The question is man-centred. Unless one is prepared to take the view that "man is the measure of all things", it's meaningless. How can we know it is disordered, if we cannot see the whole design in relation to which it is judged to be disordered ? Disorder is a relative concept. Disorder may be no different from order; they may differ only relatively, & be examples of pareidolia, rather than really existing things. "Disorder" is a man-made category for viewing the universe.
with all due respect I typically agree with you assessments however I disagree with this one. I think of St. Francis of Assissi and his prayer. "Make me a channel of your peace". God makes himself present to us all through the good works of his followers. God makes himself known through people's irradication of evil. The missionary in Africa/ S. America shows God to the people through action and is thus drawn closer to God himself. But that's just me. Thank you for the videos.
What an excellent explaination of Gods everlasing majesty. We only see part of it. After having many life experiences and several brushes with death, confirms that my life is limited. Another thing it shows me is this life is not where it's at. This life is full of misery in various and sundry ways and our lives are short. Consider, what is 80 years compared to eternity? I hope and pray that we all get to see the entire tapestry of Gods creation.
if one of two contraries be infinite the other would NOT be destroyed. it's the simple concept of the unstoppable force meeting an immovable object.
There is an infinite amount of cold dark empty space out there, but also an infinite number of super hot stars. in this universe and many others. so yes. two contradictory infinities CAN exist simultaneously with one another.
@failblorg Come on, friend, "space" and the stars are hardly infinite! The very fact that space is continually expanding proves that space is limited, and scientists have estimated the number of stars. It's a shockingly high number, of course, but hardly infinite!
@wordonfirevideo Space can in fact be both infinite and expanding. The number of stars in the observable universe is finite not because space is finite but because the speed of light is finite; the observable universe is that part of the universe from which light has reached earth in the < 14 billion years of the universe's existence. It is known from theoretical studies that the actual universe must be at least 1000 times greater in extent than the observable universe and possibly infinite.
@jimtrueblue99 Is "space" intelligent, free, and marked by will? Does it possess all power? If the answer to those questions is no (and how could it be otherwise), then space is ontologically finite.
@wordonfirevideo This is not a matter of ontology. This is a matter of General Relativity. GR requires that gravity impose a geometry on space in one of three possibilities: positively curved (unbounded and finite) or either uncurved or negatively curved (both unbounded and unlimited). Observation excludes the first possibility and supports the second. Philosophy uninformed by GR has nothing of value to say on this matter. Aristotle and Aquinas can't help you here. You need Einstein..
God is non-dimensional, non-spatial, non-material. GR deals with the material universe. God is not a "thing" found in the universe - God is "no-thing": incomparable, unique, unlike anything He has created. The God of Christian theism is not like the character in Star Trek V. God is Infinite Being, not reducible to anything in the universe: is not something originating from it, nor a member of a set of causes; is supernatural: GR applies to the natural world.
God is infinite, but not spatially: God is not a body, nor is God material, nor extended in space, nor a point in space. The infinity of space - a subject BTW much discussed by mediaeval philosophers - is that of a material thing. The use of "infinite" in astronomy =/= its use in Christian theology; they are two different disciplines, using the word for different purposes, & each is legitimate in its own field; confusing the two uses, leads to misunderstanding.
What and the Catholic Church is a strong version of Christianity is It? Where in the bible does it say that a priest should ware a dog collar and charge for birth marriages and funerals. Jesus said that the identifying mark of his follower would be love.
Google images: Killing joke, laugh i nearly bought one.
I live in Bristol the U.K. Tonight I'm going to a Italian restaurant that used to a Church. It is about two miles from where i live. On the way to that restaurant i will pass two Indian temples, and two blocks of flat that have been converted from Churches. Tonight it's going to be good wine, good food and obviously the evidence of GOOD RIDDANCE. Wake up and smell the coffee you suckers. The Church of England is on it's knees.
@gabbsdad Well, the Church of England is on its knees precisely because it became incapable of distinguishing itself from the secular culture. A weak version of Christianity will always be assimilated by an aggressive culture.
Listening to Father Barron's agument for why a all powerful god would allow evil makes me wonder how can heaven be beautiful? Is there evil in heaven so that we can see and feel beauty and love?
Father, how is bone cancer in children or aids or genocide helping to create a more beautiful canvas for God's creation? This seems a very cruel and tortuous argument? You say God doesn't cause evil but allowing it to happen has the same net result! Sorry Father, this argument does not make any sense. To say the story is bigger than we can appreciate seems a bit of an excuse to me!
@Mrmentalmadness123 My short answer is: I don't know. I can't possibly see what God sees. Keep this in mind too: this life is not the total horizon, and death, therefore, is not the final calamity. God's providence includes those realms of existence that pass beyond this world and this life. Therefore things that appear, in our puny frame of reference, as utterly meaningless can take on meaning when we invoke wider horizons.
If God empties the Universe of Evil(Moral and/or Physical) he would have to make human beings robots, preserved miraculously from all evil. God does not operate this way because He wants us to participate in His Glory. He wants us to be heros; he wants us to destroy evil in ourselves and in the universe. We, not just God, are to "build the Earth". This is my answer to the problem of Evil. Where was God? is replaced by "Where were men?" in preventing evil and lessening it.
It also seems to me that you make the statement "If God exists, God is all good" without explaining the logic you use to defend it. I am powerful enough to write a short story, but that does not necessarily imply that I am perfectly good to the characters in my short story. The fact that a being could be powerful enough to create the universe does not necessarily imply that they must be perfectly good to the lifeforms within it.
It seems to me that casting God into the role of an artist, willing to allow evil so that he can create something beautiful, something we can't fully appreciate, directly contradicts the notion that he's all-loving. An all-loving god would surely favour good over beauty, would favour the elimination of evil over the beauty of his creation.
You can't have light without it casting some sort of shadow so in a weird sort of way you can't have good in the world without there being evil as an opposite. This a logical way of looking it.
It's like happiness too. I could feel happy to see and old friend whom I have not seen in a long time but I don't think that I would be so happy to see them if I didn't feel sadness having not seen them in a long time.
So it's is hard for us to know good without knowing what is evil as well.
You know this is a very difficult question that I've wrestled with for quite some time and I don't know if I'll every find an answer that will fully satisfy me.
If God is the ultimate good then the closer to God we are the more good we do. Thus the further away from God we go the more evil we become? I also looked at evil as being an absence or lack of good. Just like in art a shadow is refereed to as the absence of light.
Father Barron, would it also follow that since God is Justice, Itself, we can never judge Him no matter what evil things have happened in our lives? Not only can we not judge Him, by our limited and sinful perspective, but also because God can never do anything unjust. Does this work? But I also like to think that no matter what evils happen to us, we can never truly have an reason to complain because we have been given the greatest gift of all, life. Is this part of the Catholic teaching?
