So, who is responsible?

[ignatius777]

What is the difference? The end result is the same. To kill by hand or kill by “proxy” is the same. People who do not actively participate in a terrorist attack, but who know about it, and do not report it are held exactly as guilty as the ones who actually commit it. If you release a terrorist from prison and you are fully aware of his intentions, you will be exactly as guilty as the terrorist himself.

Why not, indeed? Is there anything wrong with it?

The end result is the same but not whos responsible. Its an oversimplification to say hat because you know about something its the same as actually doing it. Its not.

I didnt suggest anything is wrong with it you did. But if God can control all we do why not make us all behave like mother theresa? Whats your answer? If you believe God is responbile for evil he must also be repsonsible for good.

 

[butterbattle]

ignatius:

No one is claiming free will is only good. It is neither it is free will…period

Many, if not most, people claim that free will is a good thing. Do you not agree?

Why does God allow evil to exist then, if not because free will was a greater good?

 

[Spock]

The operative word is “intend”.

What is the difference between “intended” and “designed for”? You used these two words in your two posts. They are synonyms, aren’t they?

 

[Spock]

We seem to focus on God’s foreknowlde of the fact that one would commit evil and that another would die.

The point in this thread is very narrow. I don’t wish to explore theodicy here. There are many threads dealing with that subject. There is one thing to explore here: the question of responsibility. He, who makes the decision to do or to allow something must bear the responsibility for the results of that decision.

 

[Spock]

The end result is the same but not whos responsible. Its an oversimplification to say hat because you know about something its the same as actually doing it. Its not.

That is not the correct picture. God’s foreknowledge is not a pure, sterile, academic knowledge of what will happen, it is active, purposeful creation of what will happen. Remember the dogma II:9 “God keeps all created things in existence”.

I didnt suggest anything is wrong with it you did. But if God can control all we do why not make us all behave like mother theresa? Whats your answer?

He should. What would be wrong with it?

If you believe God is responbile for evil he must also be repsonsible for good.

That would follow, yes. And the reverse would follow, too: “If you believe that God is responsible for all the good, he must be also responsible for all the evil”. That is the whole point of this thread. You nailed it!

 

[CTuck]

I think the point is “isn’t God responsible for the evil He knows His creatures will do?” Psychopaths are not necessarily evil doing machines. They are people well within the realm of God’s love and mercy.

Certainly there are people who do terrible things that are psychopathic, but also people who aren’t. And there are certainly psychopaths who don’t do terribly evil things at all. Although they lack the ability to empathize, they still can understand consequence. Can anyone say, “the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.” The condition is not always genetic, nor is it always brought on by early childhood experiences, it can also happen through the deadening of our consciences. And let’s not forget about the kind of psychopathy that comes from demonic possession.

Besides that, it’s different for God than for us.

 

[vsedriver]

Apologists assert that God gave us free will, and therefore God is not responsible for our free actions. As usual, they stay on the surface of the question, and this proposition sounds plausible. Of course it is totally wrong. One example will prove that they are wrong.

Suppose you have a psychopath in your custody. You know that this person has already committed some serious atrocities (murders, rapes, etc…). You also know that this person will commit more atrocities, if given half a chance. (Omniscience) You have the option to release him or not. (Creating that person) If you release him knowing full well what he will do, then you cannot “hide” behind the defense that you, personally did not do those acts, he did them out of his own volition, and you just wash your hands Pilate-style.

All his acts are the result of you opening his prison cell and setting him free. You are responsible for what he did. Can you deny it?

But if you also gave him the medicine (your son, the church, the sacraments etc.) to curb his psychopathic tendancies and he refuses to take his medicine then you are no longer responsible for what he does.

 

[vsedriver]

If you KNEW, really knew (not just surmised) that the child will commit murders (before he was conceived) then absolutely you would be responsible for those actions.

Knowledge is not causative. Just because God knows what is, has, will happen does not mean He is responsible when a person causes harm by using his/her free will.

 

[vz71]

Why would it deny anything? God would only create those who will act in accordance to his will, and NOT create those who will act contrary to his will.

That denies the choice to do his will.
It also denies free will as there is only one will allowed to exist.

If people are not free to make their own choicesa, they are not free.

 

[vz71]

I say exactly that. Dogma II.9 “God keeps all created things in existence.” Which means that God actively participates in every action we do. Without his active participation we would not be able to commit any act, be it good or bad. Remember, this is a dogma, which you cannot deny.

Qute right…it is dogma.
And is subject to what the church intended it to say; not what you believe it says.

God holds the entirety of creation with his will.
Without a constant act of will, creation would simply cease to be.

