The tree of knowledge and misunderstanding of evil among Catholic!

[Bahman]

Perfection is ultimately a gift. Our part of the “justice equation” is in cooperating with, seeking, responding to this gift. The highest perfection cannot be enforced-it can only be accepted/chosen; that’s why hell exists. It’s the state of perfection rejected.

You totally misread my comment. Any state of being is the state of ignorance unless it is perfect. This means that state of perfection is infinite. This means that we cannot reach the state of perfection unless God give it provided we accept it but this is equal to creation of God since the state of man is finite. Either this is possible or it is or not. We are faced with the question of why God didn’t create God in the first place in the first case? We stay in the state of ignorance forever in the second case which is a permanent torture!

The “stick” is nothing more or less than that the misery and unhappiness that accompanies being out of sync with Reality, Nature, God.

So we have no choice but to accept the God!

Of course not! He gives the grace of a glimpse, and we’re to respond to it, and then He gives more! And you apparently have no idea just how much He can give, even here on earth!

The problem as it is discussed is not resolvable by having more. We need to become God otherwise the creation is a failure.

Maybe, maybe not. Either way, he obviously didn’t appreciate what he had. IOW, he didn’t yet love God with his whole being.

You don’t pay any attention to my argument. Eve was absent in the first place then present. So Adam could comprehend what lack means. Simple.

Some people believe what they prefer to believe, such as that a temporary, momentary pleasure of a drug is better than long-term discipline, as an example. Some lessons are best learned the hard way. That shouldn’t be too difficult to grasp. Our own “godliness” is tied to our willingness to be truly godly IOW. Our perfection or justice is not created by us IOW, but God covets our choosing it, just as a good parent desires his children to do the right thing by choice, not by coercion. This is a matter of the human will from beginning to end. Grace calling us to even more grace. Read the Parable of the Talents-and observe the outcome of choices made, in response to grace given.

We choose thing according to pleasure! No pleasure no action.

 

[Bahman]

Please help me understand better the position of the Catholic church on good and evil. Can you provide a citation in the CCC or from one of the Ecumenical Councils? God Bless you.

Perhaps one of Catholic member can provide you with a link. I am afraid I cannot help.

 

[Bahman]

For what it’s worth, i disagree that man is able to choose the good. A man can choose to act morally in his own view,but that is different.

How do you define a moral act?

The fall of man caused a real loss. A loss of ability. Before the fall Adam had the ability to not sin. We no longer enjoy this freedom…

How they fell if they were not able to sin!?

 

[grannymh]

Please help me understand better the position of the Catholic church on good and evil. Can you provide a citation in the CCC or from one of the Ecumenical Councils? God Bless you.

Use Google.

Search CCC plus the info you are looking for. For example. I searched “CCC good and evil.” Then I went to suggested CCC paragraphs and simply turned the pages.

This is what I found.

Paragraphs 1730-1761 of the *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. *

Initial subject matter includes Man’s Freedom, Freedom and Responsibility, Human Freedom in the Economy of Salvation; and the Morality of Human Acts.

And this section more to the point, Good Acts and Evil Acts, CCC 1755-1761. Also use the CCC Glossary for definitions. For example. Evil is found on page 878.

Wish I could help you more. Maybe later, when I return.

Link to the Catechism.

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

 

[Bahman]

No. Evil is literally a metaphysical state of deficiency. Evil has no existence of its own, it only is a failure in goodness.

You simply didn’t pay any attention to my argument.

A good car is one that works, that is, it does what it is supposed to do. It is a bad car once something breaks, and is malfunctional.

You are mixing the idea of Evil with wrong! What is your definition of Good?

A good person when seeing someone in need of help s/he can give, helps that person, does something that is supposed to be done. Neglect is the bad option, a failure to do a good work to another.

This is the right action rather than Good action. Again what is your definition of Evil?

Pride is the lack of proper acknowledgment that goodness is from God, not yourself.

So you mean that God is pride!?