This is very close to oriental phylosphy, but stil far far far away from ancient wisdom of the east: God does not either permit or forbid evil. God simply isn't as you christians imagine it. God adn Devil are equal. Nor god permits evil, nor Devil permits good. Their are just balanced.
Disclaimer: I am an atheist, I don't belive in councious god who listen parayers. I use word GOD as myth, not the fact. Like people call universe god etc.
@Cousinsjay The same Isaiah says that God has carved us in the palms of his hands. Do you really think he was telling us that God has hands? He also says that God heaves and pants like a woman in labor. Do you think he's telling us that God is a big human female? He also tells us that God sits on his throne in heaven. You really think that Isaiah holds God to be sitting on a big chair in the clouds? Don't be so literalistic. The guy's a poet.
Isiah 45: 6That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. 7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
@Cousinsjay Those statements are meant to prove the Lord's sovereignty over all things. Evil is, as I've explained, a privation of the good. Therefore, it can't be literally created, only permitted. Isaiah is using, as he often does, a poetic device.
If I sat back and watched my kid run out on to the street in front of a car and did not do anything I would be condemned as a horrible parent. Hopefully I would be arrested and put away for the rest of my life... His argument of so miserable It's hard to respond without getting sick to my stomach! Sorry Japan... god just likes to watch...
@GawdOfThunder But I presume you would allow your son to go through the pain of surgery, even if the boy couldn't possibly understand why this dreadful process was necessary. You would, in short, permit evil in order to bring about a greater good. Now God is working with all of space and all of time--and even with a realm beyond space and time. Can't we see how he might permit certain evils that seem utterly incomprehensible to us so that he might bring about a greater good?
@wordonfirevideo I know for a fact that the surgeon really exists and that he spent several years perfecting his skills.... That I can trust. On the other hand you believe there is a god smiting people left right and center, causing earth quakes and disasters.... all for some unknown good?? Think about that. If a god was all powerful (as I assume you believe) then he could find better ways to accomplish what he wants. If not, then he obviously isn't all powerful, and worse a sadist.
@GawdOfThunder We know that God exists through the argument from contingency. Once we know that he is real, we have to explain why he would permit certain evils in his creation. The classical answer is that he does so in order to bring about some greater good. If you can find a better explanation--which fully acknowledges God's existence and the presence of evil--I'm all ears.
@wordonfirevideo So you would only listen to an argument that 'fully acknowledged god's existance'?? Huh?? But the fact still remains, that gods are only the creation of humans imagination. Where did the universe come from?.... I don't know. Humans may never know, but I believe scientists are getting a better understanding all the time. There is not need to invent super beings to explain the unknown.
@GawdOfThunder I've offered an argument for God's existence. Please engage that first. We can move on from there. The point of the demonstration is that a non-contingent ground is necessary in order finally to explain the existence of a contingent universe. I'm not "inventing" this reality; I'm logically demonstrating its existence.
You really aren't doing anything logical at all. A logical way of doing things would be to use the scientific method to determine whether god exists or not. If you attempted to prove god's existence that way then you would discover that there is no actual scientific or material evidence for the existence of god. "Look at the beauty surrounding us," and "none of this could have just happened naturally" are not scientific arguments. They are only cop outs religious people use.
@myutubeacc1Come on, man. The scientific method does not exhaust our ways of knowing the truth of things. Philosophy proceeds according to a different method and has a different object than the sciences; but this doesn't make it any less rational. And neither of those little comments you made come anywhere near the arguments I've actually made. Why don't you respond to them?
So you say evil is a privation of the good. But doesn't that imply that God's presence can be limited? Isn't it a contradiction to say that an infinite being is limited in some sense?
@wordonfirevideo "God permits certain evils to come into his creation so that some greater good might emerge."
Please help me to understand. Cold is a privation of heat. If there were infinite heat, though, it would be logically impossible to have any cold. I just don't see how a privation of God can exist if he's unlimited. As the heat example shows, it's logically impossible for something infinite to be limited at all even if you say there's a greater good coming later. Right?
@wordonfirevideo Me, too, Father Barron, but I would not presume to have studied these matters as you have. There is something within me that intuitively grasps the argument from contingency, and this argument trumps all arguments and apparent evidence to the contrary. There is something rather than nothing, and everything in human experience is caused. Something beyond human experience must be the Uncaused Cause; the universe is not perfect because something has ruined it. Enter revelation.
I'm really sure that one who saw his little kid die horrible death, or anything alike, will "enjoy" the rest of God's work.
Is this really worth so much suffering we see daily? Couldn't there be simple peace and happiness? Or is God afraid we wouldn't admire him without all this evil?
How pathetically egocentric God must be!
Or... is it that you try to explain something which defies logic and reason, a flaw in your set of dogmas?
Broken things are precious. We eat broken bread because we share in the death of our Lord and his broken life. Broken flowers give perfume. Broken incense is used in adoration. A broken ship saved Paul & many others on their way to to Rome. Somtimes the only way the good Lord can get into some hearts is to break them.
I find that God gave us a free will; that we may choose to do evil or good. If God were to force all of us to be good, would we really be good? God lays the moral framework of defining goodness, it's up to us to act in a way which corresponds to that framework.
Consider that: for what you do, during your relatively short period of life, you can suffer an eternal damnation. ETERNAL! Without any possibility of redemption. (this is at least what I was thought by the Catholic Church) Can you honestly imagine a sin worth of such a penalty? I can't!
With such a deal how can you call our "gift" "a free will"?
Well that's the problem with the idea of Hell nowadays; it's not some place God tosses us in but a self-imposed exile. CS Lewis comments on the idea remarkably in his mere christianity book; I don't have the comment space to reiterate it but it's there.
this is the weakest theory I've ever heard. good and evil do not exist, it's about how you have been growing up. if your father and mother were racist and living among other racist you would have wind up as a racist aswell. it's all about how you raise your kids because this is the stage were they develop their character.
if there is a god (I'm agnostic, so I keep the option open) he is not keeping him/herself busy with us. god want us to figure it out for our selfs. develop knowledge
Father ! We know that Evils do exist ..But one says that evil is within us in our soul ..and the soul is the main centre conducting the evil and good work..My confusion here is that if there is evil ( satan ) out side of our soul can also be part of our Soul ? Why does not GOD kill the Satan from the beginning if he is going to ruin our lives in may ways ? We sin all the time in thoughts at least , can we say that is evil ( satan ) works or just us doing wrong?
I like how Maurice Zundel talked about evil. Evil is definitely an absurdity and trying to explain it in the light of the goodness of God could seem unconvincing. Zundel reversed the question: what in evil makes human nature revolt? The answer was God. If there was no God (within) then we would be programmed to adapt and accept injustice, suffering, death and evil. It is the God within that cries against evil. If there was no God, then evil would be an acceptable thing but it is not.
