Why did god design us so badly?

[davidv]

So are you saying something can be perfect even if it has the ability to not give love?

Why do you say “something”? We are speaking of persons. It is also not clear what you mean by “perfect”. In my view of Catholic thinking “perfect” means to have one’s will in perfect harmony with God’s will. In other words, without sin. In this sense, when we chose sin we are imperfect.

Again, this would make sense from the standpoint of your religion. Your god could be considered perfect even if it possesses the ability to withhold its love, which would mean that your god possesses evil, even though it is perfect.

Our God (yours and mine) cannot withhold his love. There can be no evil in Him. Why do you think so? Why do limit God’s being to that which is human?

And I’m not trying to be smart, just logically proceeding from what you are saying and then applying that within your religion.

So then regards the OP, we have less than perfect bodies, religiously speaking, because your god, while still perfect, incorporated evil, the ability to withhold love, within its creations. Our bodies would still be perfect, even though they contained evil, if we had not exercised this god given ability to withhold love.

God did not incorporate evil. We did that to ourselves. Our bodies were created “good”.

So even though we have the ability to withhold love that does not make us imperfect, but only if we exercise that god given ability, which we did. Yes?

The ability to sin does not cause us to sin.

And the reason we were given this ability to withhold love, evil, is that without it we wouldn’t really be able to love and to know what love is.

Is that it?

Yes

And so when we get our new perfect bodies, they will still contain this evil.

No. It didn’t “contain it” in the first place.

So I think I understand what you are saying.

I don’t think you understood me. See above.

But didn’t we just make a great big circle insofar as your soteriology and entire religion is concerned? For if perfection necessarily contains evil, even after an alleged final judgment where the good and bad are separated once and for all, what prevents evil from happening again and all those reglorified perfect bodies from becoming imperfect again?

There is no circle because you made a false assumption that the body by necessity contains evil. Evil is not necessary, nor compatible with perfection.

 

[fhansen]

But didn’t we just make a great big circle insofar as your soteriology and entire religion is concerned? For if perfection necessarily contains evil, even after an alleged final judgment where the good and bad are separated once and for all, what prevents evil from happening again and all those reglorified perfect bodies from becoming imperfect again?

Catholic thought on evil is that it was made possible by combining creation with freedom- in the form of man or angels. Freedom is a good which we all cherish. Creation (our existence) is good but not perfect in that it is not God. And therein lies the recipe for the fall which can be characterized as man rejecting Gods rightful authority to determine right and wrong for His creation and thereby man rejecting God, thereby man rejecting LOVE as being the highest of all goods. By rejecting God, we find ourselves in a godless world where we can find out if life, where human freedom reigns supreme and where we come to know good along with evil, is really a life worth living in the end. The “experience of God”, where humans have been given a glimpse of His immediate presence, the presence BTW which Adam & Eve experienced as a matter of course, confirms what we’ve been taught about God as love, a love so powerful and unconditional that humans should never want for anything more once they learn of it. But a love which we can also reject. God never rejected man-it’s always been the other way around.

 

[BlaineTog]

One cannot experience the opportunity to eat if there is no food. Only if food is present can the opportunity to eat present itself.

And the strawman is that evil is not the food but the act of eating. Evil is not material, nor is it supernatural, but is action and intent. It is the absence of good, not the presence of non-good. This is partially why light is used as a metaphor for good so often: because darkness then is evil, and darkness is nothing. It literally does not exist as a thing. It is a vacuum.

That’s contradictory. You are asserting that a designer, a perfect designer, designed these bodies, these perfect bodies, but also knew they were going to become corrupted? Again, that’s contradictory. If they were susceptible to corruption they were imperfect from the start.

They are imperfect insofar as they are not God, who is perfect without qualification. Humans aren’t “perfect,” but they are “perfect godlings.” It would be impossible to create a people who were better at becoming the best godlings than humans. We could have done better than we did, but ultimately the best will come of it all.

So are you saying something can be perfect even if it has the ability to not give love?

Again, this would make sense from the standpoint of your religion. Your god could be considered perfect even if it possesses the ability to withhold its love, which would mean that your god possesses evil, even though it is perfect.

Withholding wuzzy fuzzy feelings of oh-isn’t-he-so-cute-here’s-a-cookie isn’t the same as evil. God always loves us; sometimes, it just happens to be tough love.

For if perfection necessarily contains evil,

The creation of perfect gods necessarily contains the opportunity for them to choose to not become gods, which is called evil, which is “action and intent” rather than a component or a drug…

even after an alleged final judgment where the good and bad are separated once and for all, what prevents evil from happening again and all those reglorified perfect bodies from becoming imperfect again?