Lust involves lack of the respect of the dignity of the human person. Etc…

Well.

Tell me one thing that is supposed to be, as it is, and is still evil?

Confusion.

If there is hate it is because it fills the void left by there being no love.

That is incorrect. Lack of love is equal to state of neutral.

Here’s a good read. aquinasonline.com/Questions/goodevil.html

Thanks.

 

[808Catholic]

Use Google.

Search CCC plus the info you are looking for. For example. I searched “CCC good and evil.” Then I went to suggested CCC paragraphs and simply turned the pages.

This is what I found.

Paragraphs 1730-1761 of the *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. *

Initial subject matter includes Man’s Freedom, Freedom and Responsibility, Human Freedom in the Economy of Salvation; and the Morality of Human Acts.

And this section more to the point, Good Acts and Evil Acts, CCC 1755-1761. Also use the CCC Glossary for definitions. For example. Evil is found on page 878.

Wish I could help you more. Maybe later, when I return.

Link to the Catechism.

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

Thank you for your kind guidance, @grannymh. I was attempting to gently guide the OP to finding the answers to the OP’s question. Seems as if the OP is misguided and needs to find the answers for him/herself. God Bless you!

 

[TimothyH]

Catholics however consider evil as lake of Good

Is anyone as totally baffled by this as I am, or am I missing something?

What is lake of good and why are the words good and evil capitalized?

-Tim-

 

[grannymh]

Thank you for your kind guidance, @grannymh. I was attempting to gently guide the OP to finding the answers to the OP’s question. Seems as if the OP is misguided and needs to find the answers for him/herself. God Bless you!

For me, the problem is the first two sentences in post 1.
"The tree of knowledge is known for its content which is the knowledge of Good and Evil. This means that Evil is as true as Good. "
The first sentence is totally false as a Catholic teaching. The second sentence is make-believe. Sometimes I wonder what has happened to simple common sense regarding Divine Revelation in the first three chapters of Genesis.

Explanation of the tree of The Knowledge of Good and Evil – in case someone is interested.

From the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition
396 God created man in His image and established him in His friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” spells this out: “for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die.”276 The “tree of the knowledge of good and evil”277 symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom. (1730, 311, 301)

 

[fhansen]

You totally misread my comment. Any state of being is the state of ignorance unless it is perfect. This means that state of perfection is infinite. This means that we cannot reach the state of perfection unless God give it provided we accept it but this is equal to creation of God since the state of man is finite. Either this is possible or it is or not. We are faced with the question of why God didn’t create God in the first place in the first case? We stay in the state of ignorance forever in the second case which is a permanent torture!

We have to understand that, while our existence depends entirely on God, we are nonetheless works of His, as all creation is, and as such we’re expressions of Him, each one of us a part of Him in that sense. Due to the abuse of free will we can be very poor expressions of Him, in opposition to His will to one degree or another in fact. We cannot* be* Him, but we can participate in His nature, as He grants this, and so share in His beatitude, in His happiness. So we reach a state of perfection, determined by Him, that is totally fulfilling and proper to our own natures. As with our existence, that perfection is totally dependent on His discretion-but His will for all humankind is that we be united with Him. So, yes, we’re to become “gods”, but not apart from the one true God.

To be like God was Adam’s desire, but his desire was not with or in accordance with God, thinking that he, Adam, could thus maximize his beatitude apparently. This doesn’t work, however, as the state of humanity thereafter testifies to. Jesus came to resolve this situation by reconciling man with God, so the Prodigal can find his way home. As Athanasius said, “God became man so that men may become gods”.

To maintain that God must create another God, equal to Himself, isn’t reasonable, since it’s a logical contradiction; even God can’t do the impossible. But its pure speculation to maintain that we’d be in a permanent tortured state of ignorance unless we’re absolutely equal to God. He knows the beginning from the end-knowing that creation is worthwhile because of the goodness we’ll experience-the goodness that we’ll know-in the end.

So we have no choice but to accept the God!

