What exactly is the knowledge of good and evil?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Sock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lets start with this. Evil cannot have an existence of it’s own, apart from good, because everything was originally created by God, and* everything *God created was/is good.
Isaiah 45:7 - “I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things.” (Douay-Rheims)

How do you reconcile this with the belief that everything created by God was good?
 
Isaiah 45:7 - “I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things.” (Douay-Rheims)

How do you reconcile this with the belief that everything created by God was good?
With all the other 29000 or so verses in scripture, which in context tell us that evil is the result of the abuse of free will by men and angels. If God created evil, especially moral evil, aka “sin”, then for all practical purposes there’s no difference between good and evil, heaven and hell, God and satan, because God directly willed and caused it all.
 
In which case God would not be worthy of worship, there’s no ultimate good for us to seek after, and salvation is a joke-saved from what?
 
I don’t think it’s a good idea to make excuses for people who are willfully turning to evil. A very very slippery slope.
Hi Christine,

We are definitely in the same camp about not “making excuses for people”.👍

You can tell when someone is making excuses, because the end of his statement is something like “therefore, consequence should be withheld or lightened” or something like that.

There is a tremendous difference between using the Gift of Understanding toward why people behave the way they do and trying to keep consequences from happening to a person.

It is the difference between a “reason” and an “excuse”.

No excuses!🙂
 
Isaiah 45:7 - “I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things.” (Douay-Rheims)

How do you reconcile this with the belief that everything created by God was good?
You need to read this in context with what was being expressed.

Life is a paradox. Through choosing to sin, to do evil, we chose suffering, or rather, our first parents did. The consequence being that suffering, enjoined to our Creator, is the only way to participate in our salvation. If we choose to ignore this path, this Cross, then we choose to ignore the means to salvation. Any evil we suffer which is offered up is redemptive and a good when compared with escaping suffering. He gives us what we can handle bit by bit. This is redemptive and better than having to suffer for a long time in purgatory. We are vulnerable to the flow and ebb of our Creator’s Creation, which was made good but subject to a darkening, and which He Himself made Himself the servant of, though with Divine authority, to hold our hand through it.

Our Creator allows evil as He allows correction. Correction means suffering. Suffering can be redemptive if we offer it up. Suffering when offered up sanctifies us and helps us to grow in humility. It is necessary as a consequence of Original Sin. In life, all can point to Him, or in the case of evil, point towards the need for Him. But it is creation and the devil and our imperfection which brings suffering; however, the closer people get to our Creator, the more suffering they choose to accept in gratitude. In the wider context of everything, all is in our Creator. But because our Creator is eternal, we either move closer towards Him, in life, and then in Heaven, forever with Him, or we ignore Him in this life or do those things opposed to Him, that still exists in Him, but a facing away of Him - and some of those things point to an eternal turning away unless corrected - and then in Hell forever for eternity facing away from Him. Evil is love inverted. So hell on earth and the place Hell after we are dead are still in existence due to His eternal grace. Because those in Hell do not experience His presence, does not mean that Hell - this place to be kept from those who are sanctified - does not exist.

Evil exists as possibilities, for manifestations of imperfect expressions, measured up to the reality of Him who is perfect, because He created everything, but within that everything, is the possibility of facing the other way - the freewill to be ungrateful.

I apologise for imperfections in this imagery:

Take the image of a round cake and call that love. Even if a crumb from that cake becomes loosened - and call that the consequences of evil - although now separated from the main consistency, it does not mean that the original substance of the cake has changed or that the crumb has evaporated or become part of some alien substance. It is still a crumb from that cake and made of the same ingredients. The main cake will get richer with time, like a good wine, but a crumb that is not of the whole will lose its flavour also like an opened and non-drank bottle of wine. It ceases to be part of the cake while being of the cake. We could call Hell itself a place that exists outside of being able to feel in any way our Creator’s Love. This place still exists in His grace but these souls eternally die. He is eternal. They face away from Him eternally, but still in Him, at the furthermost reaches of His justice. Those in Heaven exist within the innermost reaches of His Mercy. In His justice, those in Heaven participated in His mercy and experience His love, and in Hell, are those who did not accept His mercy and so appear to experience none.

