Why does evil/sin exist?

[Em_in_FL]

Emily, I think you’re a bit off the mark with your DNA theory. Do you think baptism make a physical change in DNA given that baptism erases original sin.
I don’t believe original sin is a physical defect. It’s a spiritual state in which we lack holiness and justification.

God bless,
Noel.

To each their own… the theory helps me understand it better… certainly doesn’t work for all…

Of course baptism erases original sin off our soul and doesn’t physically alter our DNA…
But the “damage” is still there which makes us, as humans, prone to sin.
It’s the one thing that connects us, as humans… no matter what race, creed, or whatever…
It helps ME understand why we inherited this sin from Adam and Eve… it explains the inheritance question.

I know a lot of people have a difficult time discussing scientific things like DNA within a spiritual mindset… but it’s ALL connected. God created us under certain rules and patterns which are observable (rules and patterns being “science”)…

At least in MY MIND…

Plus another thought I had… our human bodies ARE imperfect. They ARE damaged physically.

Before the fall, illness didn’t exist.
We were physically supposed to be able to LIVE FOREVER!
But now our bodies physically break down over time and die.
Physical and spiritual, intertwined entirely… death from sin.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Hi Noel!

If we accept that all goodness comes from God and that our natural inclination (without God’s grace) is to sin, then I suspect that original sin is not so much a negative something as a lack of God’s grace.

But that’s the most negative “something”! A lack of grace, or a refusal of grace is a refusal of life, love, peace, blessing, growth (the list goes on). Original sin is absolutely negative, I think. That doesn’t mean that it (in itself) is very impressive compared to the Fullness of God. But it’s effects (on us) are catastrophically negative unless checked by grace, unless exhausted by Christ.

I often think that sin is like falling into a well that appears to have no bottom: all one sees is the darkness rushing past, the walls of the well rushing past, the sensation of moving further farther further farther into darkness. Until you feel a tap on your shoulder, and look behind you only to discover that the lip of the well (which you thought you had passed long long long ago) is just there, just behind you. And a hand easily reaches in to help you out. Sin is not infinite. Only God is infinite. Sin is merely indefinite. But through Christ, in Christ, in his Incarnation, Death, Harrowing of Hell, Resurrection, and Ascension, he has put an end to the indefinitely fall into sin. He’s put a bottom to the well. There is no place in heaven, on earth, or in hell that Jesus does not fill. He has filled all things. What a great Mystery!

So I don’t think our natural nothingness is in itself sinful–God made us out of dust and called us good, after all! So sin is alien to our nature on a fundamental level. Original sin is a pattern of being into which we’ve fallen and in which our relationship to God, to nature, to ourselves, are upside-down and backwards. It’s not our creatureliness that is sinful–it’s our attitude toward that creatureliness which is sinful–our tendency to prefer our own nothingness to God’s fullness.

Without God’s sanctifying grace, we are dead, we are nothing. So original sin isn’t a burden but rather a state of lacking grace.

I agree with this–original sin isn’t something added to us, but something we’ve taken away from ourselves. We’ve hollowed ourselves out, turned ourselves inside out and removed ourselves from the original relationship we had with God. The possibility of renewed relationship remains (because of what we were made to be–because we remain human and we were designed to be in relationship with God)–so this defect in us, this tendency to incorrectly order our affections and relationships is not insurmountable (Nature is wounded, not destroyed, as the saying goes–we couldn’t absolutely destroy our nature if we tried–only God can create and only God can destroy). But it requires grace to fill the void of grace we’ve made in ourselves–a void with which we insist on identifying despite the fact that Jesus himself, God’s own Son, says, “Identify with me!”

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[Keikiolu]

It seems quite simple. The choice is between an all-good, all-loving, all-powerful God (with eternal bliss and happiness and the company of billions of other creatures) or evil (and death, pain, and loneliness).

What rational human being of sound mind, if given the dilemma clearly, would choose death over God? No one would.

Why doesn’t God make the choice clear, then? Why doesn’t he reveal himself clearly for everyone to see?

Of course, you’ll say that God did so in Jesus. …Now, two thousand years later, where is God? Why doesn’t he show himself and make his presence obvious?

He does. Are you not seeing Him?

An all-good, all-loving fatherly God would.

It because we’re supposed to have faith. We’re supposed to believe in Christianity even though God is quite distant. “Blessed are those who do not see but believe.” The point being that God wants us to see if we would choose his love freely even though he’s not quite obvious. But that’s silly. Actually, it’s neglectful. Would a human father, wanting to see if his children would love him freely go away for a few years? No, of course not. …

Your argument fails, of course, if God DOES show Himself, which He does.

You posit that you have to see before you will believe. The way faith works is that you must believe before you CAN see, then when you start to see, dimmly, your vision improves over time as you are given more to look at, by God.

This “procedure” is quite unacceptable to the “materialist”, and quite rightly, considering what materialists have faith in.

What do they have faith in? The great deceiver, of course.

How is God any different?

“Free Will” does not answer the problem of evil.

I can buy that God gave human beings free will. But I don’t buy that he does everything he can to help human beings make the right choice.