No-we have the choice to reject God if we think that would be better, make us happier-preferring our own way as it were.

The problem as it is discussed is not resolvable by having more. We need to become God otherwise the creation is a failure.
Again, this is pure speculation unless we mean it as partaking of His nature, as a gift of grace. Again, God sees our own perfection as being the greater to the extent that we cooperate in it, to the extent that we *will *it-and this is a process. As Augustine said, “The God who made you without your consent does not save you without your consent.”
Bahman;13167949:

You don’t pay any attention to my argument. Eve was absent in the first place then present. So Adam could comprehend what lack means. Simple.

I see. It can be taken that way, I suppose-I disagree in any case. Adam didn’t necessarily know he lacked anything until he first* had *it; Eve was another aspect of creation-and one that brought much solace due to man’s created need for companionship. We can all identify with not knowing and appreciating what we have until it’s gone-and Eve never even left. Either way, the only thing that can totally satisfy man is God; nothing in creation is worthy or capable of doing so. And yet Adam almost cavalierly sided with Eve, not yet knowing what he’d miss once he turned away from his Creator. That self-induced estrangement from God was the the ultimate lack, or privation, or evil that he had never experienced before, and which he apparently needed to experience –like a Prodigal leaving home to learn of the goodness of the father that he’d left behind.

We choose thing according to pleasure! No pleasure no action.

Sometimes pleasure can be in conflict with other motives-and so *we *actually end up conflicted in our motivations. From sacrificing our own life to wantonly taking the life of another, we’re drawn to act according to that which we perceive to be the greatest good at the time. Either way our values can change, improve, and therefore our wills can change, and therefore our actions. In this way we can grow in justice, in perfection.

 

[Bahman]

We have to understand that, while our existence depends entirely on God, we are nonetheless works of His, as all creation is, and as such we’re expressions of Him, each one of us a part of Him in that sense. Due to the abuse of free will we can be very poor expressions of Him, in opposition to His will to one degree or another in fact. We cannot* be* Him, but we can participate in His nature, as He grants this, and so share in His beatitude, in His happiness. So we reach a state of perfection, determined by Him, that is totally fulfilling and proper to our own natures. As with our existence, that perfection is totally dependent on His discretion-but His will for all humankind is that we be united with Him. So, yes, we’re to become “gods”, but not apart from the one true God.

You don’t pay attention to my argument. The state of perfection is the state of being God. This means that we can never be perfect yet we have the desire for perfection meaning that whatever you accepted as the being in Heaven eventually leads to a failure which is another fall, like fallen angels.

To be like God was Adam’s desire, but his desire was not with or in accordance with God, thinking that he, Adam, could thus maximize his beatitude apparently. This doesn’t work, however, as the state of humanity thereafter testifies to. Jesus came to resolve this situation by reconciling man with God, so the Prodigal can find his way home. As Athanasius said, “God became man so that men may become gods”.

What home? Any final state of being which is not equal to God is a failure since it leads to fall. Angels fell, Adam and Eve fell, meaning that we shall fall too.

To maintain that God must create another God, equal to Himself, isn’t reasonable, since it’s a logical contradiction; even God can’t do the impossible. But its pure speculation to maintain that we’d be in a permanent tortured state of ignorance unless we’re absolutely equal to God. He knows the beginning from the end-knowing that creation is worthwhile because of the goodness we’ll experience-the goodness that we’ll know-in the end.

I don’t see any argument in your part to show that creating God is impossible. Why create an creature who always stay in state of ignorance?

No-we have the choice to reject God if we think that would be better, make us happier-preferring our own way as it were.

We can never be happy since we are intellectual beings forced in state of permanent ignorance.

Again, this is pure speculation unless we mean it as partaking of His nature, as a gift of grace. Again, God sees our own perfection as being the greater to the extent that we cooperate in it, to the extent that we *will *it-and this is a process. As Augustine said, “The God who made you without your consent does not save you without your consent.”