Other posters please correct where necessary.
 
…and yet, to elucidate on more finite terms, we still need to understand a little clearer the concept of time.
 
Isaiah 45:7 - “I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things.” (Douay-Rheims)

How do you reconcile this with the belief that everything created by God was good?
Robert since you were seven years old, you must have known the difference between right and wrong. Why do people, when they are adults, suddenly lose their moral compass? Because they are trying to justify their own bad behavior - that’s why! I think it’s totally ridiculous to say you don’t know the meaning of good and evil. As a matter of fact, that is what Satan wants - goofballs!
 
Isaiah 45:7 - “I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things.” (Douay-Rheims)

How do you reconcile this with the belief that everything created by God was good?
Though this is far beyond any philosophical reflection, Robert’s question seems appealing and challenging: How do we reconcile these two biblical texts?:

“And God saw all the things that he had made, and they were very good.” (Genesis 1:31)

And

“I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things.” (Isaiah 45:7)

I am sure there are many other biblical texts that, due to different reasons, would need to be reconciled. To make things harder, we would have to reconcile those texts in such a way as to be convincing to everybody. To do that, we would have to offer a kind of logical rigorous argument based on certain axioms and certain inference rules. If we don’t, we could be arguing for an eternity without final agreement. Is that rigorous argument possible? If not, Robert’s appealing question becomes a non-sense. Well… I think such decisive argument is not possible.

Robert has insisted that there cannot be an opposition between “good” and “evil”. Nothing can be opposed to God, because He is all powerful. Satan knows it very well, and he is remarkably intelligent; so, Satan must be God’s collaborator. And -extending Robert’s “argument”-, every “evil-doer” must be God’s collaborator as well. I guess Robert would agree that, if there is someone who at some point in his life does “good”, he is a collaborator too. So, it would turn out that “evil” is just a word with which we designate something which is a specific kind of “good”. Thinking otherwise is an error… however…

Error is evil,
but God creates evil,
therefore error is created by God.

Does this “doctrine” reconcile apparently opposed biblical texts? I think that Robert would have to explain why God cursed his collaborators the serpent, Adam and Eve, and called Adam disobedient after all of them evidently fulfilled his will, for nothing can really be opposed to it -always according to Robert.
 
It’s tempting to say that God the good and Satan is the evil, but notice especially that it does not state good versus evil, which would imply two Gods, and thus be heresy. No, we live in a world of good and evil. I feel that the good and evil work in conjunction with each other.

According to the Jewish Tanya, there exists two souls within us: The animal soul and the divine soul, which is similar to what Freud termed the id and superego, respectively. Our goal in life, according to the Tanya, is to crush the animal soul, similar to the way we are commanded to mortify the self in Christianity. This may be related to the knowledge of good and evil, but I feel that there is more to it.

Something tells me that to understand this is beyond our grasp, but well worth noting.
God permits evil for a greater good. The jewish tanya is bunk. We, Catholics, know it is concupiscience due to the stain of Original Sin. There is no “animal” soul. The whole jewish tradition after Christ is just felonious junk; criminally asinine. The jews were trying to come up with a competing reason to why people want to do evil. A great number of jews think God made us with an evil impulse! Yes ridiculous! :rolleyes: :doh2::doh2::doh2::doh2:

SIN = EVIL. It is knowledge of SIN aka EVIL. The seven deadly sins for example.
 
Yes, they suffer with evil inclinations. That is all we need to know. And hope they can, for their sake, and for the sake of others, learn and change, just as we hope for ourselves.
Hello!

Evil inclinations? Evil intent? Very difficult to find when scrutinized. Can you provide an example? It’s hard.
Revenge and torture is not up to humanity to dish out except where there is just defence or a just war is the only option. Whether or not you perceive such implements to have initially been thought up to be of service for something constructive, or not.
The end does not justify the means.
Yes, we should not “dish out” revenge and torture, that is the conscience we should have. However, humans are compelled to exact revenge by their consciences (in the form of punishment) and both revenge and torture have a common element of blindness-induced resentment.

