The problem of evil

[EricFilmer]

God, allegedly, is unable to chose evil, and yet he is supposed to have “freedom”. The dilemma is unsolvable: either God has no freedom, or it is possible to have freedom without the ability to chose evil. This is one of the reasons why the problem of evil cannot be solved by referring to free will.

The freedom experienced of God is not the same thing as the gift of freedom granted to humans. With God we are speaking of the perfection of virtues (love, justice, mercy, etc.). Hence, virtues have real existence, because they are ultimately a Divine Person, and this Person truly exists.

Evil, however, has no true existence. It only exists as the absence of goodness / virtue. In light of all this, God is incapable of choosing evil because this would equate the perfection of virtue having, at the same time, the absence of virtue. If the presence of a virtue were somehow incomplete, then it could not truly have been perfect to begin with.

Divine omnipotence means that God is able to do anything that is possible for God. From a philosophical point, this means that there are certain things that God cannot do. He cannot contradict reality (because God is the perfection of truth) and he cannot chose to do evil (because God is the perfection of goodness). Nevertheless, God still has freedom. After all, God did not need to create the universe, nor was he somehow forced to. He willingly chose to do so, and his motive was the desire to share goodness & love beyond what is necessary. The creation of the universe is an example of God exercising his freewill.

Another thing God cannot do is create another God. One of the conditions of divinity is to be eternal, and anything that is created is, by definition, not eternal. Therefore, God could not create us to be the perfection of virtue that he is. We are capable of both love and hate (the absence of love), charity and selfishness (the absence of charity), and so on. We are also capable of the perversion of virtue (such as turning love into lust).

Therefore, when the question of freewill comes up in a discussion about the problem of evil, we need to realize that the definition of freewill means the ability of a person to do whatever is possible for that person. There is a difference between what is possible for God and what is possible for a human. Both experience freewill, but in different ways.

 

[Keeler]

Evil, however, has no true existence. It only exists as the absence of goodness / virtue.

That is not an acceptable definition. Evil is a conscious, willful, malevolent action. According to your definition, an excess of rain which would kill a cactus is “evil”, or a predatory animal killing its prey would be “evil”.

Therefore, when the question of freewill comes up in a discussion about the problem of evil, we need to realize that the definition of freewill means the ability of a person to do whatever is possible for that person. There is a difference between what is possible for God and what is possible for a human. Both experience freewill, but in different ways.

But this does not explain anything. I will give you two solutions.

1. Humans could have been created without having the ability to perform “evil acts”. They would have free will within their boundaries (whatever is possible for them) as you stipulated. And thus they would be humans with free will and no evil actions.
2. Also they could have been created with the freedom to perform evil acts, if they wanted to, but they would not want to do so. Just look at those people who are “saints” (or simply very good people), who may not be “perfect”, but who would never want (or wish or will) to perform “evil” acts - even though they could imagine them and would be physically able to perform them. Catholics explicitly assert that Mary was fully human with free will and never performed an “evil” act. Therefore there is no logical contradiction between being human, having free will and not performing evil actions.

To be precise here: from the existence of free will the potential of evil follows logically, but the actuality of evil does not follow. As I said, free will does not explain the existence of evil, and never will.

 

[sadiebelle]

I think it comes down to the question as to why we were created in the first place. The Holy Trinity embodies perfect existence, and therefore the universe and the human race were not created out of necessity. God does not need a race of people forced to do his will and incapable of sinning. So, from the perspective of a Divine Being, the easiest way to prevent sin is simply not to create anything in the first place. The problem of evil is solved.

But whereas God did not need to create anything, he willingly chose to do so, because he is both goodness and love, and goodness and love have the natural desire to be shared beyond what is necessary. So God created us to love him and be loved by him. A person cannot truly be created for the sake of goodness and love and at the same time be forced to do the will of the Creator. After all, being forced in such a manner would be a type of slavery.

Although God permits evil (for the sake of honoring our freedom), he also promises to do something about it. Ultimately it is a mystery to us as to how he does it, which is why we place our faith and trust in him. Being God, he is capable of righting wrongs beyond our comprehension. Moreover, even if we have to suffer at times during our lives on earth, everyone is invited to experience the eternal peace and joy in heaven. A saint once contemplated (and I forgot which one) that once someone enters into the wonders of heaven, the past sufferings on earth will seem like having spent a single night in an uncomfortable hotel room. This, of course, is not to make light of the horrific suffering that some people go through, but it serves to show that in light of great suffering, God can provide far greater compensation.