Save what? We will be in state of ignorance forever, permanent torture, unless we become God.

I see. It can be taken that way, I suppose-I disagree in any case. Adam didn’t necessarily know he lacked anything until he first* had *it; Eve was another aspect of creation-and one that brought much solace due to man’s created need for companionship. We can all identify with not knowing and appreciating what we have until it’s gone-and Eve never even left. Either way, the only thing that can totally satisfy man is God; nothing in creation is worthy or capable of doing so. And yet Adam almost cavalierly sided with Eve, not yet knowing what he’d miss once he turned away from his Creator. That self-induced estrangement from God was the the ultimate lack, or privation, or evil that he had never experienced before, and which he apparently needed to experience –like a Prodigal leaving home to learn of the goodness of the father that he’d left behind.

This long comment doesn’t help at all. Adam was made good since he knew what good means. Eve was also created good since Adam could know what lack of good means hence there was no need to eat the fruit.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

No, murdering someone can be because of hate. You can of course experience or imagine the lack of love, emptiness, which has no relation with hate! Have you ever experience hate?

Jesus tells us that the devil is the father of lies. So evil cannot be true.

Hate cannot be true because it empties all the love out of our hearts. You might not love your neighbor down the street because you don’t know him, but you can deliberately hate your next door neighbor because you do know him, and you know him to be a false person who does not deserve your love. Your hatred for him is really the emptying out of all love, so that all that’s left is hate. Murdering someone can be because of hate; it can never be because of the presence of love in your heart for him.

This is why Jesus says we must love even our enemies, or we will kill them and by doing so kill our own selves if we do not repent and find the love in our hearts again.

 

[Oreoracle]

Jesus tells us that the devil is the father of lies. So evil cannot be true.

What does that even mean? That’s like saying that blue cannot be true. Only propositions have truth values. “Evil” isn’t even a complete sentence, let alone a proposition.

 

[Bahman]

Jesus tells us that the devil is the father of lies. So evil cannot be true.

He could be wrong in definition of evil.

Hate cannot be true because it empties all the love out of our hearts.

That is wrong since we experience hate hence it is a mental state which exist hence hate cannot be the state of emptiness of love since the state of emptiness of love or hate is the state of neutral.

You might not love your neighbor down the street because you don’t know him, but you can deliberately hate your next door neighbor because you do know him, and you know him to be a false person who does not deserve your love. Your hatred for him is really the emptying out of all love, so that all that’s left is hate. Murdering someone can be because of hate; it can never be because of the presence of love in your heart for him.

You could kill someone out of love if her/his life is full of misery.

This is why Jesus says we must love even our enemies, or we will kill them and by doing so kill our own selves if we do not repent and find the love in our hearts again.

How doesn’t he love Satan then?

 

[fhansen]

You don’t pay attention to my argument. The state of perfection is the state of being God. This means that we can never be perfect yet we have the desire for perfection meaning that whatever you accepted as the being in Heaven eventually leads to a failure which is another fall, like fallen angels.

No, you’re not paying attention to my argument. You’re actually making the same mistake as Adam made: to think that we must *be *God in order to be perfectly, totally satisfied. Rather, *our *perfection lies in being *united *to perfection, Who is God. We were made united to Him, we were also made free to stray from Him. He only wants us to learn for ourselves which is best: with…or without. We’re already part of Him by nature. Once union has been consummated then our wills are set; we never wish to be without Him or apart from Him again. That’s our struggle now, to become oriented enough towards holiness in this life that absolute holiness becomes our reward in the next life. Adam won’t fall again-he learned his lesson; he woulld eat from the Tree of Life from then on. When the reward, itself, is intimate, direct knowledge of God, we never want to turn back again.

What home? Any final state of being which is not equal to God is a failure since it leads to fall. Angels fell, Adam and Eve fell, meaning that we shall fall too.

Speculation

I don’t see any argument in your part to show that creating God is impossible. Why create an creature who always stay in state of ignorance?