The point is NOT that God “should do everything He can” to help us to “do the right thing”, but that He does the BEST and MOST WISE thing doable, which He does.

While I understand the human father allowing his children to make mistakes every now and then - there are certain points where the mistake the child is making is too dangerous/harmful to justify the father staying out of it. A human father wouldn’t let his child make the mistake of getting into the gun cabinet - but God has… And much worse. We got into the gun cabinet and the gas chambers and the mine fields and much, much worse. There comes a point where the good father has to step in and set the kid right.

You confuse an individual person, or individual “living” generation, with “the Church”, which is the THING (the entity) that is the learning child of the Father.

God, by definition, would not allow His “child” (the Church) to get into any situation which would be “ultimately deleterious” to it.

Humanity is far beyond that point. And God has stayed silent and distant.

Once again, the fact that YOU prsonally, or your “cadre”, can’t SEE what, to others, is clearly there, namely God, doesn’t mean that He isn’t there.

It’s time we stop relying on God to solve our problems. It’s time to stop asking him for help and start helping eachother.

You might want to look up the concept of “charity”, and the fact that charity IS our “work” that is “asking Him for help” and is how “God solves our problems”.

It takes horrible, destructive, gratitous evil to give a Christian’s faith meaning? Are you serious? So the Holocaust was “allowed” by God so that Christians could love God a little bit better. Do you see how selfish that makes God sound?

CCC: evil

The Holocaust was allowed, not ordained, by God, because He respects our free will to choose as we will, and will always bring out more good from ANY situation than evil that is created by our free will.

WE chose evil, not God (who is incapable of doing that), and did what He normally does with every situation of this type.

Would you rather have it that God violates our free will, and doesn’t “permit” our doing of evil, making us “robots”?

Would you rather have it that God DOESN’T bring as much good out of evil as possible?

Think about what you’re saying when you even consider that God could be anything other than what God is defined as,… ie most wise, most loving, omnipotent.

When you say that “God is nonsense because He doesn’t simply FIX everything and save His children from their suffering”, you are speaking precisely with the voice of Satan, who has convinced you that the only thing worth striving for is the “absense of suffering”.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Exalt]

He does. Are you not seeing Him?

Your argument fails, of course, if God DOES show Himself, which He does.

Where?

You posit that you have to see before you will believe. The way faith works is that you must believe before you CAN see, then when you start to see, dimmly, your vision improves over time as you are given more to look at, by God.

That’s circular and you know it.

Anyway, let’s say I do start believing in God again. What would I start “seeing”?

You confuse an individual person, or individual “living” generation, with “the Church”, which is the THING (the entity) that is the learning child of the Father.

God, by definition, would not allow His “child” (the Church) to get into any situation which would be “ultimately deleterious” to it.

So… The Church is God’s only child? God doesn’t love Buddhists or Hindus or Muslims or athiests as much as Christians? That’s silly and doesn’t get out of the problem.

Or, do you mean the “Church” in the *much *larger sense as in “the whole of humankind that follows God as it exists stretched throughout time.” Well, human beings, though social, do exist as individuals - no matter how you paint it, humanity is a collection of individuals. Human beings relate to the world as individuals. A father relates to his children as individuals. The “Church” is a group of individuals. Didn’t Jesus say that he would abadon the flock to go in search for the one, *individual *missing sheep?

So, who does God talk to? The Pope? Why not all of us, directly?

Once again, the fact that YOU prsonally, or your “cadre”, can’t SEE what, to others, is clearly there, namely God, doesn’t mean that He isn’t there.

Okay, so how is God there? What am I missing? What rock havn’t I looked under?

WE chose evil, not God (who is incapable of doing that), and did what He normally does with every situation of this type.

Yeah, God certainly acted in the exact same fashion that he always does in every situation of this type. Aboslutely nothing. You got that much, at least, right.

Would you rather have it that God violates our free will, and doesn’t “permit” our doing of evil, making us “robots”?

Is that really the choice here? Is it a choice between horrible evil and mindless robots?

No way. That’s a very simplistic and inadequate way of describing the situation.

Does a police officer violate the free will of a bank robber when he arrests him? If he does, then I think *all *of us are okay with free will being violated in certain situations. If he doesn’t, then what I and billions of others have wanted God to do - step in when a horrible situation (caused by people doing evil things) develops - is impossible, because God wouldn’t dare “violate” our free will. In which case, every prayer that asks for God’s help is made in vain. We would do better to ask eachother and cut out the “middle-man”.

If stopping an evil-doer is violating a person’s free will, then so be it. Let free will be violated. What’s the point of it? A risk for evil and disaster and pain? More glory for God? A “greater good”? Why couldn’t have God just created the “best good” to begin with and leave out the horribly painful and neglectful middle step?

Ugh.

When you say that “God is nonsense because He doesn’t simply FIX everything and save His children from their suffering”, you are speaking precisely with the voice of Satan, who has convinced you that the only thing worth striving for is the “absense of suffering”.

When have I **ever **stated that the only thing worth striving for is the absence of suffering?

