T
tonyrey
Guest
God is certainly not the Supreme Prefect but the Supreme Being.
It is a mistake to put the Creator in the same category as creatures - which is what your statement impliesâŚ
- Status
It is a mistake to put the Creator in the same category as creatures - which is what your statement impliesâŚ
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
That may be the way you see it, but that is not the way Thomas saw it. S.T. Part 1, ques 3 and following. God is perfect existence, therefore He is perfect in every way, having no potency for change, and therefore not subject to any imperfection.
Linus2nd
B
belorg
Guest
I know you donât accept my definition of good and evil, but the PoE still works under my definition.
B
belorg
Guest
Which makes in even more difficult to reconcile this God with the existence of even the slightest things that said God would call âevil.â
B
belorg
Guest
Actually it is what your statement implies.God is certainly not the Supreme Prefect but the Supreme Being.
It is a mistake to put the Creator in the same category as creatures - which is what your statement impliesâŚ
T
tonyrey
Guest
Not if you are aware all human descriptions of God are allegorical.
M
miodrag1963
Guest
Are you saying that Bible is an allegory?
M
miodrag1963
Guest
Aah, so you donât even recognize there is a problemâŚ
Here is a brief introduction to the problem of theodicy.
Question is: why is there evil and suffering?
- One of the oldest answers, in early Hebrew prophets, says suffering is the result of violating Godâs will, or breaking Torah, then God punishes, so people can repent and get back into Godâs favor. Same motif goes from Adam to Flood. So, God is the source of evil, but His action was provoked. Question remains why righteous people suffer too?
- Second solution: some evil is due to people being wicked, they can do bad things to one another, and this is the prominent understanding among Christians today: people are suffering because of the free will. This does not explain the natural suffering, like earthquakes etc. Also, after some time, or generations, people would figure out that some choices are hurting them. After I put my hand in fire many times, after some time I would figure out that it hurts, and would stop doing that. But people seem to do evil all the time nevertheless. Also, why would one person suffer if another is putting his hand in fire? Is it possible that because of the misuse of free will by some people even the newborn babies must suffer?
- Another explanation sees suffering as a redemption. In Old Testament, Joseph was sold in slavery. God has His plan, so Joseph was elevated and could help his relatives. They were saved due to Josephâs suffering. Job is a variation: while for Joseph redemption comes even though it was not asked, it seems like if Job would rather die then ask for what hit him. His friends hold the position of prophets, that Job sinned, but he denies. Eventually, Job was not answered why he suffered, so he repents in dust and ashes, while God declares His supremacy, not allowing any questions like âwhyâ and âhowâ. Job was given ten new children, like if that justifies murder of the previous ten. Redemption works only as long as it is voluntary. One aspect of voluntary suffering is asceticism. Someone who does not choose suffering and does not want to suffer, should not be deliberately put in a position to suffer, since that would be a torture. âI donât want to redeem, just leave me alone.â But if God insists that we become perfect, love Him or return to Him etc, it would be like if God would say: âif you donât love Me, you must sufferâ.
- It is a mystery. Godâs will is incomprehensible, there is a higher purpose of suffering, that we can not understand. Problem is that this relativize morality. If it truly stands that âwho knows why suffering is goodâ, then we should not try to prevent evil, since it may as well be a part of Godâs mysterious plan. Even worse, if we do evil, we may defend ourselves by saying âGod allowed this, then it must be a part of His plan. This evil will bring up a greater goodâ.
- Apocalyptic answer, fully elaborated in Daniel, opposes prophets by saying that although suffering is due to the sin, there are forces that are opposed to God and they are the source of at least some evil. This is typical for polytheism where many gods and goddesses controlled various aspects of life, and they sometimes may get involved in a conflict. Having human faults, these gods may become angry, jealous and thus cause people to suffer. Free will is secondary here, suffering people are just a collateral damage in a clash of Titans. Like if God has more important things to do then taking care about people ( then why the Old Testament at all ). Like if He forgets the promises He made. Surely Daniel had no polytheism on his mind, his prophecy comes at the time of Greek influence and effort to Hellenize and stop Jewish rituals, ways and prayers. That is how Maccabean Revolt came about. Daniel was the man of his time, dealing with real historical forces aiming to colonize Jews and Judea, so Earthly conflict was transferred to Heaven in an apocalyptic scenario.
