What exactly is the knowledge of good and evil?

[friardchips]

If a person only knows how to fight rather than forgive, his free will is limited by ignorance.

Fight with forgiveness.

There is a blindness that can accompany all desires.

Sure, most, many, not necessarily all. Some people die in the Odor of Sanctity.

Going back to the shoplifter, the shoplifter can conclude that stealing “just one thing” from “this big, rich store” is no big deal. What has happened is that their conscience, if it was formerly well-informed, was blinded by desire. So what you and I might say is “bad intent” is to the perpetrator a “justified intent”, his behavior is rationalized. When a person actually believes a rationalization, which he proves by “voting with their hands” (theft) then he is irrational, not “knowledgeable”.

We can think that of others. Sure. But as individuals ourselves we go by our conscience. Whether or not our conscience is a messy one. Hence why we need the Eternal doctor.

Every act we make is eternal in the sense that it is virtuous or evil and measured up to eternal truths. When you go against your conscience, no matter how well formed, or blind, you commit an eternal act for good or bad - good if you listen to your conscience or bad if you go against it. From venial to grave levels of seriousness. We need our Creator’s forgiveness to be sanctified. We can’t forgive ourselves or others in the eternal sense because our actions stretch into eternity. Only the eternal Creator can forgive an eternally selfish act.

When it comes to working out “our own salvation”, we go by our consciences, and this conscious, free act according to conscience, is what we utilize when intending to act - this helps us to grow, living with good intent, and thus to act accordingly.

It can be said that probably most people don’t intend to be evil for the sake of it or know we are committing an evil in an eternal sense but if we know the rules and we go against our consciences anyway - excuses or no excuses - then we commit an evil act or speak evil words.

Good intent comes from wisdom and this comes by education and grace. We can be well-intentioned people who think and act and speak wisely.

Yes, He made His creation good.

Since all creatures were made by God, they are all good. They are not evil.

“It is through the Spirit that we see that everything that exists is good.” - St Augustine.

No one said that people are inherently evil. Creation was made ‘good’. OS did not make us all evil. We know that creation was made good. But it is not perfect because creation is not our Creator Himself and so creation needs its Creator to be in a sanctified state. OS makes the need for our Creator a must because it is difficult to stay in a very ‘good’ state. All HUMANS have on their souls the trauma of OS which kicks in with the age of reason and pulls us from good thinking, being, living.

So when you make a choice, or intend something, it is less than perfect, and it is less than good, even, unless of course, it is divinely inspired.

As I explained also, we can make eternal choices that face from our Creator, and so, although we remain in Him, we make choices, from the stage of intention, that face from Him. These choices are less than good, though our substance - of the soul - was made ‘good’.

It does, somewhat, except that you still seem to be self-contradicting. Your first statement, that we are all good, is true. The following statements that talk about “evil” in “being” are statements that ordinarily reflect a resentment toward people. When we use the label “evil” toward some part of creation, we are ordinarily expressing resentment. Since resentment blinds us to the value of someone, the label “evil” seems to make sense, even though it clearly contradicts what you said about God making all creatures “good”. The paradox makes sense in the context of the blindness caused by resentment.

To be “freely” objective, we have to forgive as God forgives. Indeed, forgiveness also has a way of removing the obstacles we have against loving others, especially when removing the obstacle of resentment itself.

We forgive as our Creator forgives…us. We cannot forgive others as our Creator forgives, as we don’t know everything about them and are not eternally perfect to forgive eternal choices. We pray to be able to forgive people and our Creator helps us to do this at an eternal or acceptable level (according to Him) via prayer, and some of this unforgiveness would need to be purged in Purgatory (I’d expect, anyway).

And forgiveness doesn’t mean we have to make excuses for what is evil. An evil act is considered an evil act and we can hate that act and we can try and stop that evil act. But we can’t hate the sinner. We can hate what they represent. But we can’t condemn the individual to Hell in our hearts just as we can’t hate ourselves. Because they were made ‘good’.

Now, do you see a contradiction in my statement? Please let me know.

And of course, show me that my observations and evaluations are completely off-base.

Thanks.

We think of nature as good. And we know it is not wrong to have natural instincts. But nature was made blessed. OS caused us not to see the blessedness of creation and when reason kicks in we tend toward a less than thankful recognition of creation due to a darkening of our knowledge. This means we have a trauma that pulls on us. However, we have ways of educating ourselves that we can learn our weaknesses and ask for the grace to overcome temptation and evil. We can recognise the need for healing in ourselves and so grow to be conscientious and well-intentioned people. We can still go against that conscience and this is evil. And there are even certain acts that are evil by their moral object alone.

 

[friardchips]

cont…

You are talking about self-gain in the rawest level. Pure self-gain, unless for survival, is a perversion of the good natural instinct because all of nature was created blessed, not inharmoniously selfish. Due to OS, people can seek gain for self with no gratitude or responsibility and what they see as ‘good’ is not good in the Heavenly sanctified meaning of the word ‘good’.