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

If stopping an evil-doer is violating a person’s free will, then so be it. Let free will be violated. What’s the point of it?

Hi, Exalt. Just want to be clear (because maybe it hasn’t been)–free will, in itself, isn’t the point. Free will is a consequence of love. If we cannot choose to love, then we cannot love. Love is predicated on a willing self-giving. Real love cannot be forcibly coerced (the attempt is analogous to–if it does not actually become–rape).

If one believes that God is Love (and as Christians we do, though to be honest, we don’t often act like we do–this is to our shame), then to ask that God violate free will is to ask that God not be God because it is to ask for love to be violated. It is to ask that God be a God of Rape, not of Love. It is to ask that Love be an impossibility.

The things we suffer as a result of our rejection of Love are not God’s fault. The world we have is the world we want. That’s the bottom line. But Grace enables us to repair the wounds of the world. If you want to change the world, submit to Grace, give yourself to Love, and be Christ for the world. That’s our calling as Christians on this side of Eternity. You want God to change the world, then be God’s instrument for change.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
He does. Are you not seeing Him?
Your argument fails, of course, if God DOES show Himself, which He does.
Where?

You won’t accept this, of course, but everywhere I look, personally.

When I pray, I get an answer. It’s seldom what I want, but always what I need, fortunately, as my “wishes” are usually quite silly.

As I’ve said someplace else, you have to accept God’s existence (have faith) BEFORE you can “see” God, so someone’s experience of “not seeing God” simply tells me that they haven’t instituted the prerequisite faith.

Quote:You posit that you have to see before you will believe. The way faith works is that you must believe before you CAN see, then when you start to see, dimmly, your vision improves over time as you are given more to look at, by God. That’s circular and you know it.

Anyway, let’s say I do start believing in God again. What would I start “seeing”?

It’s not circular, it’s “requisite sequenciality”, to coin a phrase that you probably won’t like.

If you DID believe in God, you’d see what God had to tell you of Himself, as YOU need to see it.

I can’t tell you what you need to see.

Quote:
You confuse an individual person, or individual “living” generation, with “the Church”, which is the THING (the entity) that is the learning child of the Father.

God, by definition, would not allow His “child” (the Church) to get into any situation which would be “ultimately deleterious” to it. So… The Church is God’s only child? God doesn’t love Buddhists or Hindus or Muslims or athiests as much as Christians? That’s silly and doesn’t get out of the problem.

Those who are “part of God’s people (the Church)” who are not officially a part of the (Catholic) Church due to reasons beyond their control are, just like the rest of us, “in God’s hands”.

God loves everyone, so that’s not an issue. The question is whether a person lives in accord with God’s wishes, and that’s between that person and God.

But,… your “odds” improve toward being with Him if you are an actual member of the Church, as you have more “tools” available to you to discern God’s wishes, and align yourself with them.

Or, do you mean the “Church” in the *much *larger sense as in “the whole of humankind that follows God as it exists stretched throughout time.” Well, human beings, though social, do exist as individuals - no matter how you paint it, humanity is a collection of individuals. Human beings relate to the world as individuals. A father relates to his children as individuals. The “Church” is a group of individuals. Didn’t Jesus say that he would abadon the flock to go in search for the one, *individual *missing sheep?

He didn’t say He would ABANDON the flock. He said He’d leave the flock to being “the flock” while He spent effort in finding His missing sheep.

I’ll leave it to you to look up the appropriate verses on that.

And I agree with you about the “God judges individuals not ‘groups’” thing. The only advantage to being in the Church is that you have more “tools” and “info” to work with than “doing it alone” or “making up your own system”.

So, who does God talk to? The Pope? Why not all of us, directly?

He does “talk” to us directly. That’s what prayer is. As well as “living prayer”, which is discerning God in one’s actions and choices of everyday life.

Do you have a problem with the Pope not having the same capacity to “talk” with God that you do?

Quote:Once again, the fact that YOU prsonally, or your “cadre”, can’t SEE what, to others, is clearly there, namely God, doesn’t mean that He isn’t there.
Okay, so how is God there? What am I missing? What rock havn’t I looked under?

God is “there” whenever you need something, which is pretty much always, as far as I can tell.

You’re “missing” a belief that God exists.

You haven’t “looked under the rock” of actually giving-in to having a real belief in God.

The whole point of faith is simply that you have it because you discover you need it. If you discover that you DON’T need it, then regardless of God’s ridiculously persistent attempts at giving you His graces, you simply won’t accept it and will end up where God has destined “those who don’t need God” to end up.

If you really don’t believe in God, at all, in any capacity whatsoever, then you don’t need to worry because you are completely convinced that you’ll end up as you “know” you’ll end up.

If you DO however slightly believe in God, in any way, then you’ve got cause to be “anxious”.

…continued–>

 

[Keikiolu]

…continued from above:

Quote:

WE chose evil, not God (who is incapable of doing that), and did what He normally does with every situation of this type.
Yeah, God certainly acted in the exact same fashion that he always does in every situation of this type. Aboslutely nothing. You got that much, at least, right.

You’re perfectly right, in your observation of what you see, based on your beliefs.

