So, who is responsible?

[PAboy57]

That is precisely the point.

Ok, let’s categorize the people into 3 groups: 1) the ones who are the “saints”, 2) the people who are sinners and eventually will become “saints”, 3 the people who will not become “saints”. What is the point of creating people in the third group?

To prove God means what He says. Group 3 is given every opportunity to become a member of the other groups. You previously indicated why non-believers may not believe in a couple of posts past.

Pride was what held me back for a significant period of my life. I thought I could handle everything. I was wrong. I was able to grasp some simple points while praying for faith and then stronger faith followed. I can’t count how much time I put in learning why we believe these things. It was my journey. It all starts with a personal choice.

 

[You]

The ability to know right from wrong is not “innate” according to Genesis. It was acquired when the forbidden fruit was tasted. Since God ordered that tree to be left alone, he preferred us not to know right from wrong.

Yes. That is the point. It is better not to create something than it is to create something that the creator “knows will go bad”. And, besides, he could have created a world, which will not “go bad”. All he had to do is not place that tree into the garden, or protect it from access.

No “crime”, of course. Negilgence, definitely. He did not directly cause the “fall”, he made it possible. And that is negligence.

One of the objectives of creation was to create free willed creatures, both angelic and human. Unfortunately you cannot create free will without free will. And with free will comes responsibility and because of the devil, danger.

 

[PAboy57]

The ability to know right from wrong is not “innate” according to Genesis. It was acquired when the forbidden fruit was tasted. Since God ordered that tree to be left alone, he preferred us not to know right from wrong.

Yes. That is the point. It is better not to create something than it is to create something that the creator “knows will go bad”. And, besides, he could have created a world, which will not “go bad”. All he had to do is not place that tree into the garden, or protect it from access.

No “crime”, of course. Negilgence, definitely. He did not directly cause the “fall”, he made it possible. And that is negligence.

He prefered us to live a life not complicated by good and evil. Only 1 command had to be obeyed for eternal happiness and freedom from pain and suffering. Just 1 rule is as simple as it gets. Please remember it is His universe and His rules. There is no other playing field to choose.

We could crucify Him for negligence, for the sins freely commited by man. Oh, we already did that. God alone was the only one who could attone for man’s sin so He did just that. Another significant opportunity to believe. I acknowledge that God made restitution for my sins. His justice system is perfect unlike our own perception of justice.

Even the angels He created had to make a choice. Free will is God’s gift to us because he want us to chose Him. He does not force us to love him and obey.

 

[butterbattle]

jmcrae:

Everybody has the ability to choose to do good things, right now, if they wanted to. God has left it up to us, the human race, to decide whether we want a good world, or an evil world. It is human beings who have chosen to make it evil - not God.

If everybody in the whole world decided, all at the same time, that they wanted the world to be a good, safe place for everyone, it could happen. But for whatever reason, we keep on choosing not to do that.

Yes, but some people choose to do good more than others, right? And those people have free will, right?

 

[authenticity]

That is precisely the point.

Ok, let’s categorize the people into 3 groups: 1) the ones who are the “saints”, 2) the people who are sinners and eventually will become “saints”, 3 the people who will not become “saints”. What is the point of creating people in the third group?

Let’s consider why God created human beings (theologically speaking). God is, by Christian definition, love. In order to have love reciprocated, you need an “other.” And to have true love, it cannot be forced upon the other. So God works by principle, rather than certainty. This, in effect, requires that human beings have free will. Also, that God gives a means of forgiveness or conversion, which is what Christ’s crucifixion is all about-- you could say that is God “taking responsibility.” Even the psychopath is not barred from salvation. Salvation is not based on what he has done, rather by what he is-- a human being created in God’s image. Clear away the sin on his heart through Christ’s sacrifice and there is God’s reflection.

I would say that category 3 exists as a necessary aspect of creating a being separate from oneself whom you wish to love you without coercion.

