond debate. That something good and beautiful can come out of the loss of a child doesn’t make the loss any less tragic. The death of a child is not good because it strengthens one’s faith. The death of a child is never good, but it can lead to a good.
To put it another way, Joseph’s treatment by his brothers was not “good”, but much good came from it. The ultimate end does not change the value of the action however. Likewise, suffering is not good, even though much good can come from it.
By your own argument, we seek the good. Even those who embrace or seek temporal suffering do so for a good they believe results from it. Suffering is endured for its end, not because it alone is good. So from that which is bad, good can result.
As for evil, I know it only arises from the defect in the good. And doesn’t the discussion of either presuppose the existence of free will? Thus, in that sense, free will creates evil because without it, there is no good nor evil, as you stated earlier.
We certainly do not seek it, for we perceive suffering as bad. Any parent certainly perceives the loss of a child as bad, wrong, and unfair. That is beyond debate. That something good and beautiful can come out of the loss of a child doesn’t make the loss any less tragic. The death of a child is not good because it strengthens one’s faith. The death of a child is never good, but it can lead to a good.
To put it another way, Joseph’s treatment by his brothers was not “good”, but much good came from it. The ultimate end does not change the value of the action however. Likewise, suffering is not good, even though much good can come from it.
By your own argument, we seek the good. Even those who embrace or seek temporal suffering do so for a good they believe results from it. Suffering is endured for its end, not because it alone is good. So from that which is bad, good can result.
As for evil, I know it only arises from the defect in the good. And doesn’t the discussion of either presuppose the existence of free will? Thus, in that sense, free will creates evil because without it, there is no good nor evil, as you stated earlier.
J
Joyousguard
Guest
Intent, means and ends are not a fragmented line of temporal events unto themselves. But rather they are a continuous line of temporal events in cycle. Intent, means and ends can be considered cause and effect. One cause leads to an effect which in turn can become a cause with an effect of it’s own.
No effect comes without a cause except the “first cause”, God. Suffering is the effect of original sin. However,the cycle doe snot stop there. Suffuring can become a cause and produce an effect. Suffering can not be something unto itself but is always associated with an effect on its left and a cause on its right. Cause>effect>cause…freedom of choice>original sin>suffering>Hope/despair/God.
The only way we know God is by cause and effect or His actions. The only way we know suffering is by the effects. Suffering unto itself doe snot exist for suffering is created and defined by the effects it causes. We can not know anything but from its actions.
Evil does arise from a defect in the good. God created us in “His image and likness” and if God is the ultimate good (beatific vision) then mankind indeed was good. Man was not necessarily created as imperfect but rather something that was less than God. Evil is a the result of our actions and did not exist before the freedom of choice was used to reject God and go against His will(sin). Adam and Eve were faced with temptation which is a creation of Satan. They choose to succumb to temptation and thus created original sin. The defect in the Good was not man or freedom of choice in themsleves but the deliberate decision to disobey God. The defect in the good was our motivations and decisions that led us to choose soemthingthat was not of God.
I may have to clarify this last paragraph, it might be a bit confusing.
E
ErikaA
Guest
I think I get what you’re saying but wanted to clarify one thing. If the defect in the good was our decision to disobey, it can also be said that good results from our decision to obey, correct? and since free will makes both possible, don’t good and evil as we define them hinge upon free will? (I’m really not trying to make some sort of egocentric point here, just wanting to clarify and enhance my understanding.)Evil does arise from a defect in the good. God created us in “His image and likness” and if God is the ultimate good (beatific vision) then mankind indeed was good. Man was not necessarily created as imperfect but rather something that was less than God. Evil is a the result of our actions and did not exist before the freedom of choice was used to reject God and go against His will(sin). Adam and Eve were faced with temptation which is a creation of Satan. They choose to succumb to temptation and thus created original sin. The defect in the Good was not man or freedom of choice in themsleves but the deliberate decision to disobey God. The defect in the good was our motivations and decisions that led us to choose soemthingthat was not of God.
I may have to clarify this last paragraph, it might be a bit confusing.
As for the part about suffering, I also see what you’re getting at, but don’t agree. Surely you will cede that I can label suffering as “bad” in so far as it creates discomfort within me? After all, is pleasure good? We seek one. We avoid the other. Since we seek the good, it is only reasonable to conclude that that which we avoid is not good.
J
Joyousguard
Guest
Correct
Free will is not needed to make the good possible or even happen. The good is God and all that is in Him. Therefore the good is independent of free will. Human beings never needed free will to seek the good. God put that in us naturally. He could have left our free will out so we would always choose the good. With our free will we do seek the good but sometimes we end up choosing something that is evil instead. Original sin, which you could say was the first evil act, and all evil that occurs thereafter is a result of freedom of choice or free will. In short, evil hinges on free will but “the good” alreadyexisted before free will. So our free will allows us to choose either or while we still always pursue the good.