Ends-and-means has to do with discipline, which is a reaction to our nature. We are discussing human nature. Yes, a disciplinary reaction to our nature is also natural, but neither the nature inclination to punish what we see as wrongdoing nor the conscience reaction to that inclination are of “evil intent” or “evil inclination”,
I didn’t mean that you were intentionally judging! But by saying that you know that people do things out of goodwill initially, this acclamation becomes a sort of judgement, of the soul. But for argument’s sake, let’s say your statement is an inspired assertion, so, as a wise person said today, we are all, everyone, hoping for “happiness”, and this is every person’s innermost desire. We do agree there are evil acts and I go further and say that there can be evil inspirations and so evil intentions as there can be evil thoughts and evil dreams - our very motivations can be evil, depending on how you term evil; nevertheless, neither of us disagree that every single human being that has ever lived, who does live, or that will live, will not desire, before they are at the stage of understanding “what happiness is” (to badly quote this same person again), “happiness”. This allows is to have hope for all people. I would say that most people don’t intend to do bad things but end up going down strange paths and become entangled in their own mess. You’d probably agree?!
Well, I say that all people do not have evil intent. The things they intend to do are either not bad in their eyes, or they are seeing some net good in the act. I am still waiting for that example of “evil intent” and also “evil inclination” and now “evil motive”. Please provide an example to illustrate.
Ruthlessness can go deep. I would not sum up traffickers by giving them a label. In the cases of various crimes against humanity, to be brought back from such a spiral of evil, and such a wall of “blindness” (as you say), takes miracles. But I believe in miracles. And what, with it being All Saint’s Day, not a better day to say it!
In terms of info. on slavery, there are a host of charitable organisations from which we can learn - The Medaille Trust is just one. Read the first hand accounts of victims. However, St. Paul helps us by saying not to look directly at the storm, or focus on the storm, but to instead focus on the Cross. This way, we always have hope that people, no what matter what the circumstance, can change, just as we hold that same hope for ourselves. And sometimes we might then be in the right place at the right time to participate in bringing those changes about.
Okay, but how deep does the “ruthlessness” go? Not very deep. We need an example to work on. Wait, we had examples and I addressed them. Your retort has been one of right discipline, not addressing my statements about intent.

Do you see there is what we should do, and what actually happens? All can be understood, right?
 
Are you a doctor? This book is not as widely read as it could (or should) be:
'The Hand of God’ by Bernard N. Nathanson M.D
  • please read this, it is quite short, and it is not that expensive.
    It is up to us to participate in spiritual growth for a well-formed conscience, all generously given to us via grace.
Yes, we are to have well-formed consciences, but in understanding people we have to consider that most people have something lacking in their conscience, and we are also subject to blindness, which blocks empathy and the conscience itself.
Only if you make excuses for apparent grey areas.