To use an example, let’s say a man has a child and he finds out through some mystical means that his child was going to shoot up a school when he turned 14. The father considers killing his son, but he can’t. He loves him unconditionally; it doesn’t matter if he will be a murderer or not. When his son turns 14, he does in fact shoot up the school. When the authorities come to his house, the father says, “I knew since he was little that he would do this. Take me. I am responsible.” The father gets the death penalty. The son gets a lesser sentence. After the father’s death, the son is so moved by his father’s sacrifice that he decides to emulate his father by loving unconditionally.

The purpose of life is to love, not to be perfect or determine who is blame for what.

 

[butterbattle]

Tantum ergo:

God may be ‘responsible’ but that responsibility may in fact ultimately be–and one day be proven to you and all of us–that He was always working for, and in fact achieved, nothing but good. I trust Him. Logically speaking, if one accepts a God and that the God is good, one should accept that His ultimate purpose will in fact work out for good, even if there are what to our flawed (and temporal) understanding appear to be evils along the way.

Ah, finally, a great response.

So, you’re saying that all of the ostensibly evil things that we observe might actually be for the greater good in the long run, correct? If that’s the case, then God is already doing what I’ve proposed, which is to instill free will AND maximize good. I will say that it’s quite difficult to imagine that evils such as painful diseases and starvation actually exist for some greater good, but from your perspective, we are mere humans, so we could not fathom God’s plans. It also feels ad hoc, but regardless, it would certainly fix the inconsistency if it were true.

I have one counterargument, however. Even if the evils of this world were for some greater good, those evils themselves are still evil i.e. the fact remains that people die from painful diseases and starvation. If God is omnipotent, then he should be able to maximize good no matter what, so I do not see that such evils have any utility. In other words, there is no good he could have made with evils that he could not have made without evils; that follows from being omnipotent. So, I still don’t see that so much evil should exist.

 

[jmcrae]

I have one counterargument, however. Even if the evils of this world were for some greater good, those evils themselves are still evil i.e. the fact remains that people die from painful diseases and starvation. If God is omnipotent, then he should be able to maximize good no matter what, so I do not see that such evils have any utility. In other words, there is no good he could have made with evils that he could not have made without evils; that follows from being omnipotent. So, I still don’t see that so much evil should exist.

Just because you disagree with how God does things, does not mean that God does not actually exist.

Suffering has a purifying effect. Obviously, it is unpleasant at the time, but we grow from it and become more generous and more mature because of it. I can also think of lots of better ways for God to do this for us than by suffering, but God has chosen to take the suffering that we have created through the wrong use of our free will, and use it for our good, rather than either causing our bad decisions to not have bad consequences, or causing us to mature and become more generous through some other, less painful means.

 

[PAboy57]

Ah, finally, a great response.

I have one counterargument, however. Even if the evils of this world were for some greater good, those evils themselves are still evil i.e. the fact remains that people die from painful diseases and starvation. If God is omnipotent, then he should be able to maximize good no matter what, so I do not see that such evils have any utility. In other words, there is no good he could have made with evils that he could not have made without evils; that follows from being omnipotent. So, I still don’t see that so much evil should exist.

We don’t understand a lot of things. Our Creator does. I came across this reply in my readings of St. Bridgit.

As to why the body suffers pain in death, it is just that a person should be punished by means of that in which she or he has sinned. If she sins through inordinate lust, it is right for her to be punished with proportionate bitterness and pain. For that reason, death
begins for some people on earth and will last without end in hell, while death ends for others in purgatory and everlasting joy commences.”

 

[4Horsemen]

I wrote this on a different thread, but the post seems to fit here since it agrees that God bears the ultimate responsibility for the way everything in creation operates. He uses our choices, made by our free will based upon reason, to bring about our eternal destiny.

I once heard it said, “God intervenes in the affairs of men by invitation only.” IOW, those who reject God and don’t want Him to be a part of their lives close themselves off from their very lifelines. But God as our Creator and Father never lets them out of His sight, but waits patiently for their return. He respects their free will having given it to His creatures as a wondrous gift.