First of all, I just want to say thank you for being patient with me and having this discussion in such a nice way. I know that my questions can be frustrating (they are to me, too) and I am just so thankful that you’re taking the time to answer some of them.

Now, to address what you just posted. I have such a very hard time accepting that we should just accept that God would do something that is so much the opposite of what the kind and loving thing to do would be. You agree that He didn’t have to create us. So, I keep thinking, “then, why did he?” I know that if I knew beyond the shadow of a doubt that having my children would mean that they would be tortured, I would have decided not to get married. My marriage and my children are the joys of my life. They bring me so much happiness, but my happiness is not worth their pain. I love them too much to bring them into existence just so that they will be hurt. That makes sense to me. It seems logical to me. And I am just really struggling to get past why God would make a decision that seems so very, very wrong.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Oh, I don’t know that I have any actual criteria. I just haven’t found them logical, I guess.

That makes a conversation meaningless doesn’t it? You are saying that you will be intellectually satisfied, when you are emotionally satisfied. If you don’t have rational standards, then no amount of reason will change your emotional state.

 

[sadiebelle]

That makes a conversation meaningless doesn’t it? You are saying that you will be intellectually satisfied, when you are emotionally satisfied. If you don’t have rational standards, then no amount of reason will change your emotional state.

I don’t think it’s meaningless. I’ve gotten some really great answers that have helped me move forward in my thinking. Seems worthwhile, to me.

I don’t think that my questions or concerns have anything at all to do with being emotionally satisfied. I’m not sure where you got that feeling from me. It certainly wasn’t my aim. I was being honest when I said that I don’t know that I have specific criteria, but that logic was where I was having trouble, not emotion.

 

[danserr]

Thank you for your answer to this question.

I have to disagree with you when you say that He did die for our suffering. His dying didn’t take it away. That is what I was saying. I would die, so that someone else wouldn’t be tortured. Dying so that they would be tortured, but then rewarding them later still seems very cruel to me. Not something that a merciful and loving being would do. A merciful and loving being would not allow it to happen in the first place if they could stop it.

I think that I stated my question clearer later in that post when I asked why wouldn’t God just decide not to create us if He couldn’t do it without allowing things like child rape? It doesn’t seem right that I get to go through my life relatively happy and then (hopefully) get to enjoy heaven when someone else goes through life being tortured. I would rather not exist, not get a chance at heaven, than to allow even one child to endure that kind of life. I don’t see how anyone could argue anything different.

This is where I keep getting stuck. Why did He create a world like this when He knew what would happen? He knew, when he created us that atrocities would occur. That lives would be ruined. And he didn’t stop it. He didn’t say, “It’s not worth it to create these beings to love me, if it means horrible things will happen to so many of them. I’ll just exist without them, because I don’t want even one of my children to be tortured at the hands for their fellow men.” Or even, “I don’t need them to love me if it means that I have to allow them the option to rape their own children.” Isn’t it enough that he loves us?

I don’t know. I see this from a mother’s eyes, I guess.

Your question is essentially, “wouldn’t it ave been better not to create us?” I just have such a hard time thinking that it is better for nothing at all to exist. If life ended at the grave, then I would agree with you. But, like I’ve said, life does not end at the grave. It’s not a matter of you suffer, then you get to heaven. It is a matter of heaven, when obtained, is retrospective (an idea from C.S. Lewis’s The Great Divorce. It works backward. Think about Jesus’s own wounds. It was still true that he suffered and died terribly, but when he rose, he rose with his wounds too, but they didn’t cause him to suffer anymore. They became signs of his triumph over suffering and death. He reached heaven and heaven worked backwards to make his torment become part of his glory. The same thing will happen with us, we don’t know exactly how, but we do know it is possible, because it happened with him first.

God suffering and dying is not to make suffering disappear, it is a matter of what He does about it. He shared in all the suffering we did and opened heaven for us, which is a pretty big deal. You ask wouldn’t it be better to never exist than to suffer? But I have a hard time thinking that it would be better never to exist, than to have heaven.

