Why is God so mean?

[PJM]

Originally Posted by StrawberryJam

•I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7, KJV)
•Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it? (Amos 3:6, KJV)
•Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? (Lamentations 3:38)

From the RVS Bible [1,600 years before the KJV]

Isaiah 45:7 “I form light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe, I am the LORD, who do all these things.”

***From the Haydock Catholic Comentary:

"Ver. 7. Create evil, &c. The evils of afflictions and punishments, but not the evil of sin. (Challoner) — I afflict and comfort my people."*

***Matthew Henrey’s Commentary:

(v. 7):" I form the light, which is grateful and pleasing, and I create darkness, which is grievous and unpleasing. I make peace (put here for all good) and I create evil, not the evil of sin (God is not the author of that), but the evil of punishment." ***

Friend what this verse actually means do is that “God is Just.”

It is only saying if one is deserving of punishment, God will inure that it is administered.

AMOS 3:6

***Haydocks Com.

“Ver. 6. All evil of punishment is sent by God, either to reclaim sinners or to be the beginning of sorrows, if they die impenitent. (Worthington) — You know that He rewards or punishes. If, therefore, what I foretell come to pass, do not blame me.”***

Mt. henrey’s Comt.
" V. Let them know that all their troubles came from the hand of God’s providence and from the counsel of his will (v. 6): Shall there be evil in a city, in a family, in a nation, and the Lord has not done it, appointed it, and performed what he appointed? The evil of sin is from ourselves; it is our own doing. But the evil of trouble, personal or public, is from God, and is his doing; whoever are the instruments, God is the principal agent. Out of his mouth both evil and good proceed. This consideration, that, whatever evil is in the city, the Lord has done it, should engage us patiently to bear our share in public calamities and to study to answer God’s intention in them."

 

[StrawberryJam]

I wish I could say that this makes sense to me after hearing the rebuttals posted. I’m glad it makes sense to believers though.

 

[jkiernan56]

I gave you the bible verses to address.
You did not address them.
My inability to believe does not preclude me from asking a believer to explain this.
I’ll take your inability to address this as evidence that it can not be addressed.

All of creation is held in existence moment by moment by the sheer will of God. Creation would not exist unless God willed and wills it “to be”. Since evil is something good that has been corrupted, evil cannot exist without the Good.

What is Good cannot exist unless God wills it to exist. Thus Evil cannot exist with its counterpart of Good first existing. By God giving existence to all that is Good, He allows what is Good to be corrupted. Please notice that I did not say God “causes” what is Good to be corrupted. Bottom line, evil in this context requires that God gives existence to what is Good first - and thus allows what is Good to be corrupted (ie - Evil).

Second, God who is all Good is also all JUST as well. God clearly punishes Evil. That according to St. Augustine is a “form of evil” to those who commit evil. In that context, God “does evil” (ie - punishes evil in His Justice).

Have you ever experienced injustice? If so, was justice required by you? Why so? Did that justice become a “form of evil” to the one who committed injustice against you?

 

[StrawberryJam]

All of creation is held in existence moment by moment by the sheer will of God. Creation would not exist unless God willed and wills it “to be”. Since evil is something good that has been corrupted, evil cannot exist without the Good.

What is Good cannot exist unless God wills it to exist. Thus Evil cannot exist with its counterpart of Good first existing. By God giving existence to all that is Good, He allows what is Good to be corrupted. Please notice that I did not say God “causes” what is Good to be corrupted. Bottom line, evil in this context requires that God gives existence to what is Good first - and thus allows what is Good to be corrupted (ie - Evil).

Second, God who is all Good is also all JUST as well. God clearly punishes Evil. That according to St. Augustine is a “form of evil” to those who commit evil. In that context, God “does evil” (ie - punishes evil in His Justice).

Have you ever experienced injustice? If so, was justice required by you? Why so? Did that justice become a “form of evil” to the one who committed injustice against you?

Try asking an Amish person that same question. They are christians. They trust God to sort it all out.

Don’t you?

 

[Detales]

Oreo, re your post #84 this thread:

I am Catholic by heritage and in the original sense later by dint of epiphany. Cool tactic, yours, attack first, comment later. But you are right, the lable is next to useless. Interesting though what happens when one labels someone or something, eh?

As anyone else, I’m addressing those whom the shoe fits.

Yes, I’m deadly serious in my convictions, and I don’t care if I’m therefore the object of bigotry. That’s revealatory of the bigot who misses out on at least a wider range of possible understandings as a base for consideration.