Whether good things happen or bad, God is there with us and allows what is necessary or beneficial for our salvation. For those who reject Him, Our Father continues to call them until the very last second of their lives. We do have a tendency to describe God’s works as good or miraculous when something positive happens, but we prefer to leave God out of it when evil things happen. Yet, either way, God is working His will to bring to perfection all of His creation.

A revealing meditative book on this subject is titled, Trustful Surrender to Divine Providence–The Secret of Peace and Happiness by Father Jean Baptiste Saint Jure, S.J. and a companion treatise published in the same volume by Saint Claude de la Colombiere, S.J. Here is a quote:

“Nothing happens in the universe without God willing and allowing it. This statement must be taken absolutely of everything with the exception of sin. ‘Nothing occurs by chance in the whole course of our lives’ is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, ‘and God intervenes everywhere.’”

 

[Spock]

Let’s consider why God created human beings (theologically speaking). God is, by Christian definition, love. In order to have love reciprocated, you need an “other.” And to have true love, it cannot be forced upon the other.

One of these days I would like to hear the meaning of “love” in these two sentences: “God loves us”, and “We love God”. The word “love” has many different meanings, and for clarity’s sake these two sentences need to be analyzed. Only after that anaysis can you say “love cannot be forced” on the other.

I would say that category 3 exists as a necessary aspect of creating a being separate from oneself whom you wish to love you without coercion.

What are you talking about? God can “love” (whatever that means) the category one and the category two people. There is no coercion involved in either case. The third group serves absolutely no purpose, except being a fodder for hell (if there is a hell, of course).

To use an example, let’s say a man has a child and he finds out through some mystical means that his child was going to shoot up a school when he turned 14. The father considers killing his son, but he can’t. He loves him unconditionally; it doesn’t matter if he will be a murderer or not. When his son turns 14, he does in fact shoot up the school. When the authorities come to his house, the father says, “I knew since he was little that he would do this. Take me. I am responsible.” The father gets the death penalty. The son gets a lesser sentence. After the father’s death, the son is so moved by his father’s sacrifice that he decides to emulate his father by loving unconditionally.

The purpose of life is to love, not to be perfect or determine who is blame for what.

Several questions about your analogy. If the father knew before the son was born that the son will turn to be a murderer, why create him in the first place? Creating and killing the son is not the same as not creating him. Second, both the father and the son are guilty of the shooting, the son by comission, the father by omission. It makes not sense that the son gets a lesser sentence, than the father. Third, the idea that the son will change is not supported. Looking at the world today, there is no difference in human behavior - in general. But, let’s assume that the son actually changes (very farfetched). What about the price of this change? The other kids in school are the ones who pay the price. Was it worth it? For whom?

 

[Spock]

He prefered us to live a life not complicated by good and evil. Only 1 command had to be obeyed for eternal happiness and freedom from pain and suffering. Just 1 rule is as simple as it gets. Please remember it is His universe and His rules. There is no other playing field to choose.

So, why was that “tree” placed there?

We could crucify Him for negligence, for the sins freely commited by man. Oh, we already did that. God alone was the only one who could attone for man’s sin so He did just that.

This “atonement” business makes no sense at all. Why not just “pardon” our “sins” unconditionally? Allegedly killing Jesus was the worst type of sin humans could have done. God could not “forgive” our lesser sins, he needed a real horrible sin to be able to forgive? As I said before, nothing can be as devastating to your cause as the apologetics presented.

 

[Spock]

I once heard it said, “God intervenes in the affairs of men by invitation only.”

Oh, brother. How many times did God interfere when people were tortured and killed? And those people begged God to help.

“Nothing happens in the universe without God willing and allowing it. This statement must be taken absolutely of everything with the exception of sin. ‘Nothing occurs by chance in the whole course of our lives’ is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, ‘and God intervenes everywhere.’”