Many people have the misunderstanding that it is God’s job to create a nice terrarium on earth for his human pets. But God doesn’t want pets, he wants sons and daughters, united to him forever in a way that will make the worst temporal suffering look like nothing at all by comparison. And for this people must be free. Animals or pets are not free, without free will people are just robots or animals and those cannot enjoy heaven the same way people can.

You would rather not have free will? But then you are asking God to love you less, not more. You always love a child more than a pet or a robot. God loves his free children more than a pet or robot. For God to create us without free will would make Him less loving, not more loving. He did not create us for his sake, he created us for ours. So we could be united to Him forever in heaven, and for that, we must be free.

You asked “why can’t God make people free, just not able to do bad things?” This is impossible. It is not freedom. Think about it. In the problem of pain (you should do some reading on this), C.S. Lewis asks us to imagine what this would mean. God could make a world where if I tried to stab someone, the knife instantly turns into butter. But in such a world free will would be impossible. The air would refuse to carry abusive words I say. The molecules in my brain would refuse to form bad thoughts. There could be no free will. If if no free will, then we are only robots or pets, not sons and daughters. And pets and robots could not enjoy heaven the way God’s children could. So when you consider what heaven is, then you understand that asking God to not give you freedom, or to not create you at all, is asking him to love you less. He is God, he can’t love you less than he does.

(Note- God’s freedom is different from human freedom. His freedom consists of the fact that he is compelled by no being outside himself. This can’t happen for people though, because for God to make us free but not able to do evil, would mean that he compels us to do good, ie. we are not free. He is free and good and can’t do evil, but this just isn’t possible for us).

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…free will does not explain the existence of evil, and never will.

Let me translate that into the vernacular. If you don’t start no stuff, there won’t be no stuff! Logically trivial deductions. Of course if we can’t actually commit evil, there wouldn’t be any evil done. If you drank all the milk, this morning, there won’t be any tomorrow. Those pants only make your wife look fat* once*. Then again, if for any reason we are restrained from committing evil, then we don’t really have free will do we? If G-d restricted our ability to steal candy from babies and tie damsels in distress to railroad tracks, then we are not free to express our will, we are only able to express G-ds will. No matter what that range of options, it has been decided by G-d not by us. So the actual ability to express our wills freely, perfectly explains the existence of evil. We make it.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I don’t think it’s meaningless. I’ve gotten some really great answers that have helped me move forward in my thinking. Seems worthwhile, to me.

I don’t think that my questions or concerns have anything at all to do with being emotionally satisfied. I’m not sure where you got that feeling from me. It certainly wasn’t my aim. I was being honest when I said that I don’t know that I have specific criteria, but that logic was where I was having trouble, not emotion.

You are asking G-d to meet your standards. aren’t you? In order for you to hold on to your Catholicism? Has it occurred to you that a G-d who has to meet your standards wouldn’t really be G-d? Would you want to worship a G-d you felt was morally inferior to you? Of course not. But when you make yourself the judge of G-d aren’t you really saying that you should be G-d? Putting yourself above G-d?

 

[EricFilmer]

That is not an acceptable definition. Evil is a conscious, willful, malevolent action. According to your definition, an excess of rain which would kill a cactus is “evil”, or a predatory animal killing its prey would be “evil”.

Are you suggesting that a rain cloud has a conscious, willful intention to kill a cactus? Is the raincloud guilty of murder? And are you suggesting that a predatory animal who kills and eats its prey is guilty of murder? The examples you site come under the whole “law of nature” idea, and therefore outside of moral law. Death is not always the result of murder. The law of nature is not dealing with people who have the knowledge of good and evil and the ability to choose evil.

But this does not explain anything. I will give you two solutions.

1. Humans could have been created without having the ability to perform “evil acts”. They would have free will within their boundaries (whatever is possible for them) as you stipulated. And thus they would be humans with free will and no evil actions.

This is not a solution because there is no true freedom. It is still a type of enslavement. If a parent told his children they were free to go anywhere in the world they wanted, but kept them locked within the house, they are not truly free but enslaved. The promise of freedom is a lie.