Your question was about “suffering being bad/good in of itself”. Suffering can have many effects. Suffering causes pain but at the same time makes us appreciate the good things in life. Suffering “in of itself” is not bad or good, or simply put we cann not know suffering in itself, but the effects can be either good and/or bad. Christ suffered on the Cross which caused pain but His suffering showed how much He really loves us. The suffering “in of itself” is only defined as good or bad in terms of the effects.
Pleasure is good when we take in to account the effects. Candy is good and pleasureable beacuse it is good, but too much is a bad thing. Pleasure is good when the effects are in moderation and not hurting ourselves, others or God. We only know pleasure by it’s effects and we all know depending on its effects, it can be bad or good.
. We seek ice cream but not brocoli. We seek the one but avoid the other. Does that mean us seeking to eat ice cream would mean its good, while us seeking to avoid broccoli would mean it’s not good? Humans seek the good or what we percieve as good. We don’t necessarily avoid that which we see as not good but rather all our efforts are constituted on the good. If I went to the seminary to become a priest, I seek this good, however that does not mean I am trying to avoid the married life or see it as not good. If I avoid broccoli, it does not necessarily mean it is not good or I percieve it as being not good but rather right now my desired good is for ice cream. If you pick a husband, it is not to say that you are avoiding all the not good guys out there but rather you are pursing this good instead.
Sometimes there may be many goods in a situation and sometimes we mat pursue a good, which turns out to be a false good while spurning the actual good. The expression “nice guys finish last” probably came from a nice guy who finished last.
It’s a male understanding or false belief that woman are not attarcted to nice guys or that nice guys end up alone. Some women do pursue, let us say men who are less then gentlemanly, and often times look past really nice guys or more appropriately do not see the nice guy in favor of the other “gentleman”. I think we all have seen this happen. There are issues of compatibility and such but lets leave all that aside.Some women seek a guy for a thrill relationship seeing it as a “good” for them and disregard a guy who would be a great husband etc. (this is a purely superficialy example and not meant to looked at too intently). The point is that just because we see something as good does not make it so and just because we avoid something or more appropritely, choose something else instead, does not mean we view that thing we did not choose as or not good. We merely focus our attention on that which we see as a true good when in fact it might be false.
Lastly, if we avoided that which we see as not good, very few lawns would get moved even though a moved lawn is actually a good thing, especially if your wife has already asked you to do it twice already.
J
Joyousguard
Guest
I think we should both be thankful we still don’t have to read the Summa in Latin
B
Benadam
Guest
not all suffering is due to sin and Adam experienced a condition of suffering that Adam never complained about but was brought to light by God. This scene depicts the proper order of suffering, judgement and the human perception of suffering in Original innocense.
God said " It is not good that man be alone". Adam suffered loneliness but didn’t perceive his suffering as evil. His Original innocense preserved the good of suffering untill God’s purpose for it was complete. Then a condition that was good is pronounced by God as not good.
I think if Satan had not sinned the tree of the knowledge of good and evil would have been a sweet peek at life in eternity and became a danger only because satan had become a distortion of himself and because of that the tree where he dwelled would be cast in the image of that disorder.
Choices don’t offer freedom, not having to choose is freedom. This is what Original Innocense is. Not having an evil desire to tempt one to make an evil choice. Every choice would be good because every desire would be good. I believe that’s Original Freedom.
To be able to do what you want without concern because everything wanted is what is good. No choices but freedom to act.
God said " It is not good that man be alone". Adam suffered loneliness but didn’t perceive his suffering as evil. His Original innocense preserved the good of suffering untill God’s purpose for it was complete. Then a condition that was good is pronounced by God as not good.
I think if Satan had not sinned the tree of the knowledge of good and evil would have been a sweet peek at life in eternity and became a danger only because satan had become a distortion of himself and because of that the tree where he dwelled would be cast in the image of that disorder.
Choices don’t offer freedom, not having to choose is freedom. This is what Original Innocense is. Not having an evil desire to tempt one to make an evil choice. Every choice would be good because every desire would be good. I believe that’s Original Freedom.
To be able to do what you want without concern because everything wanted is what is good. No choices but freedom to act.
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
I see your point. But it’s not what God apparently intended for humanity.
Look at dynamite for example. Dynamite can be used for very useful things,such as blasting out a quarry for example. Or it can be used to blast away people. There’s a good purpose and a bad purpose for something which is, either way, highly destructive.
I guess what I’m getting at is that in order to ‘create’ anything, someone has to have the ‘intention’ to create it-- otherwise it’s merely serrendippity, a fact of science that is all too often over-looked (on both sides) in the the creation-evolution debates.