Is what you see what those who believe in God see? No. So what’s your problem with that?

Quote:

Would you rather have it that God violates our free will, and doesn’t “permit” our doing of evil, making us “robots”?
Is that really the choice here? Is it a choice between horrible evil and mindless robots?

The choice is between wanting free will, or not wanting free will.

If you have free will, then those with free will MUST be allowed to make “bad choices” or they are simply being controlled by their “controller” (slave master).

No way. That’s a very simplistic and inadequate way of describing the situation.

Does a police officer violate the free will of a bank robber when he arrests him?

An “arrest” is a battle of wills, not the negation of free will.

If he does, then I think *all *of us are okay with free will being violated in certain situations.

A cop can’t “not permit the choice to rob”, which is what you ask of God if God is to “disallow suffering”, which is what you would prefer God to do.

If he doesn’t, then what I and billions of others have wanted God to do - step in when a horrible situation (caused by people doing evil things) develops - is impossible, because God wouldn’t dare “violate” our free will.

For God to “step in” and “solve” a “horrible situation” would not be the wisest thing, which is an axiom of God’s “ways”, unless it was the wisest thing, in which case He would do it.

To not allow evil would take away “learning opportunities” from humanity.

The fact that you thnk that suffering of individuals is more important than humanity learning what it means to be human is your oversensitivity in one area of being-human, and your undersensitivity in another area.

In which case, every prayer that asks for God’s help is made in vain. We would do better to ask eachother and cut out the “middle-man”.

I contend that God always answers our prayers with what we need, and quite often the answer is “I told you what to do via my Son’s words and the inspirations of the Holy Spirit, so why not try that!”,… which people, very likely like yourself, dismiss as “silly” because they have no idea what prayer is, or how to do it.

If stopping an evil-doer is violating a person’s free will, then so be it. Let free will be violated. What’s the point of it? A risk for evil and disaster and pain? More glory for God? A “greater good”? Why couldn’t have God just created the “best good” to begin with and leave out the horribly painful and neglectful middle step?

Ugh.

So we have your “religion” then.

“The greatest ‘good’ is the end of suffering.”

…you would actually trade free will for “comfort”. Very Hedonistic.

Have fun with that in the real world.

Quote:

When you say that “God is nonsense because He doesn’t simply FIX everything and save His children from their suffering”, you are speaking precisely with the voice of Satan, who has convinced you that the only thing worth striving for is the “absense of suffering”.
When have I **ever **stated that the only thing worth striving for is the absence of suffering?

You did above, and you did when you decided to “disprove”, or at least “de-legitimize” God by claiming that God wouldn’t be “cruel” and allow suffering.

Any response to that, from you, is gladly anticipated.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Pax_Tibi]

Hello Pax, you got that much right. You think we were once angels and then became human?? That is a bit wild and probably heretical!

Heretical? How So? I’m not saying it might not be, however, it is an attempt to define original sin and establish individual culpability rather than God punishing all for the sins of two people. Additionally,as a second chance, it shows God’s mercy.

If heretical, is it at least original heresy or does it fall under some previous one?

Thanks,

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by nkelly forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Hello Pax, you got that much right. You think we were once angels and then became human?? That is a bit wild and probably heretical!

Heretical? How So? I’m not saying it might not be, however, it is an attempt to define original sin and establish individual culpability rather than God punishing all for the sins of two people. Additionally,as a second chance, it shows God’s mercy.

If heretical, is it at least original heresy or does it fall under some previous one?

Thanks,

Men are (and were) created AS men, and not as anything else.

Uh,… let’s see,… CCC: “Body and Soul…”

When in doubt, check the CCC: Original Sin.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Mirdath]

If heretical, is it at least original heresy or does it fall under some previous one?

It’s not identical to any I know of, though it’s very close to Manichaeism and Mandaeism, as well as the Kabbalist idea of Adam Kadmon.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

If heretical, is it at least original heresy or does it fall under some previous one?

Pax Tibi, it’s very similar to some of Origen’s speculative thought. So you’re in good company, I suppose–Origen is one of the greatest of the church fathers, certainly one of the most brilliant theologians of the early church. Origen did wander off the path every now and again in his speculative work, however. And I’m afraid that this idea is similar to one of his wanderings.

Even so, Origen’s speculations were meant only as suggestions (not as doctrine or dogma)–they were ways of problem solving particular theological questions. Origen’s thoughts in this regard are interesting food for thought, though.

Basically, this was his idea: God made all the souls of all beings who could ever live, and he made them all as equals–there was no power that one possessed that another did not, none was more talented than another, all were the same. Then came the fall. Those who fell far became demons. Those who fell less, human. Those still less, angels. Only one soul (according to Origen’s speculations) did not fall–that soul was the “human” soul of Jesus which cleaved itself to the Word of God and was incarnated with the Word in the Incarnation.