Gotta love the “everything, except”.

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

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?

The thing is, if you read closely the Bible, God acknowledges that He is ultimately responsible for the evils in the world, because in the final analysis He permits it. Just read the Book of Job. Also, who can deny that it was the will of the Father for His Son to die a horrible death for the redemption of the world? If He was willing to do that for His Son, how about for the rest of us?

This is also the contention of saints such as St. Alphonsus Ligouri, as he explains:

On these occasions [such as sickness, desolation, poverty, death of relatives, …contempt, injustice, loss of reputation, loss of temporal goods and all kinds of persecution] we must remember that whilst God does not will the sin, he does will our humiliation, our poverty, or our mortification, as the case may be. It is certain and of faith, that whatever happens, happens by the will of God: “I am the Lord forming the light and creating the darkness, making peace and creating evil (Isaias 45:6, 7).” From God come all things, good as well as evil. We call adversities evil; actually they are good and meritorious, when we receive them as coming from God’s hands: “Shall there be evil in a city which the Lord hath not done (Amos, 3:6)?” “Good things and evil, life and death, poverty and riches are from God (Eccli. 11:14)”…

It is true, when one offends us unjustly, God does not will his sin, nor does he concur in the sinner’s bad will; but God does, in a general way, concur in the material action by which such a one strikes us, robs us or does us an injury, so that God certainly wills the offense we suffer and it comes to us from his hands…

When the messenger came to announce to Job that the Sabeans had plundered his goods and slain his children, he said: “The Lord gave and the Lord taketh away (Job. 1:21).” He did not say: “The Lord hath given me my children and my possessions, and the Sabeans have taken them away.” He realized that adversity had come upon him by the will of God. Therefore he added: “As it hath pleased the Lord, so is it done. Blessed be the name of the Lord (Ibid.).”

Uniformity With God’s Will

Now, if this is so, then logically God must have a share in the punishment for the souls in Hell. And, actually, He does, and we can deduce what it is logically.

God is Love, and He loves us, unimaginably much. “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life (John 3:16).” Theologians assert that, individually, God loves us so much that if it is only just one of us who needs redemption, He would still go through Incarnation, Life, Death and Resurrection just for that one person. And, actually, His love for each one of us is already like that.

Now imagine if that person, after all that Jesus had gone through, rejects Him. This person, whose each and every subatomic particle, atom, molecule, biochemical reaction, cell, tissue, organ of his body, whose each and every thought, decision, aspiration, emotion of his soul, is well known by Him. Who watched and took care of him with unimaginable attention, tenderness, closeness, and mercy each and every millisecond of his life. A God who longs for the love of this person so much more than any person that had not a drink of water for a few days would long for a glass of water. A God who SUFFERED and DIED for this person. Imagine what THIS God would FEEL when this person goes to Hell in spite of everything He has done. Imagine what THIS God would FEEL everytime He sees and hears this person’s shrieks of pain and hate towards Him for all ETERNITY. Imagine what THIS God would FEEL when He KNEW this person would betray Him in the end, and yet chose to create him, and love him.

Now imagine this for each and every person that is, and will be, in Hell.

God bless.

 

[4Horsemen]

nuntym:

excellent post!

 

[vz71]

nuntym:

excellent post!

I second that.

 

[vz71]

Oh, brother. How many times did God interfere when people were tortured and killed? And those people begged God to help.

I imagine God came to the aid of all that called upon him.

 

[4Horsemen]

Oh, brother. How many times did God interfere when people were tortured and killed? And those people begged God to help.

Again, God brings good out of evil. He won’t interfere with our free will – even Hitler’s.

Gotta love the “everything, except”.

God does not commit evil/sin. Like I said above, He allows evil because of our free will. Other posters have mentioned this as well. If God took away your free will, would you be grateful? (You couldn’t choose to be). But now you wouldn’t be able to choose to kill someone, or hurt someone or even love someone. These choices are all due to free will which is based on reason. If we didn’t have free will, we wouldn’t have reason either.