All this, naturally, brings up the question of Divine inspiration, which was supposed to be what dogma is. When even the authors of dogma could not recognize it as perfect, then what to say about skeptics?
It is clear now how the content of the Vatican page, as it is, was the only thing that Church could say.
M
miodrag1963
Guest
If this was so, then you could simply submit your explanation to Vatican and tell them to include what you, the revered Fr John A. Hardon, S.J. and The Catholic Catechism point out. But I am afraid that Vatican knows better, and that text as it is was very well thought of. Otherwise, after talking only about moral evil and conveniently omitting the natural causes of suffering, conclusion would not be âOnly at the end, when our partial knowledge ceases, when we see God âface to faceâ, will we fully know the ways by which - even through the dramas of evil and sin - God has guided his creation to that definitive sabbath rest for which he created heaven and earth.â
There were other attempts, outside Vatican. In one of his books Fr. Anthony Alevizopulos, of the Greek Orthodox Church, says:
âThere can not be an answer to the problem of theodicy, which will be based on Christian belief, if the Christian hope ( in resurrection ) was disregarded.â
Alas, even this apologetic recognizes that one has to be Christian in order to accept Christian teaching. Problem is in this approach being dogmatic, not apologetic. Even being an apologetic, Fr. Anthony says that there is no logical explanation, but to make any sense of all this at all, one must adopt a Christian perspective about Resurrection. First, this is not an apologetic, but a cartoon answer: âThatâs fair and square, and if youâd stop all your arguinâ and jawinâ, youâd see my side of it!â (Foghorn Leghorn) In other words: I only have to agree with you and then I will see that you were right. Second, problem here is same as in case #3 - how about the free will? âI do not want a Resurrection if that means I would have to suffer nowâ - this should be a legitimate choice. And so onâŚ
There is no answer to the problem of theodicy, at least not one known to me. It seems like if only the Christians are satisfied with their own answers?
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
I am imagining a trigger being cocked and a gun aimed, but perhaps I am mistaken.
Many parts are allegorical, but that does not exclude those same and other parts from being other genres (biography, chronicles, history, poetry, anti-myth, psalms, proverbs, etc.) as well.
If we donât know the Bible well enough we will not recognize the allegorical truths in it. It is a great task just reading the Bible on a literal level (defined as the specific meaning that the author intended,) to go beyond that to the hidden or symbolic meanings would take many lifetimes. The early Church Fathers are an amazing source for many of the allegories contained in the Bible.
P
polytropos
Guest
But if one does not accept Christian teaching about the Resurrection or evil, then what sort of problem of evil is there? Evil does not exist at all for materialists; it is only conventional. (It does not âexistâ for Catholics either; as a privation of good it is not an ontological entity, but unlike in the materialist conception, is âpartâ of the universe.) So to speak of a problem of evil is to presuppose that Catholics are right about God and evil and only then argue that there is a contradiction, so therefore Catholicism is incoherent. It has nothing to do with âaccepting Christian teachingâ but about making a coherent, non-question-begging argument.
The problem of evil is the atheistâs argument, not the Christianâs. As such, logically speaking, the atheist is taking on the burden to prove that there is a necessary contradiction between the existence of God and evil, ie. it is impossible for God and evil to both exist. Simply saying that they are contradictory is not sufficient.
As Iâve argued earlier in this topic, this is just impossible to do, at least against Catholicism. (And this is not because Catholicism is being unfair. Itâs just because the atheist has simply taken on too great a burden of proof.) Atheists complain that the defense that âGod could have sufficient reason for allowing evilâ is unfalsifiable, but thatâs irrelevant, since Godâs existence (at least in Catholicism) is held to be proven by necessary metaphysical demonstration. Hence, if the arguments for God in the classical theistic tradition are good, then there is no way that the argument from evil could succeed, and it would be nonsensical for the premise âGod could have sufficient reason for allowing evilâ to be falsifiable, since that would be like saying God could possibly not exist. As Portofino noted earlier, anything could happen, and that premise would not be false. That is a testament to how poorly thought out the argument from evil is (again, against Catholicism; brands of Christianity which propose God as a âhypothesisâ which âmost likelyâ exists might be subject to such empirical falsification, and they can defend themselves).
