Was there nothing before the Big bang?

[kbachler]

What situation?

Wars? He never intended that we should war with one another over anything. It was man’s fall that necessitated some wars to be fought against evil, both ancient and modern.

Famine, we have the ability right now to end famine, but again men’s evil motives stand in the way.

Disease, never meant to touch us before the fall, but still we have the intelligence to combat this.

Mass starvation, again, due to our failure to feed everyone.

Unfairness, directly against God’s law.

Poverty, due to our own greed.

Our planet was meant to be a blue beacon of beauty and life in the swirling galaxy in which we live. We made it into a mess by our own actions and inactions. God made us innocent and free, we chose self-centeredness and the chains of evil that come with it.

Anyway, we are going way off topic.

Did not God create everything, including man? Was not the capacity for war, for sin, for unfairness, etc. etc. all created by God?

This constant attempt to try to label God “good” in the sense that mankind understands good is nonsensical. If God made us ONLY innocent and free, then how did we have the ability to choose self-centeredness UNLESS that ability was there also?

We need to stop these simplistic attempts to put God in a box. He is complete. By definition, that means that there is the ability for “evil” within Him. But that doesn’t imply that He chooses evil. He is complete, He is omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnitemporal. His will is THE will, and He chooses goodness and consistency. Does anyone here believe God breaks His moral laws? Then why do we willingly believe that He breaks his physical laws? He is consistent, and His faithfulness in consistency is a revelation of His being.

 

[Brendan]

This constant attempt to try to label God “good” in the sense that mankind understands good is nonsensical. If God made us ONLY innocent and free, then how did we have the ability to choose self-centeredness UNLESS that ability was there also?.

You are correct. God made us innocent ( guilty of no crime) AND He made us free, in that we can accept Him and all He stands for, or we can reject Him and His ways.

Since we have that ability to choose, and WE may do so, it does not follow that God created the rejection itself nor all that the rejection entails.

As a useful analogy. Suppose I am standing in a room with a window. A man comes with a searchlight and gives me a shade for my window. I have the freedom to let in the light from the searchlight or to close the shades.

It can rightly be said that the searchlight causes the room to be illuminated if I choose to leave the shades up.

But the searchlight cannot be said to cause darkness in the room if I choose to close the blinds. Likewise, the man who provided both the shade and the searchlight cannot rightly be said to have caused the room to be dark. It would have been MY choice and MY acts that brought about the darkness.

What the man provided was the illumination itself and the ability for me to choose to accept the light or to reject it.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Did not God create everything, including man? Was not the capacity for war, for sin, for unfairness, etc. etc. all created by God?

Why don’t you start another thread instead of corrupting this one?

 

[Brendan]

Why don’t you start another thread instead of corrupting this one?

But if someone creates a new thread and that thread descends into profanity and name-calling, would that mean that the creator of the thread CAUSED the profanity??

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So it would seem, if you buy kbachler’s thesis.

 

[Della]

Of course it’s science. In space you have wear a spacesuit and live in a container - otherwise the elements (or lack thereof) would kill you in an instant - that is most definitely unfriendly.

Only unfriendly to us if we do not wear the proper protection. I live in a state in which it is winter for nearly 9 months out of the year. We can’t go running around with little no clothing except for maybe 2 to 3 months, but that’s only because the weather is unfriendly to our species. Many other species do just fine in our winters from birds to deer. They survive as species in what is an unfriendly environment to people. I thought evolutionists were not homo-centric in their thinking–that the universe exists just for us. Well, Catholics don’t believe the universe exists just for us, either. God made earth for us, but not only for us. If we want to go into space we need to use technology, but God also gave us the intelligence to do that, so I don’t see the problem.

And even concerning the earth, animals survive by killing and eating each others (definitely unfriendly).

If you want to see it that way. But in reality animals killing each other for food is the cycle of life, remember? Thus God provides for every creature’s needs. Animals don’t wholesale kill other species until only theirs exists, after all. Rather they take what they need to survive. And what about the plants? Most creatures eat them, as well, but we still have plants. Why? Because they are adapted to being eaten and even attract creatures to eat parts of themselves. What a clever thing to do. I see God’s creating hand in all this, and his loving provision of every creature’s needs.

 

[Della]

Did not God create everything, including man? Was not the capacity for war, for sin, for unfairness, etc. etc. all created by God?

This constant attempt to try to label God “good” in the sense that mankind understands good is nonsensical. If God made us ONLY innocent and free, then how did we have the ability to choose self-centeredness UNLESS that ability was there also?

We need to stop these simplistic attempts to put God in a box. He is complete. By definition, that means that there is the ability for “evil” within Him. But that doesn’t imply that He chooses evil. He is complete, He is omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnitemporal. His will is THE will, and He chooses goodness and consistency. Does anyone here believe God breaks His moral laws? Then why do we willingly believe that He breaks his physical laws? He is consistent, and His faithfulness in consistency is a revelation of His being.