Our relationship with God, as I have stated, is a relationship of love. When we choose to do good, we likewise choose to love God. When we choose to do evil, we likewise choose not to love God. God cannot prohibit our ability to choose evil without removing our freedom to love him or reject him. If God created us without the ability to perform evil acts then that would be the same thing as in my example from Post #11 of a man giving a woman a love potion. True love cannot result in such a situation because the lover robbed the beloved the freedom to accept or reject him. True love must be offered as a gift, it cannot be forced.

1. Also they could have been created with the freedom to perform evil acts, if they wanted to, but they would not want to do so. Just look at those people who are “saints” (or simply very good people), who may not be “perfect”, but who would never want (or wish or will) to perform “evil” acts - even though they could imagine them and would be physically able to perform them. Catholics explicitly assert that Mary was fully human with free will and never performed an “evil” act. Therefore there is no logical contradiction between being human, having free will and not performing evil actions.

Everyone is subjected to the temptation to sin, and temptation is rooted in desire (otherwise the temptation would not be tempting, which is a contradiction in terms). Regardless of the saints’ righteous dispositions, they still became saints based on the choices they made, choosing good over evil. They still experienced temptation (even Jesus experienced temptation). Therefore, they did not become saints because God lessened or removed their desire to commit sin. Furthermore, I direct you to what I stated in Post #4, which I will reprint here in purple text:

God intends that this universe be a moral universe. It is a place where he guides, nourishes and empowers people to be champions of virtue. It is through grappling with the temptation to sin, and choosing not to, that a person grows in virtue. No one can be a great saint unless there is the possibility of being a great sinner instead. And whereas there are those who use their freewill to make righteous choices and become champions of virtue, there are those who use their freewill to make evil choices.

In your example, there is no capacity for someone to be a true champion of virtue.

To be precise here: from the existence of free will the potential of evil follows logically, but the actuality of evil does not follow. As I said, free will does not explain the existence of evil, and never will.

I will agree that ultimately the problem of evil is a mystery, and only God fully understands what is going on here. But I reject the notion that the answer from our end of things does not stem from freewill. As I have stated before, when we examine the existence of evil, the first thing to note is that evil has no true existence. Neither does darkness (it only exists as the absence of light) or cold (it only exists as the absence of heat). In light of this, it is impossible to define evil without a reference to goodness, it is impossible to define darkness without a reference to light, and it is impossible to define cold without a reference to heat. The reverse, however, is not true. In other words, one *can * define goodness without referring to evil, light without referring to darkness, and heat without referring to cold.

Because of this, evil comes from the deprivation or the perversion of that which is good. Because evil has no substantial existence of its own, it results from actions of something that does. And because evil is a consideration of morality rather than “the law of nature”, the existing “something” which causes evil must be an entity possessing the capacity to know right from wrong. Moreover, the capacity to know right from wrong is coupled with the ability to choose and act upon this knowledge (i.e., to do right or wrong). If no one is able to perform an evil act (regardless of the reason why), then evil cannot exist. Therefore, the presence of evil has to stem from people acting upon their freewill at some point to enact evil.

 

[EricFilmer]

First of all, I just want to say thank you for being patient with me and having this discussion in such a nice way. I know that my questions can be frustrating (they are to me, too) and I am just so thankful that you’re taking the time to answer some of them.

Now, to address what you just posted. I have such a very hard time accepting that we should just accept that God would do something that is so much the opposite of what the kind and loving thing to do would be. You agree that He didn’t have to create us. So, I keep thinking, “then, why did he?” I know that if I knew beyond the shadow of a doubt that having my children would mean that they would be tortured, I would have decided not to get married. My marriage and my children are the joys of my life. They bring me so much happiness, but my happiness is not worth their pain. I love them too much to bring them into existence just so that they will be hurt. That makes sense to me. It seems logical to me. And I am just really struggling to get past why God would make a decision that seems so very, very wrong.

I am happy to contribute to this discussion in whatever way I can, and I think that you raise very important and profound points. I do not pretend to understand the ways of God, but maybe the answer to the question at hand is that God is the ultimate optimist. Despite all the bad stuff and the potential for evil, despite the atrocities that happen in this world, he envisions a far greater destiny for us, Concerning our destiny, St. Paul tells us, “But as it is written, ‘What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him’.” (1 Cor 2:9)

And when I am disturbed by the bad things that happen around me, this is often the Bible verse that I turn to:

“On this mountain the Lord of hosts will provide for all peoples.
A feast of rich food and choice wines,
juicy, rich food and pure, choice wines.
On this mountain he will destroy the veil that veils all peoples.
The web that is woven over all the nations;
he will destroy death forever.
The Lord God will wipe away the tears from all faces;
the reproach of his people he will remove from the whole earth;
for the Lord God has spoken.” (Isiah 25:6-9)

 

[Philthy]

So my basic question is why is their evil. I would ask a bit more, though. I have gotten the free will answer, but I guess it doesn’t satisfy me. Neither does the “we don’t know what good consequences come from bad actions” line of reasoning.