I have seen into my own mind to a degree that appearantly some haven’t seen into their own, particularly in the area of the nature of awareness and its basis. I’m also pretty clear on that most folks employ neither critical thinking nor reason beyond the validity of one or two valued logics.

Interesting in this regard that you mention “magician,” as in Magi. One of the Penn and Teller team wrote a tract on magic and faith that is quite revealing. See if you can find it.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

I took it for granted you would, like David Hume, accept the inevitability of natural evil. Let me supplement my answer:
God does not cause natural and moral evil directly. He permits evil because the only alternative would be not to create us. Would you prefer never to have existed? Even if you said “yes” why should everyone else be deprived of the opportunity? Schopenhauer said it would have been better if life had never existed on this planet yet he wrote extensively about beauty!

Based on the writings of Hume that I have read, he argued the complete opposite. Could you please get me a quote from Hume in which he indicates that that was his opinion? Also, why does there need to be natural evil in order for us to exist? It sounds like you are presenting a false dilemma. And finally, if God did not create natural evils, then who did?

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Ok,

So explain to us two things.

1. How did the Universe come into being? [Where did the stuff that “went bang” orginate?"

We don’t know. Scientists do not currently know what happened before Planck time. It is a common misconception that the Big Bang theory shows that the universe has a finite past. I actually have a conversation on this going on in the Dishonest Apologetics thread if you want to discuss it further.

1. Humanity is physical matter correct? Then expalin the origin of our mind, intellect and freewills, which we can prove exist but can’t see, smell or touch.

Our minds and intellect evolved over millions of years. Before I explain free will, I want to know what you mean by free will and how you can prove it exists.

Your not really accustomed to being honest and candid with yourself are you:blush:

What am I not being honest about?
[/quote]

 

[Detales]

4H, re your post #85 this thread:

"*The choice of the word “non-belief” was incorrect. Sorry 'bout that! *No problem. We all mis-speak and often represent our best ideas poorly. The miracle, according to semanticians, is if an actual accurate communication takes place. By their lights, such a thing is near impossible. I tend to agree, and it is one of the factors that makes religion and its neglected facets of inquiry so interesting.

As an example of that, please note that I said “what you appear to gather.” That might most easily be interpreted that I was talking about my own impression in the sense of a likely possibility of what you might be thinking. It does not mean I think I know what you mean. I’ve left it open as to what you think and welcome any adjustment on your part to my understanding in that regard.

Further, it is an assumption on your part that my assertion undercuts anything. It is just that my understanding of Jesus and the significance in meaning of the Gospels is very very different than is commonly accepted by Catholics and certainly by the Church. In other words, I am flatly stating that the same words can have a radically different interpretation based on one’s premise from which they interpret. Radically means “at the root.” [Middle English, of a root, from Late Latin rādīcālis, having roots, from Latin rādīx, rādīc-, root; see wrād- in Indo-European roots.]

“In what way do they have a “deeply different meanings?” To most Catholics and non-Catholics, the words are understood in the Christian sense.” Yes, and that is the source of a near-sighted arrogance inherant in the christianist viewpoint. In my understanding the words of the Gospel refer to very real and crucial interior matters, but not in any way even nearly in the sense the Church portrays them.

“Are you implying that my faith is touchy-feely dependent on emotion rather than basic truth? One should live according to ideas and truths and allow feelings to ensue in due course.” No one can operate independent of “basic truth.” However, what that is in the eye of the beholder can be a great misintrpretation of a living actuality and still feel absolutly real to the capacity of the experiencer. I have no quarel whatsoever with your sincerity and devotion, in fact I admire it. In my experience, however, I have discovered that the Church is offering a great truth, but through a glass, and very very darkly.

IMHO, despite vehement protestations from christainist believers, the nature of my experience tends to bear out a very ancient paradigm regarding the meaning of incarnation and salvation. This paradigm makes complete and practical sense, as distinct from the convolutions required to belive in the explications of the Church. The Church is not wrong, per se, but it has it all sideways and makes it therefor difficult to see through. This is anything but appearant to a staunch Catholic such as I was, until one has the Grace of seeing from a rather different experiential perspective.

After my rather unexpected and iconoclastic and enlightening experience, I did exactly what you recommend: I did research. I did everything within my ability inside the Church to resolve my experience in its terms. It did not happen, and please don’t tell me that I misunderstood the teachings. I had a cadre of priest friends with whom I conversed regularly about Catholic teaching and had won competitions at many levels in the understanding of the faith.