This does not implicate God in whatever devious desires we may try to satisfy.

 

[seagal]

What is the difference between “intended” and “designed for”? You used these two words in your two posts. They are synonyms, aren’t they?

Not precisely synonyms but I’ll grant that they’re similar, which is the way I meant them. We are designed and intended for good. We were also designed with free will. Free will means that we are free to choose to do good or evil. So we function exactly as we were designed and intended to.

“If you believe that God is responsible for all the good, he must be also responsible for all the evil”. That is the whole point of this thread. You nailed it!

No, that’s incorrect. God is infinitely good and everything he created is by definition good. It was man who is responsible for introducing evil into the world by not obeying God. You have shown in your previous posts that you think free will is a bad thing because it can be used to do evil. That totally negates the fact that it can be and more often is used to do good. God loved us so much that he made us free creatures, even knowing that we wouldn’t always obey him. If he made us so that we could only do good then he would be nothing more than a despot, compelling us to only do what he tells us.

St. Augustine said “God, since He is the highest good, would in no way allow any evil in His works, unless He were so omnipotent and so good that He could turn evil into good.”

 

[limabeanerson]

Not exactly. Benz has no power NOT to create those who will misuse his automobile. There is no “control” if one chooses not to create the one who can be controlled. Benz does not have that power.

lets assume that Mr. Benz knew for a fact that his creation would at some point cause bad things to happen (Car Crashes, drunk driving, ect). Would you rather he never invented the car (for sake of argument lets say Mr. Benz was uniquely able to invent cars so with out him we would not have automobiles)?

God’s Invention was invented for good, he knew it had the potential for evil and also knew that at some point it would indeed do some evil things but, as evidenced by our existence, God felt the overall good that would come from his “invention” was greater than the overall evil.

Without existence there is no free will. If someone is not created, there is no way of allowing or curtailing his “free will”.

By taking away the existence of someone, say a psycho killer to use your example, you not only take away his evil actions but also any good he may have been responsible for directly or indirectly.

Exactly. What is the problem? A well-functioning “machine” is much better than an erratic one, which may or may not perform as it was supposed to function.

I agree when you are looking for a machine to perform a particular task. God did not want automated machines, he wanted living beings with the choice to love him or hate Him.

My x-box 360 is great! I really enjoy playing it and assuming no flaws in design it will perform as intended for a very long time. I don’t LOVE my x-box 360. I love my children though even though they often don’t perform as I hoped my kids would when I was making them.

hmm

What is the difference? The end result is the same. To kill by hand or kill by “proxy” is the same. People who do not actively participate in a terrorist attack, but who know about it, and do not report it are held exactly as guilty as the ones who actually commit it. If you release a terrorist from prison and you are fully aware of his intentions, you will be exactly as guilty as the terrorist himself.

Is this your opinion or is there a law that states someone with knowledge of a crime to be committed is equally responsible? My understanding would be if I knew 100% sure someone was going to go kill someone else and I did nothing to report or prevent it I would at worst be an accomplice but certainly not guilty of 1st degree murder.

I’m open to review any legal precedent you can come up with to show me I’m wrong about this though.

Why not, indeed? Is there anything wrong with it?

If God created everyone just like Mother Theresa who would we all help? We’d all want to live a simple poor life helping the poor but the poor we are trying to help would constantly be getting in our way by trying to help us. It’d be like a whole world of people all holding the door for each other with nobody ever walking through. lol

Edit to fix quotes

 

[ignatius777]

Many, if not most, people claim that free will is a good thing. Do you not agree?

Why does God allow evil to exist then, if not because free will was a greater good?

I believe free will is a gift but in being more specific I can use that gift for positive or negative things. I guess I was referring more to the outcomes of free will not free itself

 

[slywakka250]

If God created everyone just like Mother Theresa who would we all help? We’d all want to live a simple poor life helping the poor but the poor we are trying to help would constantly be getting in our way by trying to help us. It’d be like a whole world of people all holding the door for each other with nobody ever walking through. lol

So God created the universe with the intention to use the sins of some to provide for the virtue of others?? After all, if there was no one to crucify Christ, he could not have shown his love for us by dying for us.

God created the conditions under which evil acts would be chosen. The conditions of life are such that a certain number of people will happen to reject God. God is responsible for this evil, because under different conditions, different amounts of evil would have come about. God felt that the amount of evil we see in the world and in the after-life is the perfect amount of evil.

While this system works out great for the saved and the elect, those who perchance find themselves rejecting God, are left holding the bag in hell, while those in heaven get the glory. The damned deserve more credit for providing for all that virtue by the opportunities they provide for the elect for doing good.