They will have chosen to be good for eternity, and not in the “sold your soul” sense but in the “one choice stretched in both directions forever” sense which is hard to get across given how locked in to our temporal viewpoint we are, but kinda works, I hope.

 

[ateista]

And the strawman is that evil is not the food but the act of eating. Evil is not material, nor is it supernatural, but is action and intent. It is the absence of good, not the presence of non-good.

You contradict yourself.

If evil is “action and intent” (which I agree with) then it is not the “lack or absence of good”. It is not an object, of course, but it is an action - a physical action - intended to hurt, intended to cause harm. Therefore it is the presence of “not good”.

This is partially why light is used as a metaphor for good so often: because darkness then is evil, and darkness is nothing. It literally does not exist as a thing. It is a vacuum.

The metaphor is incorrect for this very reason.

You are correct to say that “evil” does not exist as a “thing”. But “good” does not exist as a “thing” either. Both are actions and intents.

The metaphor is also wrong for another reason. Between “good” and “evil” there is “indifference”. The tertium non datur is only applicable in a binary system, and reality is not binary. Indifference is the lack of actions.

I remember the two versions of a slogan from the 1950’s in the communist countries: “If you are not with us, you are against us”. It was changed to “If you are not against us, you are with us” in the 1960’s.

 

[BlaineTog]

You contradict yourself.

If evil is “action and intent” (which I agree with) then it is not the “lack or absence of good”. It is not an object, of course, but it is an action - a physical action - intended to hurt, intended to cause harm. Therefore it is the presence of “not good”.

No contradiction. The two definitions are with regards to different ways of looking at evil. The clearest way of looking at evil as a Thing is to think of it as a vacuum devoid of goodness. The clearest way of looking at how evil enters the equation is as an action powered by intent.

*The metaphor is incorrect for this very reason.

You are correct to say that “evil” does not exist as a “thing”. But “good” does not exist as a “thing” either. Both are actions and intents.*

Every thing is good, though, at least in Christian theology (which is what we’re discussing). All objects are created in goodness, composed of goodness, suffused in goodness, though they can be put to bad ends.

The problem is that there’s ambiguity on the words “good” and “evil” which I’m trying to deal with.

The metaphor is also wrong for another reason. Between “good” and “evil” there is “indifference”. The tertium non datur is only applicable in a binary system, and reality is not binary. Indifference is the lack of actions.

Which is evil in a Christian worldview. Indifference leads you to hell, just as does sinning greatly, though sinning greatly has the advantage of being active, and it isn’t nearly as hard to go from actively evil to actively good as it is to go from passively evil to actively good (there is no such thing as “passively good”).

With respect to specific actions, however, there are indeed “neutral actions,” though the term is misleading since it implies a third option that isn’t really there. An action is neutral if it simply isn’t particularly good. Brushing your teeth is a pretty neutral action, but it doesn’t have to be. You could use it as an opportunity for prayer, to exalt God by tending what he gave you.

Reality isn’t binary in many ways, but there isn’t a single path that doesn’t lead to either heaven or hell.

 

[Abbadon]

There was a really good point that crowonsnow brought up

If sin is something we have a choice to make, and it is tied to our freewill. Do we not have freewill in heaven or the perfection after we are judged good and evil?

Then is it not possible to sin in heaven? Because it’s not like the judaeo-christian god created sin but more the story goes left the possibilty for men to sin, bieng all knowing knowing full well that they would sin.

So even in heaven creation can never be perfect becuase man can sin

Was that the roughly the point…

 

[buffalo]

There was a really good point that crowonsnow brought up

If sin is something we have a choice to make, and it is tied to our freewill. Do we not have freewill in heaven or the perfection after we are judged good and evil?

Then is it not possible to sin in heaven? Because it’s not like the judaeo-christian god created sin but more the story goes left the possibilty for men to sin, bieng all knowing knowing full well that they would sin.

So even in heaven creation can never be perfect becuase man can sin

Was that the roughly the point…

If we could become perfect we would be God. In heaven the beatific vision will transcend any sinful desires.

 

[ateista]

No contradiction. The two definitions are with regards to different ways of looking at evil. The clearest way of looking at evil as a Thing is to think of it as a vacuum devoid of goodness. The clearest way of looking at how evil enters the equation is as an action powered by intent.

The first way denies the concept of indifference, and as such it is incorrect. I will explain below. The second one is correct.