@Enigmatik691 Nice point. I'm perfectly ok with the existence of evil in the Universe. I don't see how, for instance, free will and moral responsibility could exist in a world without evil. We would not be free; we would be permanently and overwhelmingly patronized by God.
During life, we made a lot of choices, and to be good or evil is just a matter of choice, act of free will. If God is goodness in absolute way,he respect our free will and he let us to choose wrong and to do evil. It is part of the learning process. To be evil means not to be aware of our true nature.
What I find disturbing is the Christian's tendancy to say, "Yes, evil exists but don't let it bother you because it's all part of God's plan. We just don't understand it." This is disturbing because you are freely admitting not understanding it yet excusing it. It is entirely possible "evil" exists because it entertains "God". Or perhaps "God" is merely a emotionally removed scientist who placed us here to see what would happen. This evasion prevents the Christian from winning this debate
@Greynomad38 We know that God exists and that God is good. (I don't have time here to develop the arguments). Therefore, we cannot construe God as rejoicing in evil. Logic compels us to find another explanation. And so far, we haven't found one that fits the facts better than the one that I laid out here.
@wordonfirevideo Whenever you have the time please explain how you know "God" is good. However, since the problem of evil challenges the very issue of "God's" goodness, I'm now sure how the logic compels us to do anything but assume "God" isn't good.
@Greynomad38 Well, God is the subsistent act of being itself, the non-contingent ground of contingency. This implies that God enjoys the fullness of being. This means that God must possess intellect and will and that both must function to a perfect degree. Therefore, God knows the good (namely his own essence and that which participates in it) and he desires it utterly. In a word, he is marked by love. For a fuller treatment, look at the first part of Aquinas's Summa.
Being an atheist, I've no issue with the "existence of evil". Natural "evil" is just that, natural occurrances in our lives which we have little, if any, control over. Human "evil" can be based on many things but is still just a determination of society as to what is "evil" and what isn't. Slavery used to be okay. Now it's seen as "evil". In many cultures of the past, it was okay to put a crippled child to death. "Evil" is merely an agreed upon opinion by individuals and groups. IMO
@Greynomad38 It does not matter if you are atheist or theist, or any kind of believer-
you can not be relativistic upon good and evil. Slavery never used to be okay. Yes, it was accepted in society, but it was wrong, because people was suffering, and such societies are crippled. Sense of good and evil, justice and injustice is part of the human being, but it can be distorted, as it can be seen in the world today.
Wasn't Mill just putting Epicurus in his own words? "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God"
@mypolicy9 continued; your argument addresses the logical PoE. God could have justifiable reasons to create a world that involves hundreds of millions of years of pain and suffering for innumerable sentient beings, provided there is a "greater good". So far though, I have heard no ideas as to what this good might be.
However, the evidential PoE is much harder to defend. If you don't believe that gratuitous pain and suffering exist in nature, then you haven't been paying attention.
@ecosophist "If you don't believe that gratuitous pain and suffering exist in nature, then you haven't been paying attention"
--But this is false. I have no evidence gratuitous suffering exists. I only have evidence that much suffering exists. "Gratuitous" is precisely what implies God has no morally sufficient reasons for suffering. I see no reason for thinking this is true. You are talking yourself in a circle.
@mypolicy9 gratuitous pain, suffering and death is all around. Here's the well known Bambi argument.
“In some distant forest lightning strikes a dead tree, resulting in a forest fire. In the fire a fawn is trapped, horribly burned, and lies in terrible agony for several days before death relieves its suffering” (Rowe ).
What is the greater good that lends value/worth for this example, one of just many. May I suggest you do a quick search for "The evidential problem of evil" in Google.
@ecosophist I know the logical and evidential problems of evil well enough. What's your point? Presumably, you want me to admit that great amounts of natural suffering implies moral evil, even for creatures like Bambi. But I don't think it does. End of story. You presume some kind of moral principle, for which you've failed to specify--so your argument (whatever it is) is so far an emotional argument.
@mypolicy9 Emotion, sentiment, I get those words thrown at me on several message forums. There are some Catholics who simply deny the PoE. They go so far as to claim that non-human animals don't have emotions or even feel pain. I hope you're not one of those neo-Cartesians.
If you believe that the evidence for natural evil (pain, suffering, death) is compatible with an all-loving God, then we are at an impasse.
@ecosophist "Emotion, sentiment, I get those words thrown at me on several message forums"
--Most likely because you are not specifying the moral principle you are implicitly assuming in your normative judgments--nor do you specify "the Good." So most of it sounds like whining to us.
" go so far as to claim that non-human animals don't have emotions or even feel pain. neo-Cartesians."
--Not so sure how that helps their case for human suffering, but ok.
"If you believe that the evidence for natural evil (pain, suffering, death) is compatible with an all-loving God, then we are at an impasse."
--Indeed, we are. I find it very telling so many nontheists out of touch with the Judeo-Christian tradition think it is so naive and pampered as to have never bothered facing the problem of the evil before. False. People in these very traditions have grappled with it for 2 thousand yrs of theology & in their own persons. Start w/ Job.
@mypolicy9 Right, and the answer Job got was "sit down and shut up, where were you when I created the cosmos?". Nice.
I find it hard to believe that this is the best of all possible worlds, and certainly God would have created the best of all possible worlds, right? Or would He have created something sub par?
I could vastly mitigate natural evil, simply by creating the world and everything in it in six days, as opposed to hundreds of millions of years of pain and suffering.
@ecosophist " find it hard to believe that this is the best of all possible worlds, and God would have created [it]"
--*Leibniz*....You're talking yourself in circles. I deny both that (1) a world in which no suffering exists is a better candidate for the best possible world than one in which it doesnt' exist, & that (2) we can know w/ certainty that lessening suffering will, ceteris paribus, always hands down produce a better world. Both are your own not-obviously true personal assumptions.
@mypolicy9 So the New Heaven and New Earth will be less than perfect because it will have no suffering? Same case before the Fall when there was no suffering?
@mypolicy9 So you are one of those Catholics who dismiss the PoE by simply denying the premise that pain, suffering and death are natural evils, things to be averted. Then explain to me why philosophers and theologians have wrestled with this problem for thousands of years? Apparently there are many, including Fr. Barron who think it is a worthy argument. Indeed, Fr. Barron explicitly states that this is the strongest argument against an omnibenevolent God.
@ecosophist "simply denying the premise that pain, suffering and death are natural evils"
--No, I don't deny that. (1) I deny that natural evils are morally relevant evils. (2) I deny that one can even know whether all the suffering that exists is gratuitous, since this requires omniscience of all past, present, and future suffering. (3) I think the "amount" of happiness/suffering are neither necessary nor sufficient for determining the best possible world, since utilitarianism is false.
@mypolicy9 So you take the stance that justification for all the gratuitous pain, suffering and death over the last few hundreds of millions of years is a mystery, which will be revealed to me once I'm dead? That's pretty convenient.