 

[fhansen]

So God created the universe with the intention to use the sins of some to provide for the virtue of others?? After all, if there was no one to crucify Christ, he could not have shown his love for us by dying for us.

God created the conditions under which evil acts would be chosen. The conditions of life are such that a certain number of people will happen to reject God. God is responsible for this evil, because under different conditions, different amounts of evil would have come about. God felt that the amount of evil we see in the world and in the after-life is the perfect amount of evil.

While this system works out great for the saved and the elect, those who perchance find themselves rejecting God, are left holding the bag in hell, while those in heaven get the glory. The damned deserve more credit for providing for all that virtue by the opportunities they provide for the elect for doing good.

The CC teaches that God, by virtue of being the Creator and sustaining us in every breath we take and action we make, is an indirect cause of evil. This doesn’t mean He intends the evil. It means he creates the playing field, and the players, all with clean moral slates, and then says, “Now we’ll let you determine how you’ll play the game”, refusing to take part in forcing the game to be played by His rules. In fact, a definition of free will could be the ability of a created being to act outside the will of God. IOW, to act apart from what nature intends. Either God gives free will or He doesn’t.

Now, of course, if God never created the game, or if He stopped sustaining it at this very moment, all moral evil would cease. But, then, does this mean we should blame Him for all evil? Do we no longer hold humans morally accountable? If we believe that God created the universe then all humans should be off the hook no matter what they do? OTOH, if God doesn’t exist, then humans are suddenly responsible for their actions? It seems there’re problems either way.

 

[butterbattle]

vsedriver:

But if you also gave him the medicine (your son, the church, the sacraments etc.) to curb his psychopathic tendancies and he refuses to take his medicine then you are no longer responsible for what he does.

Oh? So as long as you tried to get him to take his medicine, it is then okay to release him to go slaughter people?

vsedriver:

Knowledge is not causative.

God doesn’t just have knowledge. He made us. That is causative.

vsedriver:

Just because God knows what is, has, will happen does not mean He is responsible when a person causes harm by using his/her free will.

Not preventing evil when it is entirely in your power to do so is wrong. That is the point.

 

[butterbattle]

That denies the choice to do his will.
It also denies free will as there is only one will allowed to exist.

If people are not free to make their own choicesa, they are not free.

Sure they are. Everyone would be free to make their own free choices. God simply makes people that will freely choose to obey him. That’s not any different than how it is now; God designs some people with the knowledge that they will freely obey him and some people that will freely disobey him. Why doesn’t he just make only people that freely obey him? People are still “allowed” to disobey him. They just don’t as much.

It’s a fallacy to argue that the people who wouldn’t have obeyed him now lose their free will because they don’t exist because…they don’t exist; that would be question begging. If that were a sound argument, I could argue that God is preventing the free will of many people right now by not creating them.

 

[ConstantineTG]

First of all, I think that “free will” is a horrible blunder, a stupid decision on the part of the constructor. But that is a different issue, not pertinent to the thread. The point is, that if the creator knows that his creation will not work as intended, then it is a dumb idea to make the creation. Why create something that is contrary to the intention of the creator? Even if the creator considers it “worthy” to go ahead, it still does not lift the responsibility of the creator. The responsibility for the fault always rests with the creator - IF and only IF the creator knew in advance what will happen.

If the creator did not know how his creation will turn out, then he has a valid defense: “I had the best intentions, and I did not know that the creation will turn out differently from my good intentions”. The ignorance on part of the creator would be a valid and acceptable defense. But the alleged “omniscience” of God deprives him of this defense. With the allegation of omniscience the apologists painted themselves into a corner, from where there is no escape.

One can only love truly only if one can choose freely. Its not a terrible blunder. Without free will, there is no true love.

 

[vz71]

If that were a sound argument, I could argue that God is preventing the free will of many people right now by not creating them.

Perhaps you have a point.

It is not a sound argument. Which brings back the original question, “who exactly is responsible?”

The obvious and correct answer is “The one taking the action against God’s will”

Anything else is simply not a sound argument.

 

[Spock]

It is not a sound argument. Which brings back the original question, “who exactly is responsible?”

The obvious and correct answer is “The one taking the action against God’s will”

Impossible. Read the dogmas jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm :

69: God keeps all created things in existence. (De fide.)
70: God co-operates immediately in every act of His creatures. (Sent. communis.)

No matter what we do requires God’s active participation. Also God is immutable. God will only do whatever he deems proper for his greater plan. We cannot change or influence God. You are a catholic, you cannot doubt the catholic dogma.