I’m not sure exactly where I’m going with this, but the classic “if God is all good, all knowing and all powerful, then why is there evil?” is a good place to start.

To be gentle, as you request, I would ask the following to help guide “where (you) are going with this”:

Why would there NOT be evil? You say that if God is all good and powerful, then why is there evil? The first part of the answer to why is found in the fact that although God is all good (ie non-evil), we are not. Not all is God(ie us and creation) and so all non-God is not prevented from being evil. I hardly sense that answer will suffice, but it does present why evil is possible - because non-God exists.
So why does God, who is all powerful and all knowing, allow evil to exist? It is a mystery for sure, but part of the answer involves recognizing that greater good comes from the possibility of evil than apart from it.
Lastly, I will ask you to consider why do you think it’s bad for evil to exist whereas the rest of creation seems nonplussed by it? Are you certain evil exists and that it’s consequences are bad? How do you know this?

Blessings!

 

[EricFilmer]

That is not an acceptable definition. Evil is a conscious, willful, malevolent action. According to your definition, an excess of rain which would kill a cactus is “evil”, or a predatory animal killing its prey would be “evil”.
EricFilmer;7724605:

Are you suggesting that a rain cloud has a conscious, willful intention to kill a cactus? Is the raincloud guilty of murder? And are you suggesting that a predatory animal who kills and eats its prey is guilty of murder? The examples you site come under the whole “law of nature” idea, and therefore outside of moral law. Death is not always the result of murder. The law of nature is not dealing with people who have the knowledge of good and evil and the ability to choose evil.

Let me take a moment to rephrase this. I was throwing these up as rhetorical questions, but not stated correctly. Obviously you were not actually suggesting these things. You are correct in saying that evil is a conscious, willful decision (and therefore stemming from a person with the capacity of knowing right from wrong). Nevertheless, the point I was trying to make earlier is that bringing examples of what happens in nature among rain, plants and animals has no bearing in this discussion. When we use the term “evil” we are speaking about morality and it therefore beyond the scope of the law of nature. A lion eating a zebra is bad news for the zebra, but it is not a deprivation or perversion of what is, objectively, good. There is no morality involved here, it is simply a lion eating a zebra. We can look at this event as beneficial for the lion and not beneficial to the zebra, but it is not a matter of good & evil.

As to my stance on evil having no true existence of its own (apart from the absence or perversion of that which is good), I have addressed this at the bottom of Post #28.

 

[Philthy]

I think that I stated my question clearer later in that post when I asked why wouldn’t God just decide not to create us if He couldn’t do it without allowing things like child rape? It doesn’t seem right that I get to go through my life relatively happy and then (hopefully) get to enjoy heaven when someone else goes through life being tortured. I would rather not exist, not get a chance at heaven, than to allow even one child to endure that kind of life. I don’t see how anyone could argue anything different.

I can argue differently. How can you possibly compare the relative values of temporary evil and eternal joy in Heaven??? You can’t! So your assessment that “I would rather not exist” is a claim spoken entirely from ignorance. Furthermore, you have yet to speak to a former abused 3 year old who is now experiencing Heaven to ask THEM whether they would have preferred to have “never existed”. That is another ENORMOUS gap in your assessment. It sounds like you don’t believe Heaven can be good enough to justify the temporary evils of this world, but what, exactly, is the basis of this belief???

I don’t know. I see this from a mother’s eyes, I guess.