As to the unfortunate incidents you mentioned that are part of Church history, those are in fact only the tip of the iceberg. I have researched those too, and recommend you do the same. Again. And think, please. As for retreats, thank you, I have not only partaken in them but assisted in leading them as well. Regarding those, as I said to someone who is writing a book on objections to Christianity “your thesis neither addresses nor approaches the area of (my) concern.”

Bindar Doondat, FZCP

 

[tonyrey]

Based on the writings of Hume that I have read, he argued the complete opposite. Could you please get me a quote from Hume in which he indicates that that was his opinion?

“If every thing in the universe be conducted by general laws, and if animals be rendered susceptible of pain, it scarcely seems possible but some ill must arise in the various shocks of matter, and the various concurrence and opposition of general laws.…” (Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion").

Also, why does there need to be natural evil in order for us to exist?

In an immensely complex system it is inevitable that there are accidents, failures, deficiencies, defects, deformities, disabilities, diseases and disasters.

It sounds like you are presenting a false dilemma.

.What is the false dilemma?

And finally, if God did not create natural evils, then who did?

No one!

 

[anEvilAtheist]

“If every thing in the universe be conducted by general laws, and if animals be rendered susceptible of pain, it scarcely seems possible but some ill must arise in the various shocks of matter, and the various concurrence and opposition of general laws.…” (Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion").

This says that if animals are susceptible to pain, some will probably feel pain. Hume earlier explains why he does not think that it is necessary for animals to feel pain at all. I suggest you read this section of his book:

mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/HumeOnEvil.htm

You are completely misinterpreting what he said. I don’t think you were intentionally being dishonest, but I think it might be good to more thoroughly investigate quotes before you use them.

In an immensely complex system it is inevitable that there are accidents, failures, deficiencies, defects, deformities, disabilities, diseases and disasters.

God is supposedly omnipotent, so he can create a world without natural disasters.

What is the false dilemma?

You acted like it was impossible to exist unless there were natural disasters.

No one!

What do you mean? Do you think deadly hurricanes are not natural disasters?

 

[tonyrey]

You are completely misinterpreting what he said.

“On the concurrence, then, of these four circumstances, does all or the greatest part of natural evil depend. Were all living creatures incapable of pain, or were the world administered by particular volitions, evil never could have found access into the universe: and were animals endowed with a large stock of powers and faculties, beyond what strict necessity requires; or were the several springs and principles of the universe so accurately framed as to preserve always the just temperament and medium; there must have been very little ill in comparison of what we feel at present. What then shall we pronounce on this occasion? Shall we say that these circumstances are not necessary, and that they might easily have been altered in the contrivance of the universe? This decision seems too presumptuous for creatures so blind and ignorant.”

In an immensely complex system it is inevitable that there are accidents, failures, deficiencies, defects, deformities, disabilities, diseases and disasters.
God is supposedly omnipotent, so he can create a world without natural disasters.

Omnipotence does not entail the power to do that which is logically impossible, e.g. to create an orderly system without coincidences…

What is the false dilemma?
You acted like it was impossible to exist unless there were natural disasters.

Please provide a blueprint of a world without natural disasters.

                          And finally, if God did not create natural evils, then who did?

No one!
What do you mean? Do you think deadly hurricanes are not natural disasters?

No one created disasters. They are the result of physical causes.

 

[jkiernan56]

Try asking an Amish person that same question. They are christians. They trust God to sort it all out.

Don’t you?

Yes, I do trust God to sort it all out. But since I answered your question, I respectfully like you to do the same rather than avoid it with another question - that is unless you really aren’t able to answer it.

Just in case you find it too much effort to scroll back to see what the question is that I posed to you - here it is again:

Have you ever experienced injustice? If so, was justice required by you? Why so? Did that justice become a “form of evil” to the one who committed injustice against you?

When a parent disciplines a child for doing wrong, that discipline is a “form of evil” to the child. But to the Parent, the discipline of their child is NOT an act of “evil”.

God clearly punishes Evil. That according to St. Augustine is a “form of evil” to those who commit evil. In that context, God “does evil” (ie - punishes evil in His Justice).

 

[estesbob]

Oreo, re your post #84 this thread:

I have seen into my own mind to a degree that appearantly some haven’t seen into their own, particularly in the area of the nature of awareness and its basis. I’m also pretty clear on that most folks employ neither critical thinking nor reason beyond the validity of one or two valued logics.