In fact, people can do things which are bad for them, and yet think they are good for them. This is what you see an excuse for everything. That people don’t know. Yes. People don’t. If they did, unless they were extremely proud, like satan, they mightn’t ever do bad things. Satan was an angel anyway so his pride was beyond our imagining or what we can fathom as humans. Fundamentally, all of humanity just wants to be loved. And this need pulls people, because of their biology or education or whatever, to do some very strange and EVIL things. Things which are basically good which is inverted to some degree. So…

1. No matter whether people are blind or ignorant, and so don’t understand the very choices that they make, an evil act is still an evil and less-than-good act. We go by good intent or bad intent. Like it or lump it.
2. Trauma to the psyche or blindness or whatever, comes before intent. But intent is still how we discern between good and bad - intent bound to moral object.
3. There is a difference between (IMO) what we are and what we do. We are human and so made ‘good’, our substance is ‘good’ because it is ‘of our Creator’; however, we can do acts which are not good. Causing death for example, is in most situations, not an action we are to make. These acts are eternal and actively dying actions. They are in good but an eternally active lessening of that good. And because they are actively facing from good they are actively being evil and actively committing evil. It is like going backwards!
4. All people just want to be loved. This is what comes with having been made ‘good’. IMO.
   It is just that people don’t know what ‘good’ is. (“Blind” - as you said). So we love the sinner but hate the sin.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Is the knowledge of good and evil qualitatively different from “good” and “evil” in and of themselves? Again, I see that good and evil work together in our world. For example, most of us here would probably say that porn is pure evil, but I suspect that for some, with the help of God’s grace, it leads to a heightened spiritual awareness that could not have been possible otherwise.

 

[OneSheep]

We can think that of others. Sure. But as individuals ourselves we go by our conscience. Whether or not our conscience is a messy one. Hence why we need the Eternal doctor.

Every act we make is eternal in the sense that it is virtuous or evil and measured up to eternal truths. When you go against your conscience, no matter how well formed, or blind, you commit an eternal act for good or bad - good if you listen to your conscience or bad if you go against it. From venial to grave levels of seriousness. We need our Creator’s forgiveness to be sanctified. We can’t forgive ourselves or others in the eternal sense because our actions stretch into eternity. Only the eternal Creator can forgive an eternally selfish act.

Good Morning friar d,

I am only addressing parts of your post for brevity sake, as is typical.

The act is good if we listen to our non-messy conscience and bad if, etc.
We are to forgive others their acts if we hold something against the person, right? God always forgives, as Pope Francis says, so key to making real His forgiveness in the world is our forgiveness of others.

It can be said that probably most people don’t intend to be evil for the sake of it or know we are committing an evil in an eternal sense but if we know the rules and we go against our consciences anyway - excuses or no excuses - then we commit an evil act or speak evil words.

Yes, we can commit evil acts. However, the power to do the act comes from our own God-given appetites and desires. There is no “source of evil” in the human in my observation. If a person resents a particular appetite, then his mind will label that appetite “evil” just as people label those they resent “evil”.

Now, I will contend that some people actually want to “be evil”, but this is because such “being” is a matter of affiliation with others who identify with the same label. It is a redefinition of the term, actually. Other than that, the label evil, used on others, is a term that expresses resentment, and in the least, because of its modern use, inspires others to join the speaker in resenting a person or group. The use of the label is the opposite of forgiveness, the label inspires resentment and hatred.

No one said that people are inherently evil. Creation was made ‘good’. OS did not make us all evil. We know that creation was made good. But it is not perfect because creation is not our Creator Himself and so creation needs its Creator to be in a sanctified state. OS makes the need for our Creator a must because it is difficult to stay in a very ‘good’ state. All HUMANS have on their souls the trauma of OS which kicks in with the age of reason and pulls us from good thinking, being, living.

Mr. Chips, you must be joking; plenty of people say that humans are inherently evil. Now when you say that OS did not make us “all evil”, does that mean that part of us is evil? If so, which part?

And forgiveness doesn’t mean we have to make excuses for what is evil. An evil act is considered an evil act and we can hate that act and we can try and stop that evil act. But we can’t hate the sinner. We can hate what they represent. But we can’t condemn the individual to Hell in our hearts just as we can’t hate ourselves. Because they were made ‘good’.

Forgiveness never means “making excuses” right? The excusing part may come after we have forgiven. When you say “we can’t hate the sinner”, you are expressing a discipline. However, hatred and resentment are not “willed” and we cannot simply “unwill” them. That is what forgiveness is about; forgiveness eliminates the hatred and resentment that has been triggered in our minds. When we forgive in a mature way, all of the negativity toward a person simply disappears.

Is that part of your experience base Mr. Chips? You start with a person you see as a “jerk” or “evil”, and then through prayer and the gift of understanding come to see the person as no different than you are, that you could have done the same as they did given their motives and scope?

We think of nature as good. And we know it is not wrong to have natural instincts. But nature was made blessed. OS caused us not to see the blessedness of creation and when reason kicks in we tend toward a less than thankful recognition of creation due to a darkening of our knowledge.