The church’s problems with this idea have to do with objections over the pre-existence of souls, as well as some possibly confusing notions regarding the nature and person of Jesus. Origen was writing before the Formula of Chalcedon officially described the nature of Christ, but when it did, it defined it thus: One Person, Two Natures. Origen’s speculation seems to point to this: Two Persons (Jesus’ human person and the person of the Son), Two Natures. Origen’s speculation leads to heterodox belief. I think it is what pre-existence of souls does to Christology that makes pre-existence of souls a bit iffy theologically speaking.

Notwithstanding, the question of pre-existence is an interesting one, and has been addressed in various ways by various people. Perhaps the most orthodox involves speculation regarding primordial Humanity–that is, humanity as it existed before creation in the Logos. In other words, Man with a capital M, or perhaps one could say Divine Humanity. The Adam Kadmon (as Mirdath suggested) is a similar idea in Kabbalah that was latched onto by the Russian sophiologists. Even though this may be the most orthodox approach, its orthodoxy is not unimpeachable. And there’s a lot more that goes into it than this, the sketchiest of sketchy outlines!

Unde the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Greeting brothers and sisters in Christ.

An another discussion board the subject of sin came up. The poster
basically said that since God created the world and allowed sin to exist, that God is responsible for all the evil in the world. Of course God is not responsible but my question is why did God allow evil to exist? Since God is only concerned with what’s best for us, why are we born with a tendency to sin, i.e. why does original sin exist? Is life on earth basically a big test to see whether we favour God’s will or our own? Does God allow sin because it gives Him and us greater glory when we suceed in fighting against sin? Does the Church understand the reason for the existence for sin or is it a mystery?

So many questions!

God bless,
Noel.

1. Taken metaphysically, it doesn’t - moral evil is an absence of a good that ought to be present; it’s a parasite that feeds its un-being on being, so to say.​

That’s what Boethius & his Neoplatonist sources say, anyway

2. Why is there sin in the world ? The Bible - which is not very Neoplatonic, but looks at life in a very different way - doesn’t say. It doesn’t explain it, or even try to. For a very good reason: sin is “folly”, it is not reasonable, it is senseless - & something which is utterly foolish, cannot be accounted for, because that means that an intelligent account would be given of something which is un-intelligent. And that in turn means that the true character of sin would not be explained by the intended explanation. So it remains intelligence-defying.

What we can do is react to it - & God’s mercy has not left us without means of doing that. It is far important to know God’s mind on it, & His Will for us in our reactions to it, than for us to be able to know about it as we might know about butterflies. We lack a great deal of speculative knowledge of it - but we do have access to a wealth of practical knowledge of it.

Maybe it is too intimately bound up with us, for us to be able to know more about it than we do. ##

 

[Exalt]

Grace & Peace!

Hi, Exalt. Just want to be clear (because maybe it hasn’t been)–free will, in itself, isn’t the point. Free will is a consequence of love. If we cannot choose to love, then we cannot love. Love is predicated on a willing self-giving. Real love cannot be forcibly coerced (the attempt is analogous to–if it does not actually become–rape).

If one believes that God is Love (and as Christians we do, though to be honest, we don’t often act like we do–this is to our shame), then to ask that God violate free will is to ask that God not be God because it is to ask for love to be violated. It is to ask that God be a God of Rape, not of Love. It is to ask that Love be an impossibility.

The things we suffer as a result of our rejection of Love are not God’s fault. The world we have is the world we want. That’s the bottom line. But Grace enables us to repair the wounds of the world. If you want to change the world, submit to Grace, give yourself to Love, and be Christ for the world. That’s our calling as Christians on this side of Eternity. You want God to change the world, then be God’s instrument for change.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

Two basic questions, and then two follow up questions:

1. A police officer is on patrol and sees a crime on the brink of taking place. He stops the criminals from committing the crime. Did he violate the Free Will of the criminal?
2. God sees a crime on the brink of taking place. He stops the criminals from committing the crime. Did he violate the Fee Will of the criminal?

Follow up 1. If the answer to both questions is the same, then disregard this next question. Otherwise, what about the nature of the difference between the police officer and God makes it so that one violates a person’s Free Will and the other doesn’t?

Follow up 2. If the answer to the second question is “No”, disregrad this next question. If stopping criminal behavior is violating the free will of that indivudual, then God cannot stop criminal behavior, according to your post: “to ask that God violate free will is to ask that God not be God because it is to ask for love to be violated. It is to ask that God be a God of Rape, not of Love. It is to ask that Love be an impossibility.” If so, how is asking God to help you through a dangerous situation (exclusively involving the evil action of indivuduals) at all useful if God can do nothing?

 

[Exalt]

…
So we have your “religion” then. “The greatest ‘good’ is the end of suffering.” …you would actually trade free will for “comfort”. Very Hedonistic. Have fun with that in the real world.

I said, "When have I ever stated that the “greatest good” is the lack of suffering?"

You did above, and you did when you decided to “disprove”, or at least “de-legitimize” God by claiming that God wouldn’t be “cruel” and allow suffering.

Actually, that’s not what I said: “Why couldn’t have God just created the “best good” to begin with and leave out the horribly painful and neglectful middle step?”

Certianly, I would postulate that the “greatest good” *includes *the minimalization (and perhaps the elimination) of suffereing, and it would *certianly *include the lack of horrible, gratutious evil (such as murder, rape, etc), but that does not mean it is *the *greatest good.