Mr. Ex Nihilo said:Edwin:
What I mean is that I think God did indeed fore-ordain the paths that all people should walk in-- a freedom ‘from’ choice (as Benadam succinctly expressed it) so long as they were moving by God’s Spirit.
But, in giving people this feedom “within” good parameters, Adam and Eve (by the devil’s temptation) breached their God-given freedom and choose those things which God did not actually create-- the void.
In other words, I don’t think God actually gave them this choice to do evil. He gave them the multitude of choices to do good. Adam and Eve, however, gave themselves this choice to do evil when they trusted the fallen angels’ words over God’s words.
I’ve been reading some of Scotus’ work in contrast to Aquinas. It’s not easy reading.
Let me try to place this a different way:
Would Adam and Eve have still sinned if they had not partaken in the tree of knowledge?
I think they would have.
I think the Tree of Life was the most excellent way toward God-- something which they refused.
But I also think that the Tree of Knowledge has good in it too. In fact, I would suspect that God had this tree placed in -]their/-] there “just in case” they did rebel against his will (this “just in case” part is a poor analogy, but I don’t have the time for the subleties required to explain this part-- more later).
In short, without the Tree of Life, they will die-- period..
However, in failing to choose the Tree of Life, they would need to partake in the Tree of Knowledge so that they could fnd their way back toward the Tree of Life. If they had not partekn in the Tree of Knowledge “after” their fall, they would not have been able to find the Tree of Life at all.
Adam and Eve didn’t fall because they had partaken in the Tree of Knowledge.
Adam and Eve fell because they did not partake in the Tree of Life.
More specifically, if God already knows that they will rebel, then it seems fair to allow the loop-hole of the very means by which they rebel to become a means by which God can bring them back to him– pointing back toward the Tree of Life again.
If the tree of knowledge were not created (with a good purpose), they would have rebelled against him anyway and they never would have been able to return to hs Tree of Life in my opinion.
Their participation in the tree did not cause them to fall.
Their own choice to rebel against God’s will caused them to fall.
See the difference?
That’s how I see it anyway.
I agree that it doesn’t take away the problem entirely. But I think it does work toward a more congruous solution to the problem.
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
Lastly, if we avoided that which we see as not good, very few lawns would get moved even though a moved lawn is actually a good thing, especially if your wife has already asked you to do it twice already.
E
ErikaA
Guest
These posts have really got me thinking about this topic - suffering/evil/free will, etc. Do any of you have any recommendations for reading that might enhance my understanding of the issues? Obviously, I am reading some “basic” Aquinas but may of course benefit from some other writings. Thanks for the advice.
D
davidv
Guest
If you want a non-academic look, I am told that Emily Cavins’ Amazing Grace for… series is very good.
J
Joyousguard
Guest
That is an interesting point. The question becomes, "was adam suffering before God said “it is not good for man to be alone”? Adam was alone only in comparrison of other created beings. He was not alone for God was with him and God spoke to him.
Adam was not suffering prior to the creation of other living things and It is not mentioned that he did suffer at all. Adam was not alone because God was with him. After God created or decided to create other animals it became “not good” for man to be alone.(depends on translation, some translation depicts the animals as already having been made before God declares it is “not good”) This term “not good” is a defacto judgement upon the situation of man. For example, an outhouse was a good thing and a much more sanitary idea. However, and outhouse is “not good” in comparison with a bathroom. There is an evolution and certain things are declared “not good” when in fact they were good at the time but something better and good has come in to existence to make what was previoulsy "good’ not good in comparison. In short, Adam didn’t suffer from lonliness.
True free will is being given the choice but ultimately choosing that which is good over that which is a temptation or pleasurable. Choosing good over satiation is the ultimate expression of our free will. We have the freedom to choose evil but seek God instead even though instant gratification can be at hand.
Choosing that which is good over that which is tempting is th eultimate expression and use of our freedom of choice. Choosing God and His will over all else is true freedom not something that does not allow us to live our lives as automotons.
B
Benadam
Guest
J
Joyousguard
Guest
Not insulting in any way, but this might be more of a eisegesis interpretation rather than an exegesis.
In reagrds to the words of Jesus on the Cross:
It is reference to Psalm 22:
To a certain extent depending on the severity and a perhaps other criteria. Eden was paradise after all.
With freedom of choice comes many possibilities.
B
Benadam
Guest
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
Well, yeah, but paradise is more about union with God and whatever that may entail I think? After all removing a rib seemed to require some holy anesthesia…
Indeed, after the fall, they were “condemned to be” by their own choice.
It’s similar to the modern world mentality that says we need to be “condomed to be free”.
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
“condemned to be…”
Indeed, after the fall, they were “condemned to be” by their own choice.
It’s similar to the modern world mentality that says we need to be “condomed to be free”.
I meant to say, “condemned to be free”.
Then again, maybe leaving it as “condemned to be…” says it more precariously.
- Status