You mean you decided to have children despite knowing that evil exists and that creating them exposes them to it ??? Hmmm, that seems a bit duplicitous to argue that God should not have created children in order to protect them from evil when, given the choice, you have done the same thing!
Just out of curiosity, what would you think re: God if you could not intellectually resolve the issue of evil? Would you simply conclude “God doesnt exist”? How would that solve anything - evil would still exist and we would have no explanation for it from the natural world. My point? We cannot understand fully the situation that we find ourselves in - we don’t have all of the info. Why would God - as we understand God to be - allow the world to be the way it is? No one knows, really. So we are left dealing with what we do know, and that starts with the Resurrection. Christ has died, Christ is risen…Christ will come again. Start there and perhaps God will give you an answer to your quest re: evil in your personal prayer time.

Blessings!

 

[sadiebelle]

Your question is essentially, “wouldn’t it have been better not to create us?” I just have such a hard time thinking that it is better for nothing at all to exist. If life ended at the grave, then I would agree with you. But, like I’ve said, life does not end at the grave. It’s not a matter of you suffer, then you get to heaven. It is a matter of heaven, when obtained, is retrospective (an idea from C.S. Lewis’s The Great Divorce. It works backward. Think about Jesus’s own wounds. It was still true that he suffered and died terribly, but when he rose, he rose with his wounds too, but they didn’t cause him to suffer anymore. They became signs of his triumph over suffering and death. He reached heaven and heaven worked backwards to make his torment become part of his glory. The same thing will happen with us, we don’t know exactly how, but we do know it is possible, because it happened with him first.

But heaven is not guaranteed. So that means than many, many people were brought into existence, only to live torturous lives, perhaps commit mortal sins themselves, perhaps turn away from God, and then spend eternity in hell. And God knew this when he created them. He knew what would happen to them and knew what their choices would be. Why would he do such a horrible thing?

If one makes it to heaven, then sure, I can follow the logic that finite pain pales in comparison to infinite joy. But, that only makes the existence of those of us who will end up in heaven make sense to me. Unfortunately, we don’t know who gets into heaven, but I think that it’s safe to assume that not everyone does. And in those cases it means that God created those people knowing that they would be damned to torture here and the absence of Him for the rest of eternity. Even if this only happened to one person in all of human history, it seems like it wasn’t worth it. It seems like a mistake in the kindest terms, cruel in less kind terms, and how do I make that jive with everything that I’ve always believed and been taught about God? That he is perfect and didn’t make mistakes?

God suffering and dying is not to make suffering disappear, it is a matter of what He does about it. He shared in all the suffering we did and opened heaven for us, which is a pretty big deal. You ask wouldn’t it be better to never exist than to suffer? But I have a hard time thinking that it would be better never to exist, than to have heaven.

Again, for those of us that make it to heaven. That’s not the case for all of us.

Many people have the misunderstanding that it is God’s job to create a nice terrarium on earth for his human pets. But God doesn’t want pets, he wants sons and daughters, united to him forever in a way that will make the worst temporal suffering look like nothing at all by comparison. And for this people must be free. Animals or pets are not free, without free will people are just robots or animals and those cannot enjoy heaven the same way people can.

I understand that God wants sons and daughters. I understand that he wants us united to him forever. But if he is incapable of having sons and daughters without knowing for sure that some of us will live hellish lives and then some will spend eternity in hell, then perhaps He should have just existed without us. I assume he doesn’t need us, just wanted us, right? Well, sometimes we cannot have the things we want. That kind of reasoning makes God sound so selfish.

You would rather not have free will? But then you are asking God to love you less, not more.

And that’s fine with me. It seem like the unselfish thing to do. I would be willing to be loved less if it means that others won’t be tortured. Yes. I am sure that that is the right thing to do.

You always love a child more than a pet or a robot. God loves his free children more than a pet or robot. For God to create us without free will would make Him less loving, not more loving. He did not create us for his sake, he created us for ours. So we could be united to Him forever in heaven, and for that, we must be free.

You asked “why can’t God make people free, just not able to do bad things?” This is impossible. It is not freedom. Think about it. In the problem of pain (you should do some reading on this), C.S. Lewis asks us to imagine what this would mean. God could make a world where if I tried to stab someone, the knife instantly turns into butter. But in such a world free will would be impossible. The air would refuse to carry abusive words I say. The molecules in my brain would refuse to form bad thoughts. There could be no free will. If if no free will, then we are only robots or pets, not sons and daughters. And pets and robots could not enjoy heaven the way God’s children could. So when you consider what heaven is, then you understand that asking God to not give you freedom, or to not create you at all, is asking him to love you less. He is God, he can’t love you less than he does.