Your position is that suffering is a step towards which we have a greater good. Suffering is a learning experience through which we attain a greater good. My observation are two-fold:

First, suffering can indeed be horrible and unneccessary. In high school, a good friend’s aunt and uncle were murdered (randomly, by people they didn’t know, by the way). Thier death was unneccessary. The only thing we learned out of it was that no one is really safe, no matter who they are, and that there are some horribly evil people out there.

Second, God is all-powerful.

Now, of course I understand that suffering can be a learning process, sometimes. When I was a kid, I made the mistake of playing with my dad’s razor in the shower and cut my finger. I learned first hand that playing with razors is bad. That suffering was a learning process and I was very careful with razors ever since. That pain lead to a better “self”.

But, God is all powerful. He can cut out the unneccessary suffering and make us the “ultimate good” on his own. But he doesn’t do so.

I have another big problem with what you said about prayer. Look for a thread post here in these forums.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Exalt, I’m afraid if I answer your questions as they are that my answers would be misleading. I don’t want to mislead you. I’ll try my best to respond to you, though.

It is the policeman’s job to stop crime.
It is not God’s job to be the cosmic policeman. In fact, I refuse to image God as such.
Being the policeman is our job. The care of creation was given to us. If we fail, that’s our shame. Not God’s.

Also, keep this in mind–God does not work with unwilling instruments. He will not intervene unless we willing submit to the intervention. Paradoxically, this means submitting to circumstance, and (potentially) submitting to suffering. Through this submission, we become vessels of Grace. What is done through us is necessary. As the saying goes, true freedom is not the ability to do what you want–it is the ability to do what is necessary.

So, on another level of this discourse, who is to say that the policeman stopping the crime is not God working through the policeman with the policeman’s consent?

I somehow get the feeling that you wish that the universe were not the universe. I think that is a fruitless wish. The universe is what it is insofar that it is. That’s all. Suffering is a part of the equation. That’s all.

I find that Simone Weil is the most eloquent poet when it comes to the nature and value of suffering. Here are some thoughts from her book “Gravity and Grace”. Perhaps they’ll prove helpful to you?
“We are at the point where love is just possible. It is a great privelege, since the love which unites is in proportion to the distance. God has created a world which is not the best possible, but which contains the whole range of good and evil. We are at the point where it is as bad as possible; for beyond it is the stage where evil becomes innocence.”

“We are what is furthest from God, situated at the extreme limit from which it is not absolutely impossible to come back to him. In our being, God is torn. We are the crucifixion of God. The love of God for us is a passion. How could that which is good love that which is evil without suffering? And that which is evil suffers too in loving that which is good. The mutual love of God and man is suffering.”

“To say that the world is not worth anything, that this life is of no value and to give evil as the proof is absurd, for if these things are worthless what does evil take from us? Thus the better we are able to conceive of the fullness of joy, the purer and more intense will be our suffering in affliction and our compassion for others. What does suffering take from him who is without joy? …suffering is still to joy what hunger is to food.”

“…Christianity…does not seek a supernatural remedy for suffering but a supernatural use for it.”

“Time’s violence rends the soul: by the rent eternity enters.”

“The extreme affliction which overtakes human beings does not create human misery, it merely reveals it.”

“Suffering is nothing, apart from the relationship between the past and the future, but what is more real for man than this relationship? It is reality itself.”

“A test of what is real is that it is hard and rough. Joys are found in it, not pleasure. What is pleasant belongs to dreams.”

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

But, God is all powerful. He can cut out the unneccessary suffering and make us the “ultimate good” on his own. But he doesn’t do so.

Exalt, I’m sure you realize that the term “unnecessary suffering” is highly subjective. In this world, suffering is a given. It is part of the fabric of our perception of reality. That’s just the way it is. The idea of “unnecessary suffering” is a dangerous illusion. It’s like arguing that some colors in the spectrum are unnecessary.

Because extreme affliction occasions extreme suffering does not mean that that suffering is valueless–or is it the affliction to which you object. But where does this affliction come from? Crime? We choose it. Evil? We choose it. Ecological disaster? We put ourselves in its way. Physical suffering? Our bodies are weak. Ontology? It is what we are. Are you concerned that we suffer too much the consequences of our poor choices? Would you rather that dire acts not produce dire consequences? Are you not then arguing that we should not be able to experience the consequences of evil? Are you not then arguing that we be insensate or numb, if not physically, spiritually? If we are to be good, then we have to admit that as we progress in goodness, we will suffer more from the evil we encounter in us and around us. This is the risk that love must take.

Or are you arguing for an increase of mercy from God? Know this then–we are God’s mercy if we choose to be. That’s simply the bottom line.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[Exalt]

Does not Christianity say that God will eventually eliminate all suffering from the world?

If so, why wait?