I think a more plausible answer is that there is no omnibenevolent God, and that nature is cold and indifferent.
@mypolicy9 You keep avoiding my questions. Do you believe that this great mystery of evil, this "greater good", will be revealed to you in the after life?
Anyways, I never said all pain and suffering were gratuitous, I said some, not all like you misstated. I gave you the classic Bambi example for one. The only purpose for such a painful death I can think of is during decomposition of the corpse. But these nutrients can be found from other sources. So I still think it's gratuitous.
@ecosophist "Do you believe that this great mystery of evil, this "greater good", will be revealed to you in the after life?"
--I do, but I don't argue for this claim. The burden of proof is clearly your own. You simply have no way of knowing that some suffering is gratuituous, so that your arguments are, at best, arguments from ignorance, that, "If I don't see X, X doesn't exist." Your problem is solely an epistemic one.
@mypolicy9 You are contradicting yourself. You believe that this mystery of a greater good will be revealed to you, but yet you claim there is no gratuitous pain and suffering, so what's there to explain?
@ecosophist "You are contradicting yourself. You believe that this mystery of a greater good will be revealed to you, but yet you claim there is no gratuitous pain and suffering"
--Absolutely not. I said there is no evidence for making a claim either way whether or not gratuitous suffering exists. My reason for thinking there is a greater good is logically deduced a priori from my belief in the Goodness of God, and is not empirical. Your belief, on the other hand, so far is groundless.
@mypolicy9 You keep equivocating and talking in circles, I think I'm done here. To paraphrase a Bank CEO talking about the recent financial meltdown caused by self-delusion, including consumers who never bothered to read the fine print in their credit card applications; "People believe what they want to believe".
@ecosophist I equivocate nothing. It is a simple fact you have no evidence that gratuituous suffering exists. Therefore, you don't have an argument. Period.
@mypolicy9 Well, 5 days and no reply. So I can make the inference that you have some difficulties believing that theodicy will be revealed to you after your dead.
Theology is just so much hand waving, or as Aquinas put it, so much straw.
@ecosophist Bambi. "The only purpose for such a painful death I can think of is during decomposition of the corpse. But these nutrients can be found from other sources. So I still think it's gratuitous."
--How can you possibly know Bambi's death is "gratuitous"? Clearly, you seem to think the principle of ecology, or interconnectedness and comprehensiveness, holding for all events stops in the case of nutrients available from elsewhere. I see no reason for thinking this.
--This question itself is senseless because it presupposes there was a point at which an eternally and necessarily existent being, God, did not exist--which is a contradiction. If God exists, he necessarily exists.
I have never heard a sufficient answer to this question. Theologians use terms such as "nomic regularity", but that's just a fancy way of saying "that's just the way it is". That's a non-answer. There are worse answer from supposedly smart people such as "before the fall, there was no pain, suffering or death in the natural word" or "there are malevolent daemons that push around tectonic plates". Both of these "answers" are insulting.
Theologians like to address moral evil, i.e. the holocaust. The answer is easy; free will. There is a dearth of scholarly work on natural evil though, "nature red in tooth and claw". Gratuitous pain and suffering is inherent in nature. How could an all-loving deity use such a slow, painful method such as evolution to bring about his ultimate creation homo sapiens sapiens?
@ecosophist "Gratuitous pain and suffering is inherent in nature."
--How do you know it is "gratuitious"? It only seems that way to you because you already think a good God wouldn't allow it. The appearance of suffering in the world is not actually a problem for the theist who thinks a good God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting suffering. However irrational and counterintuitive this may seem to you, it is not an objection facing the theist who believes God has sufficient reason.
@mypolicy9 Certainly, not all pain is gratuitous; pain can be a useful warning. But what is the greater good of a young fawn being burnt alive in a forest fire which no one witnesses? To me this is the definition of gratuitous. I can think of many other examples.
Nature is cold and indifferent to suffering, macro-evolution is a prime example.
p.s. why does Fr. Barron use the word "disorder" instead of evil (natural). In a video on theodicy, I would expect the correct theological term; evil
@ecosophist " But what is the greater good of a young fawn being burnt alive in a forest fire which no one witnesses? To me this is the definition of gratuitous."
Right. U think an animal dying in a forest fire is gratuitous because the context of your judgment is determined by your time-parameters limiting what you can imagine as a foreseeable good. The theist extends those very parameters to include all the time of eternity. Given eternity, the theist sees no reason to suppose gratuity.
@mypolicy9 To justify the pain,suffering and death of untold sentient beings over hundreds of millions of years would require one hell of a "greater good". Does anyone know what this greater good actually is?
If I ask you a question, and you reply that it will be explained after I'm dead, or in the "fullness of time", or simply state that it's a mystery, well that's a non-answer, sorry.
"If I ask you a question, and you reply that it will be explained after I'm dead, or in the "fullness of time", or simply state that it's a mystery, well that's a non-answer, sorry."
--Again, I said this is only because you already think God, if he exists, lacks a morally sufficient reason for allowing suffering. Theists don't think this. So none of this is an objection to their belief in God. There are many apparent "bads" whose good purpose we don't understand until later.
@mypolicy9 As I've said before, this video and your posts seem to address moral evil only. This is evident from the shared usage of the phrase "allows suffering".
Again, this works well for moral evil, i.e. God allowed the Holocaust, God allowed Stalin's purges, etc. But does a lethal virus need God's permission before it infects a host species? Does an earthquake need God's allowance before it kills 100,000 people?
Some day we will see this beautiful canvas that demonstrates that suffering has ultimately a "good" purpose. hmmm. Hard to imagine the ultimate good that comes out of say, Ascaris worms-an obligate human parasite designed to latch onto a human gut and suck nutrients from it's host. 1 billion people are tortured or killed by this worm every year. What greater Good comes from malaria, smallpox, leprosy? These preferentially torture and kill children!
@wordonfirevideo I don't think we are. It is religion that argues that we are. The greatest achievement of the work of art, the pinnacle, is human attainment of perfect freedom, love etc...is it not ? Do other animals achieve this?. It may be all an expression of his glory, but it has us in mind...no?
@wordonfirevideo I don't think @adstanra is being anthropocentric, "nature, red in tooth and claw" affects all species. If anything, I would say the RCC is anthropocentric, according to its teachings only homo sapiens has any intrinsic worth.
Buddhists call evil the "dark mind" if I am not mistaken. I guess you could say the evil mind is the most extremely deluded state of mind. I like to think of it that way.
@gointoeatpizza I'm sure God was not pleased with the bad the Church did in the past but there has been plenty of good the Church has done too and is still doing. People have this misconception that priests and bishops are immune to sin but the truth is that they are not due their human nature and they need prayer more. Let me ask you this do you condemn all Germans on account of the Nazis?