How can an eternally self-existent, all-knowing, omnipotent being create another eternally self-existent, all-knowing, omnipotent being? How can an uncaused cause create another uncaused cause? Creation is necessarily, essentially, inferior to its creator, as is the case even with our own creations.

We can never be happy since we are intellectual beings forced in state of permanent ignorance.

We’ll be gifted with knowledge beyond our wildest imagination.

Save what? We will be in state of ignorance forever, permanent torture, unless we become God.

Speculation-we come out of ignorance to the extent that we know our Maker.

This long comment doesn’t help at all. Adam was made good since he knew what good means. Eve was also created good since Adam could know what lack of good means hence there was no need to eat the fruit.

No, he would know what lack of good means only by losing it-otherwise *all *was good up to that point.

IDK, sometimes it seems maybe you prefer the ignorance you claim to be so upset about or opposed to.

 

[Bahman]

No, you’re not paying attention to my argument. You’re actually making the same mistake as Adam made: to think that we must *be *God in order to be perfectly, totally satisfied. Rather, *our *perfection lies in being *united *to perfection, Who is God. We were made united to Him, we were also made free to stray from Him. He only wants us to learn for ourselves which is best: with…or without. We’re already part of Him by nature. Once union has been consummated then our wills are set; we never wish to be without Him or apart from Him again. That’s our struggle now, to become oriented enough towards holiness in this life that absolute holiness becomes our reward in the next life. Adam won’t fall again-he learned his lesson; he woulld eat from the Tree of Life from then on. When the reward, itself, is intimate, direct knowledge of God, we never want to turn back again.

So why we were not created in the state of united with the God in the first place?

Speculation

In fact my claim is true based on facts. Adam and Eve fell, Angels fell…

How can an eternally self-existent, all-knowing, omnipotent being create another eternally self-existent, all-knowing, omnipotent being? How can an uncaused cause create another uncaused cause? Creation is necessarily, essentially, inferior to its creator, as is the case even with our own creations.

Why create a failure then? We will constantly in the position to fall because of greed and sense of neutrality toward what we have.

We’ll be gifted with knowledge beyond our wildest imagination.

What we need is what God knows otherwise we will be unsatisfied. But that means to be God.

Speculation-we come out of ignorance to the extent that we know our Maker.

It is not. We have two state of being: 1) state of full awareness, 2) state of ignorance. The first one belongs to God and the second apply to us. Do you like to be ignorant for ever?

No, he would know what lack of good means only by losing it-otherwise *all *was good up to that point.

IDK, sometimes it seems maybe you prefer the ignorance you claim to be so upset about or opposed to.

I can’t help you when you don’t put any effort to understand common sense.

 

[davidv]

The tree of knowledge is known for its content which is the knowledge of Good and Evil. This means that Evil is as true as Good. Catholics however consider evil as lake of Good which is contrary to what is clearly claimed in the scripture. I was wondering how Catholic could defend their position. That seems a big misunderstanding to me.

Since this post does not describe the Catholic position, there is nothing to defend.

 

[Bahman]

Since this post does not describe the Catholic position, there is nothing to defend.

What?

 

[davidv]

What?

When you present a straw man, you should expect answers that appear to not address your points. Until you admit that you have mischaracterized what the tree of the knowledge of good evil is and what it stands for, you will not, and cannot, understand the answers provided.

 

[Bahman]

When you present a straw man, you should expect answers that appear to not address your points. Until you admit that you have mischaracterized what the tree of the knowledge of good evil is and what it stands for, you will not, and cannot, understand the answers provided.

When you present a straw man, you should expect answers that appear to not address your points. Until you admit that you have mischaracterized what the tree of the knowledge of good evil is and what it stands for, you will not, and cannot, understand the answers provided.

 

[davidv]

When you present a straw man, you should expect answers that appear to not address your points. Until you admit that you have mischaracterized what the tree of the knowledge of good evil is and what it stands for, you will not, and cannot, understand the answers provided.