Yes, this is closer to what I am saying, but if we ask the question, “why do we not see the blessedness of creation?”, we can come up with a much different answer than OS. For example, I think it is very natural for us to see the blessedness of all creation! The only time that we do not see its blessedness is when we resent or hate, when we are perceiving part of creation as evil. (note: I am not including acts in that statement).

We can resent people, the source of natural disaster, the sources of all of the occurrences that adversely effect us. It is all natural, even the capacity for perception of evil in creation is part of our nature! All of our capacities, appetites, drives, emotions, motives, etc. are created by God and serve a purpose.

cont’d

 

[OneSheep]

cont…
You are talking about self-gain in the rawest level. Pure self-gain, unless for survival, is a perversion of the good natural instinct because all of nature was created blessed, not inharmoniously selfish. Due to OS, people can seek gain for self with no gratitude or responsibility and what they see as ‘good’ is not good in the Heavenly sanctified meaning of the word ‘good’.

Here we go back to the questions: “Why do people seek gain for self with no gratitude?” “Why do people behave irresponsibly?” Why do people perceive a “good” when it is different from what God thinks?"
Your answer: “part of us is evil” ?
My answer: God given natural compulsions encumbered by blindness and lack of awareness.

Here is another way of looking at “selfishness”: All creatures are “selfish”. With love, our “self” comes to include others, we come to care more about others than our own person because they become the focus of our love. Through love, forgiveness and understanding, our “self” can come to include all humanity and all of creation itself.

All “Pure self-gain” desired by a person is motivated by God-given traits that are meant to enhance our survival, regardless of how warped the person’s sense of Truth.

In fact, people can do things which are bad for them, and yet think they are good for them. This is what you see an excuse for everything.

Not an excuse, friend, an explanation. There is a huge difference. The aim is to understand and forgive from the heart, not to acquit. For example, look up the life of Eva Kor or Cheryl Ward Kaiser.

That people don’t know. Yes. People don’t. If they did, unless they were extremely proud, like satan, they mightn’t ever do bad things. Satan was an angel anyway so his pride was beyond our imagining or what we can fathom as humans. Fundamentally, all of humanity just wants to be loved. And this need pulls people, because of their biology or education or whatever, to do some very strange and EVIL things. Things which are basically good which is inverted to some degree. So…

1. No matter whether people are blind or ignorant, and so don’t understand the very choices that they make, an evil act is still an evil and less-than-good act. We go by good intent or bad intent. Like it or lump it.

1. Trauma to the psyche or blindness or whatever, comes before intent. But intent is still how we discern between good and bad - intent bound to moral object.

We really need a specific example of “bad intent” in order to adequately illustrate the differences and similarities in what we are saying on #1 an #2

1. There is a difference between (IMO) what we are and what we do. We are human and so made ‘good’, our substance is ‘good’ because it is ‘of our Creator’; however, we can do acts which are not good. Causing death for example, is in most situations, not an action we are to make. These acts are eternal and actively dying actions. They are in good but an eternally active lessening of that good. And because they are actively facing from good they are actively being evil and actively committing evil. It is like going backwards!

Yes, murder is evil, but the person doing the murder is only perceived “evil” if one has failed to forgive. The murderer has not forgiven their soon-to-be-victim. The person who murders sees the other as evil or worthless, just as those who crucified Jesus. For example, do you perceive the crowd who crucified Jesus as “evil”?

1. All people just want to be loved. This is what comes with having been made ‘good’. IMO.
   It is just that people don’t know what ‘good’ is. (“Blind” - as you said). So we love the sinner but hate the sin.

“Love the sinner and hate the sin” is a discipline, but like I said before, it does no underlying function to simply say in the mind “I’m not going to hate him”. To really erase the hatred of the person, we must forgive, and the gift of Understanding is a huge part of mature forgiveness.

Whew! Sorry about the essay - length response. Gotta address one more post and run to work…

Thanks!

 

[friardchips]

Here we go back to the questions: “Why do people seek gain for self with no gratitude?” “Why do people behave irresponsibly?” Why do people perceive a “good” when it is different from what God thinks?"
Your answer: “part of us is evil” ?
My answer: God given natural compulsions encumbered by blindness and lack of awareness.

Here is another way of looking at “selfishness”: All creatures are “selfish”. With love, our “self” comes to include others, we come to care more about others than our own person because they become the focus of our love. Through love, forgiveness and understanding, our “self” can come to include all humanity and all of creation itself.

All “Pure self-gain” desired by a person is motivated by God-given traits that are meant to enhance our survival, regardless of how warped the person’s sense of Truth.

Not an excuse, friend, an explanation. There is a huge difference. The aim is to understand and forgive from the heart, not to acquit. For example, look up the life of Eva Kor or Cheryl Ward Kaiser.

We really need a specific example of “bad intent” in order to adequately illustrate the differences and similarities in what we are saying on #1 an #2

Yes, murder is evil, but the person doing the murder is only perceived “evil” if one has failed to forgive. The murderer has not forgiven their soon-to-be-victim. The person who murders sees the other as evil or worthless, just as those who crucified Jesus. For example, do you perceive the crowd who crucified Jesus as “evil”?