Every thing is good, though, at least in Christian theology (which is what we’re discussing). All objects are created in goodness, composed of goodness, suffused in goodness, though they can be put to bad ends.

I doubt that this is a correct interpretation of Chistian theology. A simple fact of rain is indifferent to the plants it affects. A lot of rain is beneficial to an impatient, and it is bad for a cactus - though these are not moral categories. Good and bad are not absolute, they can only be considered in a specific context.

The problem is that there’s ambiguity on the words “good” and “evil” which I’m trying to deal with.

I wholeheartedly agree with you. I think we were talking about morally good and morally evil, which eliminates the ambiguity - at least to a certain extent.

Which is evil in a Christian worldview. Indifference leads you to hell, just as does sinning greatly, though sinning greatly has the advantage of being active, and it isn’t nearly as hard to go from actively evil to actively good as it is to go from passively evil to actively good (there is no such thing as “passively good”).

I disagree with your generalization.

If I see someone who is in need of help (say a bad but not life-threatening injury) and walk by, it may indeed be bad (or evil) or it may not. It all depends upon the circumstances.

If I run by because I bring help to someone who is in the verge of dying, than this indifference is acceptable.

If I walk by because I don’t see him, it is neither good nor bad.

If I look at him, observe his need and still refuse to help without a sufficently good reason, then - and only then - is my indifference morally wrong.

And there is something that passively good. If a person is in no need to help, then not interfering with his path is “passively good”.

With respect to specific actions, however, there are indeed “neutral actions,” though the term is misleading since it implies a third option that isn’t really there.

See above. The third option is very much there.

Reality isn’t binary in many ways, but there isn’t a single path that doesn’t lead to either heaven or hell.

I think you are oversimplifying.

 

[fhansen]

There was a really good point that crowonsnow brought up

If sin is something we have a choice to make, and it is tied to our freewill. Do we not have freewill in heaven or the perfection after we are judged good and evil?

Then is it not possible to sin in heaven? Because it’s not like the judaeo-christian god created sin but more the story goes left the possibilty for men to sin, bieng all knowing knowing full well that they would sin.

So even in heaven creation can never be perfect becuase man can sin

Was that the roughly the point…

You lack understanding of basic christian concepts. the reason for this life is to so learn that God is worthy of our love and obedience-that He is that great-that we will no longer will to sin by the time we live in heaven or whatever you want to call it- because we will see the idiocy in sin.

 

[BlaineTog]

If sin is something we have a choice to make, and it is tied to our freewill. Do we not have freewill in heaven or the perfection after we are judged good and evil?

We have free will, we have simple freely chosen eternally to be good.

I doubt that this is a correct interpretation of Chistian theology. A simple fact of rain is indifferent to the plants it affects. A lot of rain is beneficial to an impatient, and it is bad for a cactus - though these are not moral categories. Good and bad are not absolute, they can only be considered in a specific context.

Right. This is the ambiguity at work.

*I disagree with your generalization.

If I see someone who is in need of help (say a bad but not life-threatening injury) and walk by, it may* indeed be bad (or evil) or it may not. It all depends upon the circumstances.

If I run by because I bring help to someone who is in the verge of dying, than this indifference is acceptable.

Except it’s not indifference. “Indifference” is an attitude, not an action. You would like to help the person, but you are unable because you are currently occupied with a more important task.

If I walk by because I don’t see him, it is neither good nor bad.

Because it’s not a moral question at all. In order to be a moral question, there has to be a choice involved, among other things. If you don’t see it, there’s no choice, so it’s not in the sphere of moral questions.

And there is something that passively good. If a person is in no need to help, then not interfering with his path is “passively good”.

Not interfering can be extremely, extremely difficult and is no less active than anything else. “Passive,” as I was trying to use it, means “uncaring.” You can do evil with zeal, and you can do evil with a shrug, but Good hasto be done with zeal.

I think you are oversimplifying.

Not at all. That Heaven and Hell are the only endpoints on the paths of life is extremely orthodox Christianity.

 

[Abbadon]

If we could become perfect we would be God. In heaven the beatific vision will transcend any sinful desires.

well that was obvioulsy proven false by the precedence set in catholic mythology by adam and eve

 

[Abbadon]

You lack understanding of basic christian concepts. the reason for this life is to so learn that God is worthy of our love and obedience-that He is that great-that we will no longer will to sin by the time we live in heaven or whatever you want to call it- because we will see the idiocy in sin.

For me looking at it from an outside point of view, this is all very confusing and i no way have the disciples blind spot required to actually understand these things… I mean i find the beliefs of christianity very confusing even from merely a mythological point of view.