Say you’re a teen and your Dad refuses to allow you the use of his car for an evening of fun you had planned. You choose to steal the key and use the car for partying and drinking. Say you are driving home drunk and hit and kill a pedestrian. Should you blame God for the sin? Maybe you can blame Him for the course of events, but naturally they were going to happen because of the laws of nature (physics), like the timing of events that led to the accident. Wouldn’t you take responsibility? Maybe something in you would click, and you made a decision to lead a moral life and never steal, be drunk and disobedient. Maybe you’d be converted. So that would be a possible good that came out of your bad/sinful decisions.

 

[mellestad]

Uh - yeah, that.

Probably. I’m influenced a lot by a certain strand of contemporary philosophical writing, which I assume comes out of the Thomistic tradition, and at the moment I’m kind of going by feel and memory more than by any book I have open on the desk, here.

The end effect would probably be similar to how you can think of your imaginary friend, and then your imaginary friend does something unexpected. In our case, our imaginary friend is influenced by things that we experience outside of ourselves, which in turn influence our imagination - but in God’s case, He has endowed each of us with a free will, with which we make decisions that He didn’t think of.

No, no - the fact of our existence is caused by God’s act of will - but we are created with the ability to act independently, using our free will. But without our being created, we can’t use our free will to do things God doesn’t expect, for Him to observe us doing from His eternal vantage point - if He chose not to create us, based on a speculation that we might make mistakes, He would never know for certain what we would or would not have done with our freedom.

Hmm. OK. That still seems like a limit on God’s power, but I’ll take your word for it since, as I’ve stated, I’m not very familiar with Catholic doctrine.

 

[ignatius777]

Exactly.

So when a parent punishes a child for writing on the wall when the parent told the child not to you believe the parent is repsonsible for the writing on the wall??? WOW!!! That logic is EXTREMELY flawed

 

[Warrenton]

So, really? Catholic doctrine is that everything we do is an act of will on God’s part? Doesn’t that cause a ton of problems?

This is where the aspect of mystery enters into Catholic thought.

At the risk of being repetitive, mystery is that part of reality that can be perceived, or sometimes inferred, but is outside the ability to rationalize.

The closest thing I can think of as an analogy is the idea of infinity on a cartesian coordinate. We can imagine infinity, but we cannot describe it precisely, by which I mean, it would be nonsensical to ask "what is the number immediately preceding infinity?

Starting as Catholics do from the fact of revelation, we try to integrate the information that we see and have received within a logical framework. The received doctrines are the “facts” of the experiment. We know we have free will, because God has told us that we do. Interestingly, one of the readings in the new mass this past Sunday was on that same topic (Sirach).

As you and Spock and have observed, this creates certain limitations. We cannot, in a manner of speaking, repeat the experiment. The burning bush remains what is was, and God’s definition of Himself remains what it was. “Ego sum qui sum.”

You and Spock have more room to manoever: for instance, you can propose a reconciliation along the lines that free will is a kind of illusion, and results, much like our seeing things in the visible light spectrum, from physical happenstance. As to God, it is possible that Moses and the prophets were misled by some other physical being, who is not in fact eternal or omnipotent, but merely sufficiently advanced to create the impression that it was in certain people.

What you cannot do is acknowledge a zone of mystery that is inherently beyond the human ability to rationalize, because so far as we can observe, there is nothing beyond human ability to rationalize that is itself a human construct, like mathematics (there is no “realm” of math, or “actual” number 6).

That is the point where Catholic philosophy has an advantage, in that it can acknowledge an aspect of the universe that other science cannot: that certain things are unknowable. Non-Catholic philosophy, on this one score, cannot delve into that without implicating a host of other objections regarding the nature of observation and what not.

I guess it comes down to our inability to decouple the “facts” of the case from its theory, like you and Spock can.

It has always struck me as an interesting split.