“Love the sinner and hate the sin” is a discipline, but like I said before, it does no underlying function to simply say in the mind “I’m not going to hate him”. To really erase the hatred of the person, we must forgive, and the gift of Understanding is a huge part of mature forgiveness.

Whew! Sorry about the essay - length response. Gotta address one more post and run to work…

Thanks!

Hi OneSheep.

Thanks for all your thoughts.

Rationalising is not part of forgiveness. Otherwise we can rationalize ourselves out of existence.

The grace to forgive comes from our Creator not from human rationalization.

We need to understand good from evil in order for life to be preserved and for people to stay clear from spiritual death and from this realisation, via grace, a certain understanding and meaning comes through our experiences in relation to others in which our Creator helps us too, to understand and empathise, but sometimes understanding seems far away and this does not excuse the behaviour of evil acts.

Human rationale is far below the thoughts of our Creator and therefore we rely on Him to give us the grace we need to be saved. Then we can forgive all, from the heart.

Take care.

 

[OneSheep]

Hi OneSheep.

Thanks for all your thoughts.

Rationalising is not part of forgiveness. Otherwise we can rationalize ourselves out of existence.

The grace to forgive comes from our Creator not from human rationalization.

We need to understand good from evil in order for life to be preserved and for people to stay clear from spiritual death and from this realisation, via grace, a certain understanding and meaning comes through our experiences in relation to others in which our Creator helps us too, to understand and empathise, but sometimes understanding seems far away and this does not excuse the behaviour of evil acts.

Human rationale is far below the thoughts of our Creator and therefore we rely on Him to give us the grace we need to be saved. Then we can forgive all, from the heart.

Take care.

Whew, that was fast, Friardchips! I wish you would have answered some of my questions. Did you give up?

“Rationalization” is a word we use interchangeably with “making excuses”.

I repeat, calling upon and making use of the Gift of Understanding in forgiving others is not the same as making excuses for people. That is not my aim here at all. Understanding and forgiveness do not mean the same as acquittal.

What I was demonstrating was that we can come to see that we can see all human behaviors as coming from One Source, not two. I continue to stand by the assertion that there is room in the Church for both approaches, (dualism and monism) as there are samples of both in the CCC and even in the Gospels.

What exactly is the “knowledge of good and evil” as depicted in Genesis?

It is the story of acquisition of the conscience, given to humanity. Humans came to see acts as good and evil, and came to perceive parts of themselves as good and evil. All of this is part of the conscience and serves a purpose. In addition, humans acquired the capacity to condemn others and themselves (guilt). Humans acquired the compulsion to punish wrong-doing. All of these are part of the story of Adam and Eve and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

All of these traits and capacities described above can be logically lumped under “human conscience”, right? Withholding due punishment is seen as unconscionable, withholding condemnation of an evildoer is seen as unconscionable. Forgiveness of enemies? Unconscionable! Forgiveness of Hitler, Stalin, bin Laden, Pol Pot, murderers, “psycopaths”, child molesters, all of these we would normally, naturally, see as evil and find forgiveness of them unconscionable.

Jesus calls us to the supernatural.

None of this, friend, is about “making excuses”.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Whew, that was fast, Friardchips! I wish you would have answered some of my questions. Did you give up?

“Rationalization” is a word we use interchangeably with “making excuses”.

I repeat, calling upon and making use of the Gift of Understanding in forgiving others is not the same as making excuses for people. That is not my aim here at all. Understanding and forgiveness do not mean the same as acquittal.

What I was demonstrating was that we can come to see that we can see all human behaviors as coming from One Source, not two. I continue to stand by the assertion that there is room in the Church for both approaches, (dualism and monism) as there are samples of both in the CCC and even in the Gospels.

**What exactly is the “knowledge of good and evil” as depicted in Genesis? **

It is the story of acquisition of the conscience, given to humanity. Humans came to see acts as good and evil, and came to perceive parts of themselves as good and evil. All of this is part of the conscience and serves a purpose. In addition, humans acquired the capacity to condemn others and themselves (guilt). Humans acquired the compulsion to punish wrong-doing. All of these are part of the story of Adam and Eve and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

All of these traits and capacities described above can be logically lumped under “human conscience”, right? Withholding due punishment is seen as unconscionable, withholding condemnation of an evildoer is seen as unconscionable. Forgiveness of enemies? Unconscionable! Forgiveness of Hitler, Stalin, bin Laden, Pol Pot, murderers, “psycopaths”, child molesters, all of these we would normally, naturally, see as evil and find forgiveness of them unconscionable.

Jesus calls us to the supernatural.

None of this, friend, is about “making excuses”.

Thanks for your views. Yes, why settle for the natural when you can have the supernatural?

 

[OneSheep]

Friardchips,

I am almost off to work, but I must add, do you see the irony?

A person can rationalize (make excuses) for not understanding self and others by rationalizing (making excuses) that such understanding “makes excuses for people”.