No. There is no capacity for evil in God, nor does he create evil. He created us with the ability to choose him or reject him, but that is not the same thing as compelling us to make any particular choice. God tested man so that his innocence would remain his choice or he could reject God’s instructions and choose death. Our parents chose death for themselves, and thus for us. God chose to send his Son to die to redeem us. Hardly the action of a God who had evil intentions for us from the beginning.

 

[dmwessel]

I found this funny, because of course, the second and third sentences are not science, nor are they based in real science.

me too

 

[dmwessel]

Only unfriendly to us if we do not wear the proper protection. I live in a state in which it is winter for nearly 9 months out of the year. We can’t go running around with little no clothing except for maybe 2 to 3 months, but that’s only because the weather is unfriendly to our species. Many other species do just fine in our winters from birds to deer. They survive as species in what is an unfriendly environment to people. I thought evolutionists were not homo-centric in their thinking–that the universe exists just for us. Well, Catholics don’t believe the universe exists just for us, either. God made earth for us, but not only for us. If we want to go into space we need to use technology, but God also gave us the intelligence to do that, so I don’t see the problem.

If you want to see it that way. But in reality animals killing each other for food is the cycle of life, remember? Thus God provides for every creature’s needs. Animals don’t wholesale kill other species until only theirs exists, after all. Rather they take what they need to survive. And what about the plants? Most creatures eat them, as well, but we still have plants. Why? Because they are adapted to being eaten and even attract creatures to eat parts of themselves. What a clever thing to do. I see God’s creating hand in all this, and his loving provision of every creature’s needs.

No matter which way you look at it, it’s most definitely unfriendly. The question then to ask is, if it’s unfriendly and we know that God is friendly, what the heck happened to everything??

 

[Brendan]

No matter which way you look at it, it’s most definitely unfriendly. The question then to ask is, if it’s unfriendly and we know that God is friendly, what the heck happened to everything??

Then the question to ask, since we know that God is friendlyand this place is not: 'is this the place and time where we are supposed to feel safe and 'friendly. A friendly God would provide such a place, and since this is clearly not it, how do we get to such a place and by what is it necessary for us to do to get there?"

 

[Della]

me too

Well, I never claimed my second and third statements were science. My point was that your statements weren’t science, either.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

No matter which way you look at it, it’s most definitely unfriendly. The question then to ask is, if it’s unfriendly and we know that God is friendly, what the heck happened to everything??

I’ll repeat what I said earlier.

This attitude is defeated by the fact that everyone tries to stay alive. If we lived in a purely hostile world, why would everyone not just throw themselves into the Grand Canyon?

But they don’t, do they? Instead, they exult in life, striving to overcome its challenges and enjoy all that life has to offer. And even when the end comes, when death beckons, we can look forward to greater rewards, if only we have believed and lived so as to be blessed with them.

 

[Della]

Then the question to ask, since we know that God is friendlyand this place is not: 'is this the place and time where we are supposed to feel safe and 'friendly. A friendly God would provide such a place, and since this is clearly not it, how do we get to such a place and by what is it necessary for us to do to get there?"

Absolutely. The “vacuum” of space is no barrier to non-corporal beings, such as the angels. And they will not be for us when we have our glorified bodies like Christ’s glorified body. We won’t need clumsy space ships to get about. We’ll only need to think of where we want to be and be there. That’s the kind of thing God has in mind for us, and I believe always did. Earth was meant to be our nursery not our final home.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Perhaps now is the time to close this thread, since the original topic has been lost?

Maybe a new thread could be started?

Something titled along the line of:

IS LIFE WORTH LIVING?

 

[meltzerboy]

Did not God create everything, including man? Was not the capacity for war, for sin, for unfairness, etc. etc. all created by God?

This constant attempt to try to label God “good” in the sense that mankind understands good is nonsensical. If God made us ONLY innocent and free, then how did we have the ability to choose self-centeredness UNLESS that ability was there also?

We need to stop these simplistic attempts to put God in a box. He is complete. By definition, that means that there is the ability for “evil” within Him. But that doesn’t imply that He chooses evil. He is complete, He is omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnitemporal. His will is THE will, and He chooses goodness and consistency. Does anyone here believe God breaks His moral laws? Then why do we willingly believe that He breaks his physical laws? He is consistent, and His faithfulness in consistency is a revelation of His being.

Judaism believes that G-d created everything, including evil. The problem with this is how can evil be created by a Being Who Himself is omnibenevolent and not at all evil, for this quality, even if defined as the absence of goodness, is against G-d’s very nature? One of the answers, according to Judaism, is that G-d is so omnipotent that even His act of thinking about evil resulted in the creation of evil. Insofar as G-d’s breaking His moral laws, since G-d is the very essence of morality, He cannot break His own laws; however, the physical laws of the universe are part of G-d’s creation, not G-d Himself, so it would not be contrary to G-d’s essence to break the laws of nature and physics if He so desired.