behaves in such a way that does not protect the rights of people according to true and just laws for the common good, commits evil or is committing evil.
I would most definitely not suggest (though the devil might) going to live in Russia or the Middle East, and then analysing to what degree your opinion might have changed, or grown, upon arrival back home.
We can agree on evil acts. What is not coming up here is evil intent or motivation.
And evil inspirations. The devil puts ideas into people’s heads. “Blindness and ignorance” can be used as an excuse for a lot in life - intentionally or unintentionally. I would however, leave these things up to our Creator to judge, and concentrate on having hope for all. But don’t be complacent either. And this doesn’t mean standing still, unless you wish to be a contemplative monk, but even then, prayer is active.
Please give an example of an “evil inspiration”, and we can scrutinize from where it comes!🙂
I have read accounts of Freemasons. Try finding the edition of a magazine called: ‘Love One Another Magazine’. There was an article in there about this guy who was a Grandmaster of a particular ranch of FMs, or whatever you call these places, and was converted to Christianity when in a Chapel at Lourdes. FMs may think of the Dogmas of the Church as untrue, but such false inspiration and beliefs, are inspired by evil and by the devil. Anyone who is consciously and especially militantly opposed to Our Lady is, on some level, inspired and confused by the devil. If you don’t believe in evil inspirations then you don’t believe in exorcisms. And if you don’t believe in the devil then you can’t understand the salvific work of our Saviour. Even if such and such a person thinks they are right, they are still a representation of evil, if they are purposefully opposing our Creator, because, to some degree or other, we all have some kind of moral compass, and even if this moral compass is battered and not working, we can still be judged by it. Original Sin did not render man absolutely evil and so unable to take account of our actions. It darkened our higher knowledge. Fortunately, humanity is offered the Mercy of our Creator, and this invitation is open to all.
Hmmm. A Catholic does not have to believe in a devil to understand the salvific work of our savior. Regardless of the source, evil occurs in this world, therefore the need for salvation… Two sources of power is dualism, and one source is monism. There is a place for both dualism and monism in the Church. It is not either/or but both/and. In any case, salvation comes from God incarnate, our Lord Jesus. Are you favoring the “two power” approach?
Envy. Jealousy, spitefulness, greed etc…either way, people can and do. For selfish reasons. Whenever communism or fascism or any kind of supressive governmental system takes hold, the destruction of religious material is one of the first signs, of bad things to come. And any person who orchestrates such things is purposefully choosing to go against the Creator. In as much as one can intend to go against the Creator, if not making the excuses of “ignorance and blindness”, as you said. When all is said and done, if people receive and experience the forgiveness of the Creator, then it is likely that the destructive force of evil decreases, or lessens in severity, which is committed socially on a daily basis (I would guess, anyway), eventually leading to a ‘good’ life with no mortal sins committed.
Yes, envy, jealousy, spitefulness, selfishness and greed may be involved in a person leading others away from our Creator, but none of these in themselves will lead to that behavior if blindness or ignorance is not involved. People do not hurt people that they care about. When we don’t care about people, it is because of resentment-induced blindness and/or ignorance. In the case of satanism, FMs, etc., the blindness toward the good of the Church is induced by resentment of the institution or the doctrines, and their “leading away” is not intended to hurt, but to help.

A big part of the blindness is the perception that the devil is leading Catholicism, which is common in some protestant denominations and probably in FMs.

Indeed, much war is justified when we see another nation or government as “evil” and worthy of destruction. This is more blindness.
Happy All Saint’s Day!
And to you also!🙂
 
Hello!

Evil inclinations? Evil intent?
catechism.cc/articles/QA.htm

'*(1) the intention or purpose for which the act is done,
(2) the inherent moral meaning of the act as determined by its moral object,
(3) the circumstances of the act, especially the consequences.

To be moral, each and every act must have three good fonts of morality. The intention must be good, the moral object must be good, and the good consequences must outweigh any bad consequences. If any one font is bad, the act is immoral.** If an act is immoral due to a bad intention, the same type of act may be moral with a good intention**. If an act is immoral due to the circumstances, the same type of act may be moral in different circumstances.

But when an act has an evil moral object, the act is inherently immoral, in other words, the act is evil, in and of itself, apart from intention and circumstances. Every intrinsically evil act has an inherent moral meaning (the moral species) which is contrary to the moral law of God.** Intrinsically evil acts are never justified by intention** or circumstances because the moral species (the type of act in terms of morality) is inherently unjust.

Pope John Paul II: "But the negative moral precepts, those prohibiting certain concrete actions or kinds of behavior as intrinsically evil, do not allow for any legitimate exception. They do not leave room, in any morally acceptable way, for the “creativity” of any contrary determination whatsoever. Once the moral species of an action prohibited by a universal rule is concretely recognized, the only morally good act is that of obeying the moral law and of refraining from the action which it forbids." (Veritatis Splendor, n. 67).

Intrinsically evil acts are always immoral, and are never justified by intention, or by circumstances, or by other knowingly chosen acts.’*

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm

THE MORALITY OF HUMAN ACTS

1749 Freedom makes man a moral subject. When he acts deliberately, man is, so to speak, the father of his acts. Human acts, that is, acts that are freely chosen in consequence of a judgment of conscience, can be morally evaluated. They are either good or evil.

1750 The morality of human acts depends on:
  • the object chosen;
  • the end in view or the intention;
  • the circumstances of the action.
The object,** the intention**, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.