.

Are you aware of how deeply Gnosticism runs in you comments?

 

[PJM]

=StrawberryJam;5330093]Try asking an Amish person that same question. They are christians. They trust God to sort it all out.

Don’t you?

Why certainly? Dosen’t everybody?

But that still does not answer the question; why is God so mean?

 

[Oreoracle]

Oreo, re your post #84 this thread:

I am Catholic by heritage and in the original sense later by dint of epiphany. Cool tactic, yours, attack first, comment later.

You can call it an “attack,” but I say “analysis.” It’s not surprising that you labeled it as such, because the truth sometimes hurts. In this case, I suppose it did.

However, what you fail to notice (as most self-centered people do) is that you make yourself a topic of your posts; you are part of the content to be discussed. As such, everybody has the right to post their interpretation of you just as they have the right to post their interpretation of God’s meanness, or lack thereof.

I’m being generous, actually. Most of the time, such injections in the discussion that do not align with the thread’s intention are considered thread derailments.

Interesting in this regard that you mention “magician,” as in Magi. One of the Penn and Teller team wrote a tract on magic and faith that is quite revealing. See if you can find it.

I lost interest in such efforts by the time I was a pre-teen. If you think you can glean any truth from such things, go ahead. Personally, I think I’ve excelled past your level. One day, when you understand your bigotry (which is ironic, given your signature which encourages the acceptance of conflicting views), you just might progress.

 

[alacoque]

***My dear friend,if you are a Catholic you are espoucing a position contrary to the RCC.

my position is in no way contrary to the Catholic faith. If you believe so, illustrate please, specifically.

As to God being the Creator of everything [what some refer to as the first cause]. IF not God, who, what and when? If God did not Create [meaning precisely to make out of nothing], then we are not Created by that same God either.

I am missing what this has to do with anything I posted. Pls clarify…thanks***

Your disagreement that God could not have made a world without evil is also in error, however it does show some thoughtful consideration.

My point is not in error. Read carefully and thoughtfully the reason I gave why God cannot create a world without evil. And be careful to note that I said ‘without the possibility for choosing evil’ and not ‘evil’, itself. God does not and did not create evil, itself. So, in what I said, the basics were: First: God, being perfect, being love itself, creates ‘out of Himself’ - meaning all living things He creates, in some way or another, are contingent…they receive their life/being/existence from HIM…there is no other life to be had; we are not the cause or source of our own life - God IS life - the only life. This being so, God’s life and love are intrinsic parts of creation - therefore, there MUST be freedom - (God’s creation involves love and there is no such thing as love without freedom). Next: there is no freedom without a choice between alternatives / ends / means / etc. Choice is intrinsic to freedom. Love is freely given/returned or it’s not love. I now you know this. The POSSIBILITY of evil/death (however you want to conceive of evil) MUST be there - otherwise it’s like playing a game of chess with no options regarding the moves.

Finally: The ‘impossibility’ of God creating a world without the possibility of evil does not represent a limitation or lack of ‘power’ in or for God. A world of free creatures without the ability to ‘choose’ is a contradiction in terms; it’s nonsense - and Divinity contains no contradiction whatsoever. To not be able to create a contradiction or nonsense is not a limitation or lack in the Divinity.

God did not have to Create anything
God did not have to Create humanity
God did not have to Create humanity in “His image and likeness”

These are kind of obvious…except the last one. Depending on what you mean by 'humanity’

Human thought is a “spiritual thing” how can a “Spiritual Thing” produce a “Material thing?”

not sure where, in my post, you’re getting this…let me know. You’re possibly referring to creation and assuming that God ‘thought’ things into creation and your statement/question springs from that. My best I can say to you on this is that you are using human reason to come up with this concept and make this statement. So far, so good, because you ARE human, as we all are - so human reason is your way of figuring things, or trying to figure things, out. Human eason however often makes mistakes, either by arguing from false data or by inadvertance in the argument itself. Because of th is we may come to think things are ‘possible’ which are really impossible and vice versa. We should, therefore, use great caution in defining those intrinsic impossibilities which Omnipotence cannot perform (i.e. every good magician’s trick does something that, to the audience with their data and power of reasoning, seems self-contradictory)

Something can only be what it is.
Something cannot be what it is not
Something can only share what it has
Something cannot share what it does not possess

Ok…tell me the specific point of this. If it’s the ‘spiritual thing’ (thought) cannot produce a ‘material thing’, I refer you to what I just said which essentially is that God is not limited or confined by your understanding and interpretation or even the laws of our world. And to say it another way, creation is, as you said, ex nihilo - something from nothing, so when applied to the Divine, ‘nothing’ CAN become SOMETHING and an omnipotent God can make that happen. Neither of us knows exactly ‘how’ that was accomplished.