Follow me on that one?

 

[friardchips]

Whew, that was fast, Friardchips! I wish you would have answered some of my questions. Did you give up?

“Rationalization” is a word we use interchangeably with “making excuses”.

I repeat, calling upon and making use of the Gift of Understanding in forgiving others is not the same as making excuses for people. That is not my aim here at all. Understanding and forgiveness do not mean the same as acquittal.

What I was demonstrating was that we can come to see that we can see all human behaviors as coming from One Source, not two. I continue to stand by the assertion that there is room in the Church for both approaches, (dualism and monism) as there are samples of both in the CCC and even in the Gospels.

What exactly is the “knowledge of good and evil” as depicted in Genesis?

It is the story of acquisition of the conscience, given to humanity. Humans came to see acts as good and evil, and came to perceive parts of themselves as good and evil. All of this is part of the conscience and serves a purpose. In addition, humans acquired the capacity to condemn others and themselves (guilt). Humans acquired the compulsion to punish wrong-doing. All of these are part of the story of Adam and Eve and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

All of these traits and capacities described above can be logically lumped under “human conscience”, right? Withholding due punishment is seen as unconscionable, withholding condemnation of an evildoer is seen as unconscionable. Forgiveness of enemies? Unconscionable! Forgiveness of Hitler, Stalin, bin Laden, Pol Pot, murderers, “psycopaths”, child molesters, all of these we would normally, naturally, see as evil and find forgiveness of them unconscionable.

Jesus calls us to the supernatural.

None of this, friend, is about “making excuses”.

Hi OneSheep. No, I didn’t give up, but rather, you were misinterpreting what I wrote in my posts and putting words in my mouth, so “for brevity’s sake”, I cut to the chase.

You are a thinker and nothing wrong with that and you believe in being forgiving which is amazing but growing in conscience does not mean rationalising everything. The human mind is not the Creator’s mind…

…so pray for a forgiving heart and then the forgiveness will come from The Eternal Merciful Heart - a grace-filled deeper level than what even our consciousness can understand - and not just from the calculations of the human mind only.

Best wishes and thanks again.

 

[friardchips]

pure evil, but I suspect that for some, with the help of God’s grace, it leads to a heightened spiritual awareness that could not have been possible otherwise.

What do you mean by ‘pure evil’? No one has used the words “pure evil”. Evil is as evil does. “Pure evil” doesn’t really mean anything.

A good end does not justify an immoral act. And it is not that the evil led to good but that our Creator healed and drew people back to His Will - bringing good from bad does not mean the bad was good. And we are not meant to test the Spirit.

I am wishing that you do not eat from the Tree of Knowledge - which is what your thinking (in your last post) will accomplish. Please don’t be led astray.

Put your trust in our Creator. And be happy.

 

[Robert_Sock]

What do you mean by ‘pure evil’? No one has used the words “pure evil”. Evil is as evil does. “Pure evil” doesn’t really mean anything.

A good end does not justify an immoral act. And it is not that the evil led to good but that our Creator healed and drew people back to His Will - bringing good from bad does not mean the bad was good. And we are not meant to test the Spirit.

I am wishing that you do not eat from the Tree of Knowledge - which is what your thinking (in your last post) will accomplish. Please don’t be led astray.

Put your trust in our Creator. And be happy.

I should have said “purely evil,” as opposed to it containing any long term positive effects.

God bringing good (increased spiritual awareness) out evil (porn addition) is in fact His allowing (using?) evil to bring about good. I see nothing wrong with it.

 

[OneSheep]

Hi OneSheep. No, I didn’t give up, but rather, you were misinterpreting what I wrote in my posts and putting words in my mouth, so “for brevity’s sake”, I cut to the chase.

Oops, I hope you were not offended that I had to pare down your post while responding. If so, my apologies.

You are a thinker and nothing wrong with that and you believe in being forgiving which is amazing but growing in conscience does not mean rationalising everything. The human mind is not the Creator’s mind…

I can’t let that one stand, friarchips. I am not intending to “put words into your mouth” of your posts, and you are not mine, but I have repeatedly said that I am not rationalizing or making excuses for anything, I am explaining, doing the best I can to use the gift of Understanding.

For example, Jesus said, “Forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Here is my attempt to explain what they did not know at the time of deciding to crucify; I am sure I am leaving out other very relevant items:

1. They did not know He was God.
2. They did not even know He was human, he was less than human in their eyes, blinded by resentment.
3. They did not know that He was not a threat.
4. They did not know that He came to save us, and a Church of followers would form.
5. They did not know that the death penalty is wrong.
6. They did not know that they were blind.
7. They did not know that He loved and forgave all of them, and they did not know the significance of that love and forgiveness.

Those are the some of of the things that they probably did not know. Those are not
“excuses” unless I am pushing the argument that because of such lack of knowledge they were to be “excused” from being punished by natural consequence or their own consciences. For all we know, they would have still suffered natural consequences and guilt even though they were forgiven by Jesus.