1751** The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act**. The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good. Objective norms of morality express the rational order of good and evil, attested to by conscience.

1752 In contrast to the object, the intention resides in the acting subject. Because it lies at the voluntary source of an action and determines it by its end, intention is an element essential to the moral evaluation of an action.

The end is the first goal of the intention and indicates the purpose pursued in the action.
 
cont…
*
'**The intention is a movement of the will toward the end: it is concerned with the goal of the activity. **It aims at the good anticipated from the action undertaken. Intention is not limited to directing individual actions, but can guide several actions toward one and the same purpose; it can orient one’s whole life toward its ultimate end. For example, a service done with the end of helping one’s neighbor can at the same time be inspired by the love of God as the ultimate end of all our actions. One and the same action can also be inspired by several intentions, such as performing a service in order to obtain a favor or to boast about it.

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means.** Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving**).39

1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; **they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.
**
II. GOOD ACTS AND EVIL ACTS

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).

The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.’*

The common denominator we are discussing here is the ‘moral species’.
 
Hmmm. A Catholic does not have to believe in a devil to understand the salvific work of our savior.
Yes, one does need to believe evil is real, and the devil is real in order to understand.

Dualism has nothing to do with it.

 
Correction:

The common denominator we are discussing here is the ‘moral species’ - ‘moral good’ and ‘moral evil’.

Christine77 spoke about “not making excuses” (true).

The intent is defined in its objective and from that we estimate the outcome of what we deem to be ‘good’.

So the deciding factor (I think) is whether we deem the objective at the outset to be good for ourselves at the risk of destroying others or the intent for an objective that is at the benefit of us and others - a moral good or a moral evil.

JuanFlorencio spoke about assessing what is good or evil in relation to those around us -I still want to respond to that post when I get the chance - but the choices we make for good or bad, selfish or unselfish can affect others even when not around them (will come to that).

I think the Catechism clears it up. I’d say that because we are talking about two words together, either ‘moral good’ or ‘moral evil’ - the ‘species’ of the act - then people are seeing some good hoped for in objective with intention as the initial vision and the initial motivation - bound together - but in the case of wanting some ‘good’, this ‘good outcome’ based on moral law, can actually be ‘evil’. And this seems to be when intentions are gravely selfish in their reach, in contrast to the Divine benevolence of our eternal omnipotent Creator.

So we are talking about the meaning of ‘good’: what is possibly ‘good’ only for ourselves, our egos, our supposed benefit, as we interpet ‘good’ to be - which can actually be ‘evil’ when taken to certain mortal extremes - or we can intend a good all round that is a moral good in objective and so too in intention.

However, good, in the eternal sense, is not evil. And Truth is not relative according to people’s own views of what ‘good’ is - moral good is eternal.

This is what I gauge from the Catechsim.
 
Robert since you were seven years old, you must have known the difference between right and wrong. Why do people, when they are adults, suddenly lose their moral compass? Because they are trying to justify their own bad behavior - that’s why! I think it’s totally ridiculous to say you don’t know the meaning of good and evil. As a matter of fact, that is what Satan wants - goofballs!
If it’s that simple, define them for me.
 
Please read the Catechism!
  • the ‘moral species’ - the rest is up to you to learn.
CHRIST. My son, carefully observe the impulses of nature and grace, for these are opposed one to another, and work in so subtle a manner that even a spiritual, holy and enlightened man can hardly distinguish them.
“The Imitation of Christ,” Book 3, Chapter 54

Any definition must distinguish between these impulses. Most of the posts here simply state morals or behaviors, without a good definition. The above quote points to a somewhat different definition, but it still lacks a good explanation. Are the impulses of nature “evil?” Did Adam and Eve go from a state of experiencing the supernatural to experience things purely naturally? I’m probably the minority in my thoughts and suspicions, but I think Adam and Eve became human animals when God clothed them in garments of skin.
 
From this post, after everything that’s been contributed, I am beginning to wonder whether this thread was just a joke from the outset?

:confused:
No joke. The sin of Adam and Eve is still a great mystery to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top