@Cwateyou The Catholic Church was founded by St. Peter. Jesus tells him that he is the "rock" upon which His church will be built. Matthew 16:18. To me it doesn't make sense that Jesus came to earth and then told the apostles to spread His Word then leave without establishing an authority? He knew what would happen if he didn't and the 30,000 other christian denominations are a perfect example of that.
@goingtoeatpizza I think that was peoples doing.. not gods doing. I AM a christian, but i think that the catholic church and other religions and other types of Christianity was made by people NOT god.
That unless the men who abused their power in the Catholic church repent, (just like anyone else) then they will have to pay the price by their own doing.
This does not reflect on the Catholic faith at all. Only on the corruption within the Church. Jesus himself foretold this would happen.
God is not the Church. The Church was founded by St. Peter. God intercedes in the Church, but He is not the actual Church. Therefore, any evil done inside the Church is caused by man, not God. This isn't necessarily directed towards you, but it seems as though any person who is so against God or the Church or religion in general, has little to no facts on any of it. They only comment on arguments everyone else tends to use. Maybe people should gain more knowledge before accusations.
Can the screams of a child who is being raped/murdered be heard in Heaven? Do those in Heaven ignore those cries, satisfied with the explanation that the child's pain is a dab of dark pigment on God's Rembrandtesque canvas of life? I work with people who would swap Heaven
for a year of freedom from Schizophrenia or intractable physical pain. Live one of those lives before you marvel at their decision. The effort to mitigate the existential indictment created by their suffering will always fail
To your first question, yes. To your second question, no. God will make good come form the evil experienced by a child, just as he made good come from the crucifixion of His own son. I'm not going to pretend like I expect this to make sense to someone who rejects the salvific power of suffering, but that is a big thing that makes Christianity different in that it can take even suffering (which comes from rejecting God) and use it for a good end.
I don't reject the possibility of the salvific power of suffering; however, it is a problematic concept. Sometimes a "greater good" emerges from an evil event; sometimes that doesn't appear to be the case. I don't accept "on faith" the idea that somewhere, somehow, Gods master-plan will redeem all suffering. Hitler, Pol Pot and others have used the "greater good" concept to justify genocide and other atrocities. As mere mortals we are taught that evil is never a morally
If God were the cause of the evil, you might have a point. But the Judeo-Christian God exhorts us to love one another. Most evil is the direct result of human beings using their free will in a way that is contrary to that commandment. For God to prevent man-made evil He would need to take away our free will. I don't know about you, but I like knowing that I am free to choose my destiny.
If God permits evil, then he is complicit in its consequences. The writers of Job understood this, because they had Job confront God on the grounds of moral injustice. The "Where were you when..." response is not adequate because it is grounded in a differential in power not justice. The question is: can God through his straw-man Satan violate his own moral code. The answer, apparently, is yes, although I think that that still results in an existential indictment, which is what Job is
all about. Free will is an illusion. Your will is conditioned by a million factors: genetic predispositions, events in childhood, peer pressure, cultural influences, etc. etc. You are free to will what you have been determined to want.
First, you don't really fully comprehend what the consequences of any given act are as an all-knowing God would, so you aren't in a position to judge whether what He allows is not better than any other alternatives. In fact, if you are like 100 percent of human beings you make misjudgments every day regarding just your own actions. Second it wouldn't violate God's nature to allow evil if a greater good may come of it. God's in a position to know those things, we aren't.
What you say is only partly true. Yes, our habits, up-bringing, etc., can affect how we exercise our free will, but we still have the ability to change pre-programmed behaviors. If that weren't so you'd have no call for holding anyone accountable for any wrongdoing. Not racism, not sexism, not killing, not rape. After all, they can't "help it", right?
God is the Creator Almighty thus He had to have created evil. Now as to His Purpose for it, I don't know, cannot understand it and my being does not accept it. Fr. Barron, if He did not create it then he is not the Almighty Creator in charge of all. Did evil just creep up on Him and He said O.K. let me work with this? The O.T. is full of violence and war Commanded by Him b/c somewhere in His Mystery that does exist within Him otherwise it could not be in Creation.Can you explain this, please?
This explanation makes no sense with an omnipotent omnibenevolent deity, as said deity should be able(if all powerful) and willing (if all good) to stop evil.
Also, evil being absence of good makes no sense by itself. What is an evil act the absence of? Is murder the absence of un-murder? Is theft the absence of un-theft?
These things are due to the presence of preventable actions, not the absence of good.
You obviously are missing the connection between free will and the ability to choose evil. If God made it impossible for people to choose not to do good, they would have no freedom. So yes, God could have eradicated evil choices, but only at the expense of our freedom to choose.
Defining free will as being superior to the cessation of evil is a hard position to defend.
Furthermore, if there's no evil in heaven, then there must not be the freedom to choose evil while in heaven, no? Free will, by proxy, does not exist in heaven. Seems like a pretty bad deal if you define free will as being superior to cessation of evil.
I don't think it's a hard position to defend at all. Would I prefer to be a puppet and never have to deal with evil or a free agent and have to deal with evil during my mortal lifetime? I would choose the latter if given the choice.
As for the absolute goodness in heaven, the will has already been fixed by the time a person gets to heaven. Those in heaven have irrevocably made up their minds that they want to spend eternity with God..
What the position really says is that the ability for the murderer to choose is more important than the life of the victim. Which, aside from flying in the face of even the most primitive criminal justice system, is completely morally indefensible.
So you admit that free will doesn't exist in heaven, then? Then my point stands. Why is free will more important than stopping evil on earth, but not in heaven? I thought God's moral judgments were unchanging?
You are basing your complaint on the mistaken idea that a person stops existing after they die. They don't. The worst life on earth would be worth it to spend even a moment in heaven, and if you live your life right, it doesn't matter how you die in this life, you will get ETERNITY in heaven. So yes, to have that opportunity, and to get free will in the bargain is a very good deal.
My argument was never based on the idea that a person stops existing after they die. It would make no sense to deprive someone of free will in heaven if they don't exist.
Are you serious? god justified himself to a man?By taking him through the cosmos! Were he then complained to job? Job was but a man who lived maybe 70 years and god asks him where was he when he was creating the universe?What a stupid question,If god is all knowing, he already knew the answer?!?!?!
Who defines disorder/order? Jainism doesn't believe in an omnipotent supreme being, creator, but rather in an eternal universe governed by natural laws. What is nature? There are a lot of jebish in their descriptions; but Syadvada, one of Jains doctrines, highlights this: Every view is only relative to its view point. Views are relativity. God's view of this universe should be relatively BEYOND our psychologies, languages and communications. Judao is just confused as any traditions we have.
I want to know why god created this filter we call earth for the people who will go to heaven and go to hell. If he's all powerful why would he need the filter? He already knows who will make it and who wont. Its so norrow minded, something you'd think a god wouldnt be
This is his way of giving us a choice of whether or not we love him. If he made us join with him against our will that wouldn't be love nor would we have any dignity. We'd be like his pets. By giving us a choice he gives us the ultimate gift of freedom. It's up to us to use it well.