These are not “rationalizations”, nor have I offered any rationalizations for any other case or scenario, for the motive is not one of excusing people from consequence. The intent of rationalization is to condone or excuse behavior, and I have done neither.

…so pray for a forgiving heart and then the forgiveness will come from The Eternal Merciful Heart - a grace-filled deeper level than what even our consciousness can understand - and not just from the calculations of the human mind only.

Best wishes and thanks again.

Thank you!

 

[friardchips]

I should have said “purely evil,” as opposed to it containing any long term positive effects.

That is not why “pure evil” doesn’t make sense.

God bringing good (increased spiritual awareness) out evil (porn addition) is in fact His allowing (using?) evil to bring about good. I see nothing wrong with it.

"He doesn’t “allow” porn. I have used that word in the sense of ‘allowed for’. This means He is aware of who we are and what we are like. Not that He “allows porn”. We are in each moment when in grace that which He allows. He does bring us back despite our mistakes. He only allows for evil because testing can bring us back, yet He always gives us the means and grace to overcome any temptation. To not commit sin and defy evil is to reciprocate in small measure the eternal love He has for us.

I think you are talking about suffering and how suffering can sanctify us. This is true. He allows suffering. But evil is evil. The consequence of evil - suffering - is justified (He is with the suffering in a special way), but evil action - the cause of suffering - is not justified and when committed requires His forgiveness.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Is the knowledge of good and evil qualitatively different from “good” and “evil” in and of themselves? Again, I see that good and evil work together in our world. For example, most of us here would probably say that porn is pure evil, but I suspect that for some, with the help of God’s grace, it leads to a heightened spiritual awareness that could not have been possible otherwise.

We are not infallible, Robert; so, we can always be wrong when we think something is good, or evil.

On the other hand, as you live only once, you can never know if something could have been possible for you otherwise.

 

[Sephero]

I read somewhere else here that, God never tempts man, but the Devil can ask permission of God to tempt someone. I’m guessing this is from the story of Job.

However, if the Devil must ask Gods permission to attempt to make man sin, how exactly is the Devil warring against God?

Must the Devil ask Gods permission for every little tactic he has to bring as much evil into the world as possible?

It doesn’t sound like he is totally off the leash causing as much obstructive chaos as possible, it sounds like he is only being allowed to do as much as God permits him to?

Sounds like a tightly controlled system by God, on the one who instigates the evils in the world. So wouldn’t this mean as one of the posters here has been saying, that evil (defined by the lack of a good that should be there) is being allowed by God, by giving permission to the Devil, to temp us?

This is definitely one understanding we have of temptation anyways. Also that we are never tempted more than we can bare?

Also, when was the first Sin actually committed, was it when Eve disobeyed God, and ate the fruit?

If this happened before the knowledge of Good and Evil occurred, couldn’t we say that Eve had no sense that what she was doing was Evil, that is disobeying God. Would not this make her blameless? Having, not had the understanding that what she was about to do was going to lead to a whole host of evil for a long time, and for a very many people. Meaning her act was evil, but how could she have known?

She did not know what she was about to do was wrong. As someone said here that before the ‘fall’ there was only good. How did she know what she was making a bad decision?

This is something I struggle with also in my faith. The whole thing is wrapped up with a very undefined “enemy”, who at one moment, is a talking dragon? (post-curse), snake, who then also is referred to as Lucifer, briefly in some passage that is originally talking about a King, who then appears in the Gods court (I thought he was banished?) to ask permission to temp us humans, to eventually some grand arch enemy who is wrecking havoc on creation? Who is somehow, though no one knows specifically how (many theories) is defeated by Jesus Christ on the cross.

Very hard to get it all into a cohesive logical picture, don’t you think?

Also, who is responsible for all the ‘natural’ evils in the world, like being crushed by bus, or the flu?

Wasn’t a part of our punishment that ‘thorns grew on roses’? Creation itself fell from a state of perfect good, so has evil inherent in it is it? But that was a choice of punishment God willed on us for disobeying him?

Many thanks,
Mark

 

[friardchips]

I read somewhere else here that, God never tempts man, but the Devil can ask permission of God to tempt someone. I’m guessing this is from the story of Job.

However, if the Devil must ask Gods permission to attempt to make man sin, how exactly is the Devil warring against God?

Must the Devil ask Gods permission for every little tactic he has to bring as much evil into the world as possible?

It doesn’t sound like he is totally off the leash causing as much obstructive chaos as possible, it sounds like he is only being allowed to do as much as God permits him to?

Sounds like a tightly controlled system by God, on the one who instigates the evils in the world. So wouldn’t this mean as one of the posters here has been saying, that evil (defined by the lack of a good that should be there) is being allowed by God, by giving permission to the Devil, to temp us?

This is definitely one understanding we have of temptation anyways. Also that we are never tempted more than we can bare?

Also, when was the first Sin actually committed, was it when Eve disobeyed God, and ate the fruit?