 

[Greg27]

The problem of evil is a central one, and as others have pointed out, some religions give different answers. Origen’s solution, followed up by Evagrius, is fascinating but ultimately not acceptable because like Eastern religions such as Buddhism, it sees the created cosmos as a gloomy place which has come into being through some kind of flaw in reality; in the case of Buddhism the realm of becoming is a kind of illusion of phantasmagoric phenomena which are seemingly real to the endlessly grasping ego but which are all in reality empty, driven continuously into endless processions of world-cycles by the inexhaustible thirst of every conditioned thing for existence. Origen’s solution in some parts was not too far from this, suggesting that the created cosmos resulted from an act of mercy on the part of God to spirits who rebelled against him. This solution was not acceptable as it was ultimately too Platonic, in the sense like Plato’s philosophy it seems to suggest the soul is trapped in the body and needs to get out and ascend back to heaven.

Manicheism suggests the world came into being through a conflict between God and a dark principle, and the drama of history is basically a cosmic fight between the cosmic forces of good and evil. Many religions in the Middle East and Mediterranean have this sort of theme, and the ideas are a bit like the ‘Force’ in Star Wars, where reality consists of a dual set of principles (the dark side of the force and the light side of the force) at war with each other in all reality and incarnate beings. This was also not acceptable because it placed the origin of evil both in creation and also in a way with God himself.

The same applies with certain kabbalistic explanations. Lurianic Kabbalah explains the prescence of evil in the cosmos as due to the ‘breaking of the vessels’, a kind of fall in the primordial man, Adam Kadmon, as well as God’s withdrawl (tikkun) from his own being to make the cosmos. Fascinating and alluring as this idea might be, it is somewhat Gnostic in character in that it is somewhat too mythical to offer a coherent account of evil in reality, and again, it seems to downgrade the goodness of the material world.

Christian theology rejects these solutions to the problem of evil because the Bible says very clearly God has made all of creation and called it good. This in my view is reflected in tradition, i.e. John Scot Eriugena calls all creatures ‘God’s speech’ and the universe and all its creatures are in a way a musical symphony and a light of the Trinity made manifest. While an element of Neo-Platonism which argues the Absolute is Good is present in Christian tradition, Christian tradition also turned this around and said the universe and all things in it are a result of the goodness and love of the Absolute, freely shared and communicated to all creatures he has made. This is entirely in contrast to these other religions, which either see the universe as a bleak endless cycle of becoming (samsara in the Indic religions), a battleground between evil and good (Taoism and Manicheism) or due to a catastrophe or transgression in the realm of the Godhead (Gnosticism and Kabbalah).

The best explanation for evil then in the cosmic scheme of things is due to choice on the part of creatures, human and spirit, in the sense creatures choose to either accept God’s offer of communing with him or spurning him for their own development on their own powers, which is the road to perdition for both man and spirits.

Christian theology does not accept that God will instantly wipe evil and suffering from the cosmos before the right time. Given it has taken 15 billion years for the universe to diversify from its original origen to the beautiful variety which now exists, creation has a temporal dimension which is also good and blessed by God. To undo this would be to undo his very blessing of the universe in its beauty and variety, which takes time to unfold, and for the enfolded beauty potential in the universe to come into being. If one asks ‘why not sooner’ it is only because greater glory will abound as time goes on.

 

[Keikiolu]

QuoteOriginally Posted by Deo Volente forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gifGrace & Peace!**Hi, Exalt. Just want to be clear (because maybe it hasn’t been)–free will, in itself, isn’t the point. Free will is a consequence of love. If we cannot choose to love, then we cannot love. Love is predicated on a willing self-giving. Real love cannot be forcibly coerced …).**If one believes that God is Love …, then to ask that God violate free will is to ask that God not be God because it is to ask for love to be violated. It is to ask that God be a God of Rape, not of Love. It is to ask that Love be an impossibility.**The things we suffer as a result of our rejection of Love are not God’s fault. The world we have is the world we want. That’s the bottom line. But Grace enables us to repair the wounds of the world. If you want to change the world, submit to Grace, give yourself to Love, and be Christ for the world. That’s our calling as Christians on this side of Eternity. You want God to change the world, then be God’s instrument for change.**Under the Mercy.**MarkTwo basic questions, and then two follow up questions:

1. A police officer is on patrol and sees a crime on the brink of taking place. He stops the criminals from committing the crime. Did he violate the Free Will of the criminal?

No. The cop battles the criminal’s free will. There is a BATTLE of wills, and not a negation of anyone’s will.

1. God sees a crime on the brink of taking place. He stops the criminals from committing the crime. Did he violate the Fee Will of the criminal?

Yes. For God to “stop” a criminal from making the choice to commit a crime is a negation of the criminal’s free will.

Now, if you mean that God might “interfere” with the criminal such that the criminal can TRY to commit the crime, but doesn’t due to the interferance of God, making it MORE DIFFICULT for the criminal to DO what he WOULD DO (what he wills but can’t do), then you’re describing a situation that happens all the time.

God TENDS to not make it easy to do evil, but man has a fantastic capacity to overcome God’s little “roadblocks”.

Follow up 1. If the answer to both questions is the same, then disregard this next question. Otherwise, what about the nature of the difference between the police officer and God makes it so that one violates a person’s Free Will and the other doesn’t?