A choice with such a stringent penalty if you choose one option is simply no choice at all.
It would be like saying "Hey, do you want to go see a movie? Also, if you say no, i'll beat you to death with a baseball bat. But hey, it's totally your choice because I love you."
It's more like telling someone, "If you eat moderately and exercise you will stay fit. If you eat garbage and sit around you will likely get fat and unhealthy." Evil is the lack of goodness, and the absence of God from Hell is what makes it so awful. So if you don't want to be with God, you should understand the ramifications--no God means no good. There really is no other option, because if something is good, God is the author of it.
Comparing Hell to getting fat is a bit of a stretch. But only if you think Hell is eternal torture, which many Catholics disagree on. "Annihilationism", which is a position wherein Hell is simply a separation from God, is certainly a more moral model, but it certainly isn't indicated in the Bible.
Eternal torture is indicated in several places (Jer. 13:14; Ezek. 5:11-13; 7:4-9; 8:18. Matt. 13:40-42, 48-50; 2 Thess. 1:5-9)
Separation from God IS eternal torture. What you are failing to grasp in my analogy is that it is the natural consequence of being separated from God. What you are asking for is to want to do something (reject God) but not accept the consequences (being separated from God). It's the height of irrationality.
the universe in perfect order, there is no evil, no good, only what is there
DAEDREKWARRIOR 6 days ago
The question is man-centred. Unless one is prepared to take the view that "man is the measure of all things", it's meaningless. How can we know it is disordered, if we cannot see the whole design in relation to which it is judged to be disordered ? Disorder is a relative concept. Disorder may be no different from order; they may differ only relatively, & be examples of pareidolia, rather than really existing things. "Disorder" is a man-made category for viewing the universe.
5355vbxjbj76rvn 2 months ago
with all due respect I typically agree with you assessments however I disagree with this one. I think of St. Francis of Assissi and his prayer. "Make me a channel of your peace". God makes himself present to us all through the good works of his followers. God makes himself known through people's irradication of evil. The missionary in Africa/ S. America shows God to the people through action and is thus drawn closer to God himself. But that's just me. Thank you for the videos.
TheRekcabOfTheD 3 months ago
What an excellent explaination of Gods everlasing majesty. We only see part of it. After having many life experiences and several brushes with death, confirms that my life is limited. Another thing it shows me is this life is not where it's at. This life is full of misery in various and sundry ways and our lives are short. Consider, what is 80 years compared to eternity? I hope and pray that we all get to see the entire tapestry of Gods creation.
bheadh 4 months ago
This guy has such lame arguments.
gavincostin1 7 months ago
@gavincostin1 Ah still another demonstration of intellectual acumen from an avatar of the "new" atheism!
wordonfirevideo 7 months ago
if one of two contraries be infinite the other would NOT be destroyed. it's the simple concept of the unstoppable force meeting an immovable object.
There is an infinite amount of cold dark empty space out there, but also an infinite number of super hot stars. in this universe and many others. so yes. two contradictory infinities CAN exist simultaneously with one another.
sorry Tom :)
failblorg 7 months ago
@failblorg Come on, friend, "space" and the stars are hardly infinite! The very fact that space is continually expanding proves that space is limited, and scientists have estimated the number of stars. It's a shockingly high number, of course, but hardly infinite!
wordonfirevideo 7 months ago
@wordonfirevideo Space can in fact be both infinite and expanding. The number of stars in the observable universe is finite not because space is finite but because the speed of light is finite; the observable universe is that part of the universe from which light has reached earth in the < 14 billion years of the universe's existence. It is known from theoretical studies that the actual universe must be at least 1000 times greater in extent than the observable universe and possibly infinite.
jimtrueblue99 6 months ago
@jimtrueblue99 Is "space" intelligent, free, and marked by will? Does it possess all power? If the answer to those questions is no (and how could it be otherwise), then space is ontologically finite.
wordonfirevideo 6 months ago
@wordonfirevideo This is not a matter of ontology. This is a matter of General Relativity. GR requires that gravity impose a geometry on space in one of three possibilities: positively curved (unbounded and finite) or either uncurved or negatively curved (both unbounded and unlimited). Observation excludes the first possibility and supports the second. Philosophy uninformed by GR has nothing of value to say on this matter. Aristotle and Aquinas can't help you here. You need Einstein..
jimtrueblue99 6 months ago
@jimtrueblue99 Friend, none of this speaks to the point I'm making. General Relativity doesn't turn space into God!
wordonfirevideo 6 months ago
@wordonfirevideo Friend, space doesn't need to be God to be infinite.
jimtrueblue99 6 months ago
@jimtrueblue99 Okay, I give up. You don't know what "infinite" means.
wordonfirevideo 6 months ago
@jimtrueblue99
God is non-dimensional, non-spatial, non-material. GR deals with the material universe. God is not a "thing" found in the universe - God is "no-thing": incomparable, unique, unlike anything He has created. The God of Christian theism is not like the character in Star Trek V. God is Infinite Being, not reducible to anything in the universe: is not something originating from it, nor a member of a set of causes; is supernatural: GR applies to the natural world.
5355vbxjbj76rvn 2 months ago
@jimtrueblue99
God is infinite, but not spatially: God is not a body, nor is God material, nor extended in space, nor a point in space. The infinity of space - a subject BTW much discussed by mediaeval philosophers - is that of a material thing. The use of "infinite" in astronomy =/= its use in Christian theology; they are two different disciplines, using the word for different purposes, & each is legitimate in its own field; confusing the two uses, leads to misunderstanding.
5355vbxjbj76rvn 2 months ago
What and the Catholic Church is a strong version of Christianity is It? Where in the bible does it say that a priest should ware a dog collar and charge for birth marriages and funerals. Jesus said that the identifying mark of his follower would be love.
Google images: Killing joke, laugh i nearly bought one.
gabbsdad 7 months ago
@gabbsdad And where in the Bible does it say there should be Protestant ministers and televangelists?!
wordonfirevideo 7 months ago
I live in Bristol the U.K. Tonight I'm going to a Italian restaurant that used to a Church. It is about two miles from where i live. On the way to that restaurant i will pass two Indian temples, and two blocks of flat that have been converted from Churches. Tonight it's going to be good wine, good food and obviously the evidence of GOOD RIDDANCE. Wake up and smell the coffee you suckers. The Church of England is on it's knees.
gabbsdad 7 months ago
@gabbsdad Well, the Church of England is on its knees precisely because it became incapable of distinguishing itself from the secular culture. A weak version of Christianity will always be assimilated by an aggressive culture.
wordonfirevideo 7 months ago
Listening to Father Barron's agument for why a all powerful god would allow evil makes me wonder how can heaven be beautiful? Is there evil in heaven so that we can see and feel beauty and love?
tyflyer007 7 months ago
Father, how is bone cancer in children or aids or genocide helping to create a more beautiful canvas for God's creation? This seems a very cruel and tortuous argument? You say God doesn't cause evil but allowing it to happen has the same net result! Sorry Father, this argument does not make any sense. To say the story is bigger than we can appreciate seems a bit of an excuse to me!