If this happened before the knowledge of Good and Evil occurred, couldn’t we say that Eve had no sense that what she was doing was Evil, that is disobeying God. Would not this make her blameless? Having, not had the understanding that what she was about to do was going to lead to a whole host of evil for a long time, and for a very many people. Meaning her act was evil, but how could she have known?

She did not know what she was about to do was wrong. As someone said here that before the ‘fall’ there was only good. How did she know what she was making a bad decision?

This is something I struggle with also in my faith. The whole thing is wrapped up with a very undefined “enemy”, who at one moment, is a talking dragon? (post-curse), snake, who then also is referred to as Lucifer, briefly in some passage that is originally talking about a King, who then appears in the Gods court (I thought he was banished?) to ask permission to temp us humans, to eventually some grand arch enemy who is wrecking havoc on creation? Who is somehow, though no one knows specifically how (many theories) is defeated by Jesus Christ on the cross.

Very hard to get it all into a cohesive logical picture, don’t you think?

Also, who is responsible for all the ‘natural’ evils in the world, like being crushed by bus, or the flu?

Wasn’t a part of our punishment that ‘thorns grew on roses’? Creation itself fell from a state of perfect good, so has evil inherent in it is it? But that was a choice of punishment God willed on us for disobeying him?

Many thanks,
Mark

Good post. Like it.

Job is only a story. Yet he is an archetype for us.

Knowledge of satan has grown in the minds of Jews and Christians. And the books of the OT are not necessarily in the right order. All we need to know is that our Lord said: “He was a murderer from the beginning” and He also said “I’ve just seen satan fall from the sky”. Or something that effect. So we know that Lucifer was the most radiant angel and fell. Because he is a fallen angel we know he has been around for some time, before humans were created - “…from the beginning”, and so he must have fallen “…from the skies” by the time he tempted Eve to also tempt Adam. Creation has been in existence a long time before Humans existed. satan is restricted by his abilities as the most powerful fallen angel according to his state in existence in relation to our state in existence - both, in relation to the Creator. satan is of the realms and dominions - he is spirit, not human.

As for Eve, she was given a choice. Before she chose to tempt Adam with the temptation put into her head by satan (originally known as Lucifer before he fell), both she and Adam were explicitly told not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. So she went against her conscience. Maybe we could see this as an analysis of the human conscience (?!). But because they were both explicitly told not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, we could say that they had been given the instruction they needed, and so their consciences were formed in the way they needed to be, enough to make an informed decision not to eat from the Tree and instead trust in the Creator: Do this because this is good for you and don’t do this because it is not - trusting in the Creator.

Doing evil and being tempted to do evil are two different possibilities which, as you said, our Creator has ‘allowed for’.

I believe you are right when you say that we are given what we need. This is in Scripture.

 

[friardchips]

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm

‘387 Only the light of divine Revelation clarifies the reality of sin and particularly of the sin committed at mankind’s origins. Without the knowledge Revelation gives of God we cannot recognize sin clearly and are tempted to explain it as merely a developmental flaw, a psychological weakness, a mistake, or the necessary consequence of an inadequate social structure, etc. Only in the knowledge of God’s plan for man can we grasp that sin is an abuse of the freedom that God gives to created persons so that they are capable of loving him and loving one another.’

---

…in order to explain the last part of your post, Mark, we have to remember that creation is quite a complex system.

When sin came into the world so did the loss of full knowledge or rather a pull from sanctity.

In order for humans to exist, the earth needs to be a system that is self-sustaining, as well as being toiled effectively. The earth needs to do what it does in order to evolve or keep going - the cycle of life etc…sometimes we are directly in the way of a natural event - or by humans terms, a ‘disaster’.

Disease can be psychological or even demonic, and is part of the disease of death itself.

It is a question, that had Adam and Eve not sinned, would they have been in a state of eternal health on this earth, or would it have been that they would have lived and died as all creatures do but without the risk of spiritual death - we know that the bodies of saints that die in the Odor of Sanctity are preserved from decay, but they still die. However, we also know that earth was made “good” and that Adam and Eve were turned out of the ‘Garden of Eden’, a special place of sanctity, and so, therefore, one could attribute the Garden of Eden to a spiritual sanctity that is so paramount to our existence that it also affects our bodily state. We are told also that we get back our bodies at the end of time. I would imagine our bodies though would be different to what they are now because we would have been eternally sanctified meaning no death could hurt us in any respect (spiritual or physical).

 

[Sephero]

Oh hey again friardchips!

Knowledge of satan has grown in the minds of Jews and Christians. And the books of the OT are not necessarily in the right order. All we need to know is that our Lord said: “He was a murderer from the beginning”

Ok problem here, if we say that Satan’s dominion is only possible by the actual permission of God, are we not saying here that Satan was given permission to Murder?

So you see, at some points, we see Satan as an actual enemy of God, instigating Evil in the world. He seems to be actively, intelligently, coming up with a plan, against God. Isn’t this the reason Jesus Christ had to become incarnate, to defeat the works of Satan.

But why must he have become incarnate, if God is the one who sets the limits on Satan? It seems as if God chose to become incarnate, so as to defeat Satan. Why do you need to defeat someone who is under your dominion?