Of course, the atheist need not accept the proofs for Godâs existence and might even say that he rejects them, but that is just begging the question against Catholicism. (Likewise, the atheist might reject the Catholicâs definition of good or evil, but that begs the question also.) The problem of evil, which cannot demonstrate a logically necessary contradiction, would be an irrational justification for rejecting a necessary metaphysical demonstration.
In any case, as Iâve also argued here, the âexistenceâ of evil is unsurprising, considering that anything which is not God (Pure Act) will have imperfections, will at times fail to fulfill its nature, etc. That is just a fact about created things on the Thomistic view.
A
Abu
Guest
Facing the reality of evil through Satan, Adam and Eve.
**CONCLUDING Document OF THE PLENARY ASSEMBLY
Where is Your God?
Responding to the Challenge of Unbelief and Religious Indifference Today
2.3. The Problem of Evil**
The problem of evil and the suffering of innocents has always been used to justify unbelief and the rejection of a good and personal God. This rebellion comes from the non-acceptance of the sense of the freedom of man, who is capable of doing both good and evil. The mystery of evil has been and always will be a scandal for intelligent man, and only the light of Christ crucified and glorified can fully reveal and express it. âIn reality it is only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of man truly becomes clearâ (Gaudium et Spes, n. 22). [My emphasis].
But if the scandal of evil has never ceased to motivate atheism and unbelief in individuals, today they have a new aspect in the diffusion, amplification and presentation of evil through the mass media, which causes evil to echo ever louder, be it manifest in war, accidents, natural catastrophes, conflicts among individuals or countries, economic or social injustices. Unbelief is more or less tied into this pervasive and subversive aspect of evil, and consequently the rejection and denial of God feed on the continual diffusion of this inhumane spectacle, daily beamed around the world.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/cultr/documents/rc_pc_cultr_doc_20040313_where-is-your-god_en.html#i23
To face reality, there is no other institution that has explained, or can explain, Godâs goodness and justice in the face of the existence of evil (theodicy) as has the Catholic Church established by Christ.
Suffering is the natural result of the Original Sin of Adam and Eve. âmiodrag1963â hasnât a clue.
**CONCLUDING Document OF THE PLENARY ASSEMBLY
Where is Your God?
Responding to the Challenge of Unbelief and Religious Indifference Today
2.3. The Problem of Evil**
The problem of evil and the suffering of innocents has always been used to justify unbelief and the rejection of a good and personal God. This rebellion comes from the non-acceptance of the sense of the freedom of man, who is capable of doing both good and evil. The mystery of evil has been and always will be a scandal for intelligent man, and only the light of Christ crucified and glorified can fully reveal and express it. âIn reality it is only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of man truly becomes clearâ (Gaudium et Spes, n. 22). [My emphasis].
But if the scandal of evil has never ceased to motivate atheism and unbelief in individuals, today they have a new aspect in the diffusion, amplification and presentation of evil through the mass media, which causes evil to echo ever louder, be it manifest in war, accidents, natural catastrophes, conflicts among individuals or countries, economic or social injustices. Unbelief is more or less tied into this pervasive and subversive aspect of evil, and consequently the rejection and denial of God feed on the continual diffusion of this inhumane spectacle, daily beamed around the world.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/cultr/documents/rc_pc_cultr_doc_20040313_where-is-your-god_en.html#i23
To face reality, there is no other institution that has explained, or can explain, Godâs goodness and justice in the face of the existence of evil (theodicy) as has the Catholic Church established by Christ.
Suffering is the natural result of the Original Sin of Adam and Eve. âmiodrag1963â hasnât a clue.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Not if you understand free will and if you believe that God means what he says. God has told us he will draw good out of evil. God does not lie. From the death and Reserrection of His Son, He has made eternal happiness possible for all men. He will " wipe away every tear. "
Linus2nd
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
My friend you are begging the question. The proofs of Godâs existence are really irrefutable and they are many. You may accept them or not. But if you condition your believe on the existence of evil, then you will never believe - unless God hits you over the head with a hammer ( and that happens every day in a figurative sense).