Because ONLY God can “violate” (negate) the free will of any of His creatures with free will.

The cop enters into a battle of wills. God COULD, but doesn’t, simply nullify a will.

Follow up 2. If the answer to the second question is “No”, disregrad this next question. If stopping criminal behavior is violating the free will of that indivudual, then God cannot stop criminal behavior, according to your post: “to ask that God violate free will is to ask that God not be God because it is to ask for love to be violated. It is to ask that God be a God of Rape, not of Love. It is to ask that Love be an impossibility.” If so, how is asking God to help you through a dangerous situation (exclusively involving the evil action of indivuduals) at all useful if God can do nothing?

Once again, only God can “violate” (negate) free will. He doesn’t do such a thing because to do so would invalidate Himself (as per Deo’s explanation).

Asking God to help you through a dangerous situation is not asking God to nullify (negate) the will of some evil doer.

If that is what you’re asking God to do, then you will always be “disappointed”, and probably not open to the help that God DOES give, which is always the best possible help He can give.

You SEEM to be saying that “a good way” for God to help people would be to take away the free will of those who do evil, if the evil is “great enough”.

The one thing that God won’t do is to take away the free will of His creations, because it invalidates Himself, and makes His relationship with us one of master and slave, which is not what He wants.

God DOES, though, make it difficult for evildoers to do evil, within the primal constraint of never negating free will.

Your “real” question seems to be, “How is prayer ever useful to man?”.

The answer to that is that it is always useful to man to pray because God always answers prayers with what one NEEDS, and one only experiences prayer as “never effective” if one insists that God give one what one WANTS instead of what one needs, and one’s wants never coincide with one’s needs.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif ……{snipped by Keikiolu}….
Actually, that’s not what I said: “Why couldn’t have God just created the “best good” to begin with and leave out the horribly painful and neglectful middle step?”

He did. And one of those “best” things was angels with free will. And another of those “best” things was man with free will.

The reason things are not “perfect” is because we critters with free will have made a mess of so many things.

Since we created the “painful and neglectful middle step”, it’s our job to fix it.

God neither ordains (creates and imposes) evil, and it’s result called “suffering” (pain), nor does He “neglect” His creatures.

He gives His creatures more than what they need to do THEIR JOB, and leave it to their free will to choose to do it.

Any other action by God would be a negation of free will, a negation of Himself, and a negation of the principle of love.

Certianly, I would postulate that the “greatest good” *includes *the minimalization (and perhaps the elimination) of suffereing, and it would *certianly *include the lack of horrible, gratutious evil (such as murder, rape, etc), but that does not mean it is *the *greatest good.

Who is to say that this world isn’t the “minimum of suffering” state of all possible worlds (which, since there is only one is rather silly, but you see where I’m coming from)…?

I contend that this IS the world that has the minimum amount of suffering possible, and that ALL the suffering that occurs in this world is necessary suffering.

Your position is that suffering is a step towards which we have a greater good. Suffering is a learning experience through which we attain a greater good. My observation are two-fold:

First, suffering can indeed be horrible and unneccessary. In high school, a good friend’s aunt and uncle were murdered (randomly, by people they didn’t know, by the way). Thier death was unneccessary. The only thing we learned out of it was that no one is really safe, no matter who they are, and that there are some horribly evil people out there.

How do you know that their death’s were unnecessary? You can’t, therefore your stating that as a fact says only that you can’t see the necessity of it, which tells me only that you are not interested in looking for “meaning” in an occurence of history and are only interested in “feeling bad” for yourself and others.

The fact that that’s not REALLY true, as you did learn something, if perhaps not enough, tells me that your not entirely “feelings” possessed.

Second, God is all-powerful.

Now, of course I understand that suffering can be a learning process, sometimes. When I was a kid, I made the mistake of playing with my dad’s razor in the shower and cut my finger. I learned first hand that playing with razors is bad. That suffering was a learning process and I was very careful with razors ever since. That pain lead to a better “self”.

But, God is all powerful. He can cut out the unneccessary suffering and make us the “ultimate good” on his own. But he doesn’t do so.

Your saying that He could eliminate “unnecessary” suffering tells me all I need to know about your “philosophy”.

I contend there is no unecessary suffering, You contend otherwise.

You would have God eliminate what is not there to eliminate, because you can’t see that there is nothing to eliminate, because you don’t accecpt the basic fact (premise, axiom) that God is what God is, which is always the most just, the most loving, and omnipotent, but does in fact play by His “rules”, which basically reduce to never negating free will, and always bringing MORE good out of freely chosen evil deads than there was evil done.

I have another big problem with what you said about prayer. Look for a thread post here in these forums.

You don’t understand prayer, quite obviously. And how can you, if you don’t know Who you’re talking to, and should be listening to, or what you should be listening for?

Until you can place the pain that evil produces on those responsible for doing evil, and stop blaming God for not being a cop and fixing the world by negating Himself, you’ll always have a very difficult time hearing what you need, and be consumed by what you want. An obsession for the forbidden, and mischaracterised, fruit will keep you chained to the one who promises, “…and you will be like God!”

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.