Mrmentalmadness123 7 months ago
@Mrmentalmadness123 My short answer is: I don't know. I can't possibly see what God sees. Keep this in mind too: this life is not the total horizon, and death, therefore, is not the final calamity. God's providence includes those realms of existence that pass beyond this world and this life. Therefore things that appear, in our puny frame of reference, as utterly meaningless can take on meaning when we invoke wider horizons.
wordonfirevideo 7 months ago
If God empties the Universe of Evil(Moral and/or Physical) he would have to make human beings robots, preserved miraculously from all evil. God does not operate this way because He wants us to participate in His Glory. He wants us to be heros; he wants us to destroy evil in ourselves and in the universe. We, not just God, are to "build the Earth". This is my answer to the problem of Evil. Where was God? is replaced by "Where were men?" in preventing evil and lessening it.
watchful38 8 months ago
It also seems to me that you make the statement "If God exists, God is all good" without explaining the logic you use to defend it. I am powerful enough to write a short story, but that does not necessarily imply that I am perfectly good to the characters in my short story. The fact that a being could be powerful enough to create the universe does not necessarily imply that they must be perfectly good to the lifeforms within it.
dbrandow 8 months ago
It seems to me that casting God into the role of an artist, willing to allow evil so that he can create something beautiful, something we can't fully appreciate, directly contradicts the notion that he's all-loving. An all-loving god would surely favour good over beauty, would favour the elimination of evil over the beauty of his creation.
dbrandow 8 months ago
You can't have light without it casting some sort of shadow so in a weird sort of way you can't have good in the world without there being evil as an opposite. This a logical way of looking it.
It's like happiness too. I could feel happy to see and old friend whom I have not seen in a long time but I don't think that I would be so happy to see them if I didn't feel sadness having not seen them in a long time.
So it's is hard for us to know good without knowing what is evil as well.
XeroBlue 9 months ago
You know this is a very difficult question that I've wrestled with for quite some time and I don't know if I'll every find an answer that will fully satisfy me.
If God is the ultimate good then the closer to God we are the more good we do. Thus the further away from God we go the more evil we become? I also looked at evil as being an absence or lack of good. Just like in art a shadow is refereed to as the absence of light.
XeroBlue 9 months ago
Father Barron, would it also follow that since God is Justice, Itself, we can never judge Him no matter what evil things have happened in our lives? Not only can we not judge Him, by our limited and sinful perspective, but also because God can never do anything unjust. Does this work? But I also like to think that no matter what evils happen to us, we can never truly have an reason to complain because we have been given the greatest gift of all, life. Is this part of the Catholic teaching?
wafflesmacduff 9 months ago
This is very close to oriental phylosphy, but stil far far far away from ancient wisdom of the east: God does not either permit or forbid evil. God simply isn't as you christians imagine it. God adn Devil are equal. Nor god permits evil, nor Devil permits good. Their are just balanced.
Disclaimer: I am an atheist, I don't belive in councious god who listen parayers. I use word GOD as myth, not the fact. Like people call universe god etc.
rycka1983 10 months ago
A poetic device...amazing....lol....come on Bob It's amazing how you explain away everything. Which God is everyone moving towards....?
Cousinsjay 10 months ago
@Cousinsjay The same Isaiah says that God has carved us in the palms of his hands. Do you really think he was telling us that God has hands? He also says that God heaves and pants like a woman in labor. Do you think he's telling us that God is a big human female? He also tells us that God sits on his throne in heaven. You really think that Isaiah holds God to be sitting on a big chair in the clouds? Don't be so literalistic. The guy's a poet.
wordonfirevideo 10 months ago
A poetic device...amazing....lol....come on Bob
Cousinsjay 10 months ago
You have to read your bible Bob
Isiah 45: 6That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. 7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Cousinsjay 10 months ago
@Cousinsjay Those statements are meant to prove the Lord's sovereignty over all things. Evil is, as I've explained, a privation of the good. Therefore, it can't be literally created, only permitted. Isaiah is using, as he often does, a poetic device.
wordonfirevideo 10 months ago
If I sat back and watched my kid run out on to the street in front of a car and did not do anything I would be condemned as a horrible parent. Hopefully I would be arrested and put away for the rest of my life... His argument of so miserable It's hard to respond without getting sick to my stomach! Sorry Japan... god just likes to watch...
GawdOfThunder 11 months ago
@GawdOfThunder But I presume you would allow your son to go through the pain of surgery, even if the boy couldn't possibly understand why this dreadful process was necessary. You would, in short, permit evil in order to bring about a greater good. Now God is working with all of space and all of time--and even with a realm beyond space and time. Can't we see how he might permit certain evils that seem utterly incomprehensible to us so that he might bring about a greater good?
wordonfirevideo 10 months ago
@wordonfirevideo I know for a fact that the surgeon really exists and that he spent several years perfecting his skills.... That I can trust. On the other hand you believe there is a god smiting people left right and center, causing earth quakes and disasters.... all for some unknown good?? Think about that. If a god was all powerful (as I assume you believe) then he could find better ways to accomplish what he wants. If not, then he obviously isn't all powerful, and worse a sadist.
GawdOfThunder 9 months ago
@GawdOfThunder We know that God exists through the argument from contingency. Once we know that he is real, we have to explain why he would permit certain evils in his creation. The classical answer is that he does so in order to bring about some greater good. If you can find a better explanation--which fully acknowledges God's existence and the presence of evil--I'm all ears.
wordonfirevideo 9 months ago
@wordonfirevideo So you would only listen to an argument that 'fully acknowledged god's existance'?? Huh?? But the fact still remains, that gods are only the creation of humans imagination. Where did the universe come from?.... I don't know. Humans may never know, but I believe scientists are getting a better understanding all the time. There is not need to invent super beings to explain the unknown.
GawdOfThunder 9 months ago
@GawdOfThunder I've offered an argument for God's existence. Please engage that first. We can move on from there. The point of the demonstration is that a non-contingent ground is necessary in order finally to explain the existence of a contingent universe. I'm not "inventing" this reality; I'm logically demonstrating its existence.
wordonfirevideo 9 months ago
@wordonfirevideo
You really aren't doing anything logical at all. A logical way of doing things would be to use the scientific method to determine whether god exists or not. If you attempted to prove god's existence that way then you would discover that there is no actual scientific or material evidence for the existence of god. "Look at the beauty surrounding us," and "none of this could have just happened naturally" are not scientific arguments. They are only cop outs religious people use.
myutubeacc1 8 months ago
@myutubeacc1Come on, man. The scientific method does not exhaust our ways of knowing the truth of things. Philosophy proceeds according to a different method and has a different object than the sciences; but this doesn't make it any less rational. And neither of those little comments you made come anywhere near the arguments I've actually made. Why don't you respond to them?
wordonfirevideo 8 months ago
Nice example of apologetics gymnastics...