God cannot Create Evil! Impossible, it is contrary to the very all-good perfectly Divine Nature of our God.God does however PERMIT evil, that good through the direct intercession of God Himself might come of it.

you lost me here, but I agree God cannot/does not create evil - only choice/freedom - and He does permit the existence of evil, otherwise choice means nothing

How are we Created in God’s image? God is “Spirit and TRUTH” [Jn. 4; 24]

We are created in the image of God in that we have intellect and will, both essentials of Divine nature. We are created with the ability to know (intellect) and to love (will). This is His image. It’s totally false to think that our physicallity is involved here since, yes, God IS SPIRIT.

We are Created in the very IMAGE of God who is SPIRIT, by virtue of the fact that humanity is gifted with “mind, intellect, and freewill” all of which can be demonistrated, all of which are “Spiritual Things” which we can know because we cannot see, smell or thouch them.

bingo! that’s what I said. I never stated anywhere that somehow our physicality was involved in our creation in God’s image

These very attributes, unperfected in humanity, perfect in God, allow us to choose to love God or hate God. Our choice.

yup - and to love or hate ourselves and our neighbors as well.

 

[toastmachines]

When a parent disciplines a child for doing wrong, that discipline is a “form of evil” to the child. But to the Parent, the discipline of their child is NOT an act of “evil”.

God clearly punishes Evil. That according to St. Augustine is a “form of evil” to those who commit evil. In that context, God “does evil” (ie - punishes evil in His Justice).

I really don’t understand how people attribute “evil” to the Lord in the first place. To me, it’s an oxymoron; it doesn’t make sense. No matter how much it seems like God is the one with the problem, that’s just not the case.

The justice and wrath of the Lord does not make him “mean”. In fact, I’d say that is precisely what makes him good. The Lord expects our obedience to him and to live within his boundaries; it is that simple. It really irks me when (all too frequently) God is described like a permissive parent who just tolerates any sort of behavior from us. Our Lord is not a wimp.

 

[PJM]

=toastmachines;5331705]I really don’t understand how people attribute “evil” to the Lord in the first place. To me, it’s an oxymoron; it doesn’t make sense. No matter how much it seems like God is the one with the problem, that’s just not the case.

The justice and wrath of the Lord does not make him “mean”. In fact, I’d say that is precisely what makes him good. The Lord expects our obedience to him and to live within his boundaries; it is that simple. It really irks me when (all too frequently) God is described like a permissive parent who just tolerates any sort of behavior from us. Our Lord is not a wimp.

***This comes very close to the answer I was seeking.

God cannot, being an “all-and only good God perfectly,” be :mean

Mt. 5: 38* "You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ ** for exaple appears a call to violence; when actually its entent is to limit retributation. The common resonse at the time [not much different today] was not to pay back equally, to inflict even more harm; and they in turn inflicted More, and the cycle was unending. This “law” was given to actually limit damage.

Mt. 5: 43 "You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

God can’t be mean. if God were mean, God could / would no longer be God.

Love and prayers,
Pat

 

[jkiernan56]

I really don’t understand how people attribute “evil” to the Lord in the first place. To me, it’s an oxymoron; it doesn’t make sense. No matter how much it seems like God is the one with the problem, that’s just not the case.

The justice and wrath of the Lord does not make him “mean”. In fact, I’d say that is precisely what makes him good. The Lord expects our obedience to him and to live within his boundaries; it is that simple. It really irks me when (all too frequently) God is described like a permissive parent who just tolerates any sort of behavior from us. Our Lord is not a wimp.

Very good point. God’s LOVE demands JUSTICE. In fact, God’s LOVE and JUSTICE are one and the same reality.

 

[jkiernan56]

The question in this thread is very valid. I would rephrase it to ask “Is God mean by permitting Evil to exist?” For me the answer is clearly No. Permitting Evil to exist (for the time being) is in itself an act of God’s Love - otherwise you and I and all of creation would not even exist.