I guess attempting to intergrate relegion into society today has done this. Continually having to justify it’s self would warp any relegion.

I mean we obvioulsy no that the norse creation myth is off, but it makes logical sense at least. As does many creation myths because they didn’t have to continually keep justifying themselves

Rabling on about sin etc… Okay i’m stopping before i rant

 

[cynic]

for one to make a choice one has to have an inclination to make the decision, a desire for the perceived outcome.

Adam must have in some way wanted to disobey God, but if he were created perfect then how could have wanted anything else than to worship and obey him (from the Christian point of view)?

 

[fhansen]

well that was obvioulsy proven false by the precedence set in catholic mythology by adam and eve

Adam and Eve were like rich brats who had no appreciation for what they had. the world which humankind inherited- sans God for all practical purposes and with the knowledge of good and evil, is for the purpose of enlightening us into making the right choice which they did not make.

 

[crowonsnow]

If we could become perfect we would be God. In heaven the beatific vision will transcend any sinful desires.

It didn’t work that way for angels. Isn’t that why your religion has devils? Aren’t devils former angels who rebelled against their designer while still in heaven? How come the beatific vision in heaven didn’t work for the angels?

 

[fhansen]

for one to make a choice one has to have an inclination to make the decision, a desire for the perceived outcome.

Adam must have in some way wanted to disobey God, but if he were created perfect then how could have wanted anything else than to worship and obey him (from the Christian point of view)?

the inclination that anyone has is always towards something they perceive as a “good”. Adam & Eve were deceived into thinking something was good which wasn’t. The reason this can happen lies in the fact that only God is perfect enough to never make a wrong choice if given the option-as Jesus demonstrated in His trials with satan. we, on the other hand lack His perfection but were given the gift of freedom to make choices nonetheless. the entire plan from the fall till now is to mold people of character who will freely making the right choice.

 

[buffalo]

It didn’t work that way for angels. Isn’t that why your religion has devils? Aren’t devils former angels who rebelled against their designer while still in heaven? How come the beatific vision in heaven didn’t work for the angels?

In every case free will is involved.

When we are in heaven it is an eternal condition.

After their creation the Angels that chose God were in heaven. Those that chose against Him were not.

 

[crowonsnow]

In every case free will is involved.

When we are in heaven it is an eternal condition.

After their creation the Angels that chose God were in heaven. Those that chose against Him were not.

Are you in some sort of denial?

Everyone knows that all those angels were already in heaven, in the direct presence of their designer and that beatific vision you mention. Yet they “fell.”

This god designer’s presence and the beatific vision you mention didn’t prevent a fall even in heaven. That’s why they are called fallen angels.

So I’m still at a loss to understand how someone can hold that being diseased, “fallen” in Christian religious parlance, is not the norm, whether it be in a heaven or not. There is simply no Christian religious setting where it has not occurred. Even your savior was betrayed by his own followers.

We have evil in a heaven, evil in an Eden, and evil in the gospel stories. There is no evidence that leads a Christian person to either hope or believe that evil will end after some final judgment. Religion and evil seem bound up as one.

So I think that accounting for disease and the infirmities that befall us is something that can only occur outside of a Christian religious setting.

 

[BlaineTog]

We have evil in a heaven, evil in an Eden, and evil in the gospel stories.

There was no evil in Eden before Satan entered it and Adam and Eve allowed it.

There is no evidence that leads a Christian person to either hope or believe that evil will end after some final judgment.

Well, other than the Bible (which is pretty clear about it), there’s that evil only comes in when you make bad choices. In heaven, we “will have made” the correct choice. That one choice for God will stretch in all directions of time.

 

[davidv]

Are you in some sort of denial?

Everyone knows that all those angels were already in heaven, in the direct presence of their designer and that beatific vision you mention. Yet they “fell.”

I don’t “know” this, nor does anyone else. Where the angels were when they where created is not known. And, none of use was there to see it.

This god designer’s presence and the beatific vision you mention didn’t prevent a fall even in heaven. That’s why they are called fallen angels.

So I’m still at a loss to understand how someone can hold that being diseased, “fallen” in Christian religious parlance, is not the norm, whether it be in a heaven or not. There is simply no Christian religious setting where it has not occurred. Even your savior was betrayed by his own followers.

We have evil in a heaven, evil in an Eden, and evil in the gospel stories.

The is no evil in heaven.

There is no evidence that leads a Christian person to either hope or believe that evil will end after some final judgment. Religion and evil seem bound up as one.

There is evidence. Apparently none that you accept.