Is there a reason for that? Why not? If loving us less means that no one is tortured and loving us more means that some people are, then loving us less seems like the obviously right thing to do.

 

[sadiebelle]

You are asking G-d to meet your standards. aren’t you? In order for you to hold on to your Catholicism? Has it occurred to you that a G-d who has to meet your standards wouldn’t really be G-d? Would you want to worship a G-d you felt was morally inferior to you? Of course not. But when you make yourself the judge of G-d aren’t you really saying that you should be G-d? Putting yourself above G-d?

I realy, honestly, do not think that I am asking God to meet my standards. I’m just trying to make sense of things. I’m trying to deepen my faith. I’m trying to be able to answer these questions for myself so that when I am asked these questions by others I will have answers that I can be proud to stand behind.

And, to be very, very, kind of frighteningly honest (it’s scary to me, anyway) I would not want to worship God if I felt that he was morally corrupt or wrong or illogical. I do not want that to happen. I want to answer my questions so that I can be honest with myself and with God.

(Of topic, but is there a reason that you type G-d instead of God? Just curious.)

 

[sadiebelle]

To be gentle, as you request, I would ask the following to help guide “where (you) are going with this”:

Why would there NOT be evil? You say that if God is all good and powerful, then why is there evil? The first part of the answer to why is found in the fact that although God is all good (ie non-evil), we are not. Not all is God(ie us and creation) and so all non-God is not prevented from being evil. I hardly sense that answer will suffice, but it does present why evil is possible - because non-God exists.
So why does God, who is all powerful and all knowing, allow evil to exist? It is a mystery for sure, but part of the answer involves recognizing that greater good comes from the possibility of evil than apart from it.
Lastly, I will ask you to consider why do you think it’s bad for evil to exist whereas the rest of creation seems nonplussed by it? Are you certain evil exists and that it’s consequences are bad? How do you know this?

Blessings!

Thank you for such interesting questions. You were both gentle and you challenged me–the best of both worlds.

I am really going to have to think about your questions and get back to you.

 

[sadiebelle]

I can argue differently. How can you possibly compare the relative values of temporary evil and eternal joy in Heaven??? You can’t! So your assessment that “I would rather not exist” is a claim spoken entirely from ignorance. Furthermore, you have yet to speak to a former abused 3 year old who is now experiencing Heaven to ask THEM whether they would have preferred to have “never existed”. That is another ENORMOUS gap in your assessment. It sounds like you don’t believe Heaven can be good enough to justify the temporary evils of this world, but what, exactly, is the basis of this belief???

No, I’m not saying that heaven can’t be good enough to justify temporary evils. I addressed this in another post. I do think that it is good enough to justify temporary evils. I just know that some abused 3 year olds grow up just to die in mortal sin and spend eternity in hell. Some must have in all of human history. And that is what I think is so unfair, so cruel. Why create us knowing that some child will be raped by her father, grow up, die in mortal sin and spend all of eternity in hell? Why would he do that? If he could have avoided just that one being being tortured both here and for eternity by not creating us at all, I would give up my existence. In a moment.

You mean you decided to have children despite knowing that evil exists and that creating them exposes them to it ??? Hmmm, that seems a bit duplicitous to argue that God should not have created children in order to protect them from evil when, given the choice, you have done the same thing!

Yes, I decided to have children knowing that they would have a chance to live good lives. I am fairly comfortable that my children will not be raped or tortured, as most people are not. I do all that I can to make sure that they are safe and would do anything I could to keep them that way. Any parent would.

However, I have limited knowledge. No knowledge of the future, just probabilities and guesses. Those probabilites point to my children having happy enough lives. If I had all knowledge, as God does, and knew that one of my children would be raped, tortured, and then spend eternity in hell, well, I just wouldn’t have gotten married. I wouldn’t have had children. Does that mean that my other children wouldn’t have existed either? Yes. But I would wager to guess that they would be happy to give up their existence if it meant that their sibling would not spend eternity in hell. That’s all I’m saying. I would be happy to give up my existence if it meant that just one of my brothers and sisters in Christ wouldn’t end up in hell forever. I don’t understand why God, in all his knowledge and wisdom and kindness and mercy and love wouldn’t do the same thing. Why wouldn’t he give up having children to save those of us who will be damned?