But in your last few lines, you hinted that the real reason you do not believe is because you just do not want all inconvenience that would cause in your life. And whatever the case, you will experience much suffering in this life, we all do and will, right to the end. So with or without God, there will be suffering. So your argument begs the question. Evil is a fact of life, It was all during the time God was revealing Himself to Israel, when Christ was alive, right up to the present moment. Do away with God and you havenât solved anything.
Linus2nd
D
DanAl
Guest
There are two ways a person can be morally good:
1- He owes something to somebody (think of children honoring their parents for taking care them when they were helpless, or a thief in need to make restitution).
2- He makes a promise to somebody.
Number one does not apply for God, God is debtor to no one. Number two does and the bible is filled with promises to mankind.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
NoâŚ
More like if you would take the time to study the science of physics you would understand that the sky is not really blue, but only appears to be.
In this case, if you would take the time to study and understand the metaphysics of Aquinas and Catholicism you would see that the problem of evil only appears to be a problem.
Of course, it is possible to insist that physics is simply wrong because the sky really is blue, just as it would be possible to insist that Catholicism must be wrong because the problem of evil is a real problem.
Certainly, it is a legitimate choice to be totally self-absorbed as if your suffering is the only thing that matters. Perhaps redemption is precisely to be saved from that encapsulated ego that finds suffering so intolerable, and a resurrection to a realization that what was imagined - due to weakness - as intolerable suffering was, in fact, only a mild inconvenience magnified by a shrunken ego that could not see beyond itself.
You mean no answer that is acceptable to you. Being known is quite a different matter from being acceptable.
B
belorg
Guest
Thatâs all completely irrelevant to anything I said.
T
tonyrey
Guest
M
miodrag1963
Guest
Read my message above, the part: âThis does not explain the natural suffering, like earthquakes etc.â It is about benevolent God, a problem within the faith, nothing to do what materialists may believe. Prophets were not Christians, they never mentioned Resurrection in this context, otherwise they would use it as the option six.
Prophets were not atheists. They were the authors of dogma, and yet they could not agree.
M
miodrag1963
Guest
**The problem of evil and the suffering of innocents has always been used to justify unbelief and the rejection of a good and personal God. **
What do you mean by unbelief and rejection of personal God? Prophets do not qualify here, and yet they also had a problem understanding.
Abu;11120012:
Which is the invention of Paul. Prophets never knew about the Original Sin, that is why they wandered so much. In Genesis, God punishes for disobedience, there will be pain and toil, but no hint of âOriginal Sinâ to be handed down to all of Adamâs descendants. Life will become more difficult, but where and how exactly is the Sin passed along? Because we see before Cain killed his brother, God asks âWhy are you angry?â and âIf you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the doorâŚâ Here a free will is given to Cain and Adam was never held responsible for Cainâs sin. Only with Paul comes the idea that newborn babies have no more free will and choice to be righteous or sinful, but are condemned right from the start, with the sin mysteriously passed from Adam onto them. In Genesis, God curses Adam, Eve and the snake, but note the consequences for Adam were that growing food will be difficult from now on and death will be a fact of life. Not a hint about all humanity will be born sinful by default, with their free will suspended. And hence prophets struggling to cope with the problem all the time. They never knew about the original Sin. And no one did, until Paul.
In fact, when God later says âI will be their God, and they shall be my peopleâ, what does it mean? Isnât this a covenant after the âOriginal Sinâ, and a hope for righteous to be protected if they chose so?
Finally, I will quote your own words: âAs created with free-will, it is mankindâs sin which is the root of all evil.â But now you follow the suit of the prophets, you also struggle to find the explanation, and when mankind could not do the job, you pin it down to Adam. If all mankind abused free will, that would explain why innocents suffer. Only, innocents never had an opportunity to entertain their free will. ( this again fails to answer the cause of natural suffering ) But wait, with your new explanation, innocents are now stained with sin, through Adam. Do try again, I came up with five options, none of them working.
Well, it is me and the prophets. I guess I am in the good company
- Status