 

[DaveBj]

Perhaps now is the time to close this thread, since the original topic has been lost?

Maybe a new thread could be started?

Something titled along the line of:

IS LIFE WORTH LIVING?

I vote “Aye.”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

See the new thread: IS LIFE WORTH LIVING?

 

[kbachler]

Judaism believes that G-d created everything, including evil. The problem with this is how can evil be created by a Being Who Himself is omnibenevolent and not at all evil, for this quality, even if defined as the absence of goodness, is against G-d’s very nature?

Your argument begs the question. You assume His nature as the reason for proving His nature.

If He is complete, His nature includes (and always included) all things, including evil.

The answer to your question is in realizing that God’s composition is not the same as God’s action. Action is the exhibition of will. God’s creation, His interaction with us, our interaction with Him, is about will. Genesis chapter 22 is about will. God can exhibit consistent action of good, but understands that for will there must be choice, and for choice, there must be alternatives.

One of the answers, according to Judaism, is that G-d is so omnipotent that even His act of thinking about evil resulted in the creation of evil. Insofar as G-d’s breaking His moral laws, since G-d is the very essence of morality, He cannot break His own laws; however, the physical laws of the universe are part of G-d’s creation, not G-d Himself, so it would not be contrary to G-d’s essence to break the laws of nature and physics if He so desired.

God’s physical laws are not more a part of God’s creation than His moral laws are. An omnipotent, omnipresent, omnitemporal being could choose to break either. One cannot reasonably believe that He would choose to break one set of laws any more than He would choose to break the other. He reveals Himself to us not only in His word, but in his consistency of action. Breaking any law, physical or moral, would therefore be an aberration of His principles, and aberration of His goal to reveal while still allowing for our free will, and would therefore make no sense.

God does not break His own laws, physical or moral for that reason. Not because He is incapable, but because He chooses to act consistently.

 

[meltzerboy]

Your argument begs the question. You assume His nature as the reason for proving His nature.

If He is complete, His nature includes (and always included) all things, including evil.

The answer to your question is in realizing that God’s composition is not the same as God’s action. Action is the exhibition of will. God’s creation, His interaction with us, our interaction with Him, is about will. Genesis chapter 22 is about will. God can exhibit consistent action of good, but understands that for will there must be choice, and for choice, there must be alternatives.

God’s physical laws are not more a part of God’s creation than His moral laws are. An omnipotent, omnipresent, omnitemporal being could choose to break either. One cannot reasonably believe that He would choose to break one set of laws any more than He would choose to break the other. He reveals Himself to us not only in His word, but in his consistency of action. Breaking any law, physical or moral, would therefore be an aberration of His principles, and aberration of His goal to reveal while still allowing for our free will, and would therefore make no sense.

God does not break His own laws, physical or moral for that reason. Not because He is incapable, but because He chooses to act consistently.

You seem to be placing G-d on a human level. For humans, free will necessitates choice, but for G-d free will to choose between good and evil and always choosing the good does not reflect His omnipotence or consistency since there is no choice required: G-d is, I repeat, by His very nature, goodness, mercy, justice, and strength and always acts accordingly. Lacking the free will to choose goodness does not render G-d incomplete any more than lacking weakness, stupidity, hatred, immorality, temporality, or biological and psychological needs. G-d’s essence is the opposite of these finite and limited characteristics. G-d is “I am” not “I choose to be.” It is only mankind’s will that is based on “I choose to be,” but not the will of G-d. The Euthyphro dilemma is a false dilemma according to Jewish thought. G-d neither chooses the good nor is something good because G-d chooses it. There is no choice involved, only action based on the nature of G-d.

 

[DaveBj]

You seem to be placing G-d on a human level. For humans, free will necessitates choice, but for G-d free will to choose between good and evil and always choosing the good does not reflect His omnipotence or consistency since there is no choice required: G-d is, I repeat, by His very nature, goodness, mercy, justice, and strength and always acts accordingly. Lacking the free will to choose goodness does not render G-d incomplete any more than lacking weakness, stupidity, hatred, immorality, temporality, or biological and psychological needs. G-d’s essence is the opposite of these finite and limited characteristics. G-d is “I am” not “I choose to be.” It is only mankind’s will that is based on “I choose to be,” but not the will of G-d. The Euthyphro dilemma is a false dilemma according to Jewish thought. G-d neither chooses the good nor is something good because G-d chooses it. There is no choice involved, only action based on the nature of G-d.

I don’t have time this morning to get into this in detail, but it has been argued that evil is the absence of good, just like darkness is the absence of light (electromagnetic waves at certain wavelengths), and cold is the absence of heat (molecular motion). That could be rephrased to “evil is the absence (or rejection) of God.”