I guess that it just comes down to the fact that I think that non-existence would be better than anyone being damned.

Just out of curiosity, what would you think re: God if you could not intellectually resolve the issue of evil? Would you simply conclude “God doesnt exist”? How would that solve anything - evil would still exist and we would have no explanation for it from the natural world. My point? We cannot understand fully the situation that we find ourselves in - we don’t have all of the info. Why would God - as we understand God to be - allow the world to be the way it is? No one knows, really. So we are left dealing with what we do know, and that starts with the Resurrection. Christ has died, Christ is risen…Christ will come again. Start there and perhaps God will give you an answer to your quest re: evil in your personal prayer time.

Blessings!

Oh, dear. I’m not ready to think about these things yet. I don’t think that I could ever give up God. I really don’t. But the problem of evil is such a big one for me.

I pray, pray, pray and pray some more. I talk to my priest. I go to confession weekly. I go to daily mass. I read my bible and my catechism (although I have to admit to not fully understanding everything. I’m trying.) I read the forums here and elsewhere. I am doing all that I can to hold on. Not just hold on, really, but to strengthen my faith and my relationship with God.

I began this journey so that I could be a better apologist. I want to have the answers for others and to do that I have to have them for myself. I want to be an example to others. I’m trying to get there. And all of you engaging in this discussion are helping me on my way.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I realy, honestly, do not think that I am asking God to meet my standards. …I would not want to worship God if I felt that he was morally corrupt or wrong or illogical. …

You certainly are expecting G-d to meet your standards, I highlighted them. Its not much of a being if it has to do as you wished. Even I don’t have to do as you wish and I am just another person. See the problem? You cannot set a moral standard for G-d, not even your own understanding can be a standard to apply to G-d.

 

[sadiebelle]

You certainly are expecting G-d to meet your standards, I highlighted them. Its not much of a being if it has to do as you wished. Even I don’t have to do as you wish and I am just another person. See the problem? You cannot set a moral standard for G-d, not even your own understanding can be a standard to apply to G-d.

Hm. Ok, so you are saying that we, as humans, cannot judge anything that God does? I’m certainly not saying that he has to do what I want. ( 'Cause, you know, my husband could use a raise and I could use a maid. ) But I’m just wondering if you’re saying that we cannot say that anything that God did was either good or bad? That we just have to accept it and not think about what it means because he is God?

If that’s the case, I’m really going to have to think about what that means for my search. If I’m right in my restating of your claim, can you tell me why that is neccessary? I know it may sound obvious to you, but can you spell it out to me? If I’m wrong in my interpretation, would you mind clarifying for me? Thanks.

 

[danserr]

You seem almost willing to agree with me that heaven and free will could make suffering worth it, except you ask “what about people who end up in hell, better no one should be happy then that they should be miserable?” I mentioned, and maybe should mention again C.S. Lewis’s Great divorce, where he deals with exactly this question. I think you should do a little light reading. Don’t worry about cramming alot of stuff in that you don’t have time for, but to get a decent book and read a chapter or two in the evening and think about it.

Anyway, Lewis’s answer is "it has a grand sound to say that you’ll accept no salvation that leaves even one soul outside… but watch that sophistry or you will make a dog in a manger the tyrant of the universe.

God gives everyone enough grace to be saved. He wills the salvation of everyone, but (that pesky free will thing) he can’t force anyone. (Peter Kreeft says that God is a gentleman). Hell is simply a matter of some people choosing to separate themselves from God. Some people will freely choose to reject him, and why should the self-chosen misery of those people prevent others from being happy? Why should hell be able to veto heaven?!?

Think about an example. You make a cake for your 6 children. They will all have to share the cake. But as you cut it into equal pieces, one of your kids says “no, I want the biggest piece.” Of course, you refuse, the must share and learn to love you and each other. But that one kid refuses to crush his own ego, and demands the biggest piece. When he can’t get it, he runs off to his room and sulks. What do you do now? Do you take the cake away. Do you say “well Johnny won’t have any, so no one else can.” Is it fair to let that one bratty kid have a veto on the happiness of the other 5. Would it have been better to no make the cake? To not have children? Hell does not get a veto on heaven. Those who choose to reject God do not get to prevent the saved from enjoying him.

sorry for the quick answer, I have to run out.