I have read this page several times over the past year, and it really doesn’t come any clearer each time I read it. It’s the Catholic Encyclopaedia page on Satan

newadvent.org/cathen/04764a.htm

So the whole faith, and reality we currently live in and are experiencing, is actually due to this angel we now call Satan.

since this sin itself is ascribed to the instigation of the Devil: “By the envy of the Devil, death came into the world”

Yet, if we read that page, things are patchy, and flaky to say the least!

Mention is made of the Devil in many passages of the Old and New Testaments, but there is no full account given in any one place, and the Scripture teaching on this topic can only be ascertained by combining a number of scattered notices from Genesis to Apocalypse,

Now I want to believe, I do, but I feel that in some way, it has to at least make some sense!

If we can’t get a clear understanding of the one who got us here in the first place, and how this one actually operates, and why it was required that Jesus Christ must become incarnate to defeat him, it makes it much harder to believe. Also, we do not know actually how Jesus Christ defeated him, there are many theories (penal sub, ransom etc), this is another thing that bothers me, surely we should know how he was defeated. But now when I look at the patchy data we have on Satan, it doesn’t surprise me why it is unclear how exactly Jesus defeated him.

As is clear from the page also, we have no idea what the first sin of Satan was, seems like Pride is what has been settled on. However it really makes no sense to me how an Angel created, ‘Good’ could actually have the potential in him to choose anything but God/Love. We say they were given free will, but why, or even how could a spiritual being created inherently Good, choose to a lesser Good than the Greatest good, unless the potential to choose this evil, were not all ready a potential in him.

Also as is pointed out on the page, the angels are extremely intelligent, it seems to me that choosing anything less than God Himself, is an extremely stupid choice to make.

And this decision that seems to make no sense, essentially petters down to the created realm, where Satan (who has now fallen) is still for some reason, allowed to mess around and cause mayhem, and essentially bring upon us the very situation we have now, with all the evil and all.

Regarding Eve, we could say that until the moment she was told by Satan, that the fruit was fine to eat, she was obedient to God. Now along comes a spiritual being who essentially is evil in his nature, as he has turned away from God, comes to Eve, who at this point apparently doesn’t even know what evil is, and says you can eat from this tree, and it will make you like God knowing good and evil.

So, well this makes absolutely no sense, that is if we are saying she literally did not know what good, and evil was. In a sense, she didn’t know A) who God was, being perfect goodness, and she had no idea she was speaking to an evil being. Again she was tempted by evil, yet did not know evil. I would still consider her state blameless, she did not know literally, that what she was about to do was evil, or would result in evil.

 

[Sephero]

So she went against her conscience. Maybe we could see this as an analysis of the human conscience (?!). But because they were both explicitly told not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, we could say that they had been given the instruction they needed, and so their consciences were formed in the way they needed to be, enough to make an informed decision not to eat from the Tree and instead trust in the Creator: Do this because this is good for you and don’t do this because it is not

This doesn’t make sense, in order to make an informed decision, they would have had to have known what good is. As you said yourself: “Do this because this is good for you and don’t do this because it is not”

They had no knowledge of what Good was. That’s not what God said though he said, you will surely die. But this still means, that Adam and Eve would have had to have had knowledge of what death actually was. But death, is the result of sin, of choosing evil, so they could not know what death actually was, or meant, since they had no understanding of evil in the first place.

Lot of problems here.

I think that if the tree simply stood for Knowledge, things would be much easier. Adam and Eve knew Good and Evil, but didn’t have their own knowledge of it, only the knowledge imputed to them by God, which should be sufficient in itself. However, they were tempted by Satan to try and head out on their own, to gather knowledge of Reality on their own, to decide for themselves what they might make of Good and Evil. To take a reality upon themselves, to govern themselves etc.

In the eastern traditions, Maya (which we could say they ascribe to the ‘fallen’, essentially illusory reality, (since God alone is the Real) of this world), can mean to measure, and if we look at how we have gained our knowledge, it is all to do with measuring, quantifying, dividing, etc. So perhaps the tree of Knowledge had to be followed by a fall away from wholeness (Spiritual death), and a Reality given to us that we would experience and use this ‘Knowledge’ for a time. But it is this Knowledge, that is keeping us from experiencing the Truth, as we continue to measure, and quantify, we build ourselves a prison, and come up with theories of Modern Science, to give us our understanding, and view on Reality, which is a completely false one.

I have yet to ponder, along these lines, how the bodily sacrifice, in Jesus Christ, restores us with the Truth, and God. Perhaps its a realignment to the correct vision of Reality, not one that is quantifiable, and a ‘Big Bang Theory’, but one that is alive, and mysterious, and one that ends in a utterly inconceivably beautiful way. That True Life is not random molecules bumping into each other, but is actually in the body, in the breath, in the vision of the Heart, in Love.

Still though, from a plain reading of the Garden, it begs an awful lot of questions, especially if we say Adam and Eve, literally did not know what Good and Evil was.

Mark