GawdOfThunder 11 months ago
So you say evil is a privation of the good. But doesn't that imply that God's presence can be limited? Isn't it a contradiction to say that an infinite being is limited in some sense?
Jugglable 11 months ago
@Jugglable No! God is not limited and God is not evil. God permits certain evils to come into his creation so that some greater good might emerge.
wordonfirevideo 11 months ago
@wordonfirevideo "God permits certain evils to come into his creation so that some greater good might emerge."
Please help me to understand. Cold is a privation of heat. If there were infinite heat, though, it would be logically impossible to have any cold. I just don't see how a privation of God can exist if he's unlimited. As the heat example shows, it's logically impossible for something infinite to be limited at all even if you say there's a greater good coming later. Right?
Jugglable 10 months ago
@wordonfirevideo Me, too, Father Barron, but I would not presume to have studied these matters as you have. There is something within me that intuitively grasps the argument from contingency, and this argument trumps all arguments and apparent evidence to the contrary. There is something rather than nothing, and everything in human experience is caused. Something beyond human experience must be the Uncaused Cause; the universe is not perfect because something has ruined it. Enter revelation.
billybagbom 10 months ago
@Jim1905
Heh, I wasn't saying that God did it directly.
He simply allows it to happen, giving us as an excuse "a beautiful canvas".
This is extremely lame, an epic fail.
amanofthisworld 11 months ago
I'm really sure that one who saw his little kid die horrible death, or anything alike, will "enjoy" the rest of God's work.
Is this really worth so much suffering we see daily? Couldn't there be simple peace and happiness? Or is God afraid we wouldn't admire him without all this evil?
How pathetically egocentric God must be!
Or... is it that you try to explain something which defies logic and reason, a flaw in your set of dogmas?
amanofthisworld 11 months ago
Broken things are precious. We eat broken bread because we share in the death of our Lord and his broken life. Broken flowers give perfume. Broken incense is used in adoration. A broken ship saved Paul & many others on their way to to Rome. Somtimes the only way the good Lord can get into some hearts is to break them.
exerpt by Fulton Sheen
AntoniaDeCanada 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Isaiah 45:7 (King James Version) 7I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Cousinsjay 1 year ago
I find that God gave us a free will; that we may choose to do evil or good. If God were to force all of us to be good, would we really be good? God lays the moral framework of defining goodness, it's up to us to act in a way which corresponds to that framework.
Jim1905 1 year ago
@Jim1905
Did he really give us the free will?
Consider that: for what you do, during your relatively short period of life, you can suffer an eternal damnation. ETERNAL! Without any possibility of redemption. (this is at least what I was thought by the Catholic Church) Can you honestly imagine a sin worth of such a penalty? I can't!
With such a deal how can you call our "gift" "a free will"?
amanofthisworld 11 months ago
@amanofthisworld
Well that's the problem with the idea of Hell nowadays; it's not some place God tosses us in but a self-imposed exile. CS Lewis comments on the idea remarkably in his mere christianity book; I don't have the comment space to reiterate it but it's there.
Jim1905 11 months ago
@wordonfirevideo
Can you please tell us how you "know" god exists?
mjduke27 1 year ago
@mjduke27 The argument from contingency.
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago
this is the weakest theory I've ever heard. good and evil do not exist, it's about how you have been growing up. if your father and mother were racist and living among other racist you would have wind up as a racist aswell. it's all about how you raise your kids because this is the stage were they develop their character.
if there is a god (I'm agnostic, so I keep the option open) he is not keeping him/herself busy with us. god want us to figure it out for our selfs. develop knowledge
Dexterslittlehelper 1 year ago
@Dexterslittlehelper I'm interested to know how you came to the conclusion that Good and Evil do not exist?
equitemcroce 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Father ! We know that Evils do exist ..But one says that evil is within us in our soul ..and the soul is the main centre conducting the evil and good work..My confusion here is that if there is evil ( satan ) out side of our soul can also be part of our Soul ? Why does not GOD kill the Satan from the beginning if he is going to ruin our lives in may ways ? We sin all the time in thoughts at least , can we say that is evil ( satan ) works or just us doing wrong?
Thank You father
647SuperJet 1 year ago
Comment removed
647SuperJet 1 year ago
I like how Maurice Zundel talked about evil. Evil is definitely an absurdity and trying to explain it in the light of the goodness of God could seem unconvincing. Zundel reversed the question: what in evil makes human nature revolt? The answer was God. If there was no God (within) then we would be programmed to adapt and accept injustice, suffering, death and evil. It is the God within that cries against evil. If there was no God, then evil would be an acceptable thing but it is not.
Enigmatik691 1 year ago
@Enigmatik691 Nice point. I'm perfectly ok with the existence of evil in the Universe. I don't see how, for instance, free will and moral responsibility could exist in a world without evil. We would not be free; we would be permanently and overwhelmingly patronized by God.
aaantunes 1 year ago
Comment removed
Enigmatik691 1 year ago
During life, we made a lot of choices, and to be good or evil is just a matter of choice, act of free will. If God is goodness in absolute way,he respect our free will and he let us to choose wrong and to do evil. It is part of the learning process. To be evil means not to be aware of our true nature.
zkmplayer 1 year ago
What I find disturbing is the Christian's tendancy to say, "Yes, evil exists but don't let it bother you because it's all part of God's plan. We just don't understand it." This is disturbing because you are freely admitting not understanding it yet excusing it. It is entirely possible "evil" exists because it entertains "God". Or perhaps "God" is merely a emotionally removed scientist who placed us here to see what would happen. This evasion prevents the Christian from winning this debate
Greynomad38 1 year ago
@Greynomad38 We know that God exists and that God is good. (I don't have time here to develop the arguments). Therefore, we cannot construe God as rejoicing in evil. Logic compels us to find another explanation. And so far, we haven't found one that fits the facts better than the one that I laid out here.
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo Whenever you have the time please explain how you know "God" is good. However, since the problem of evil challenges the very issue of "God's" goodness, I'm now sure how the logic compels us to do anything but assume "God" isn't good.
Greynomad38 1 year ago
@Greynomad38 Well, God is the subsistent act of being itself, the non-contingent ground of contingency. This implies that God enjoys the fullness of being. This means that God must possess intellect and will and that both must function to a perfect degree. Therefore, God knows the good (namely his own essence and that which participates in it) and he desires it utterly. In a word, he is marked by love. For a fuller treatment, look at the first part of Aquinas's Summa.
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago
Comment removed
Greynomad38 1 year ago
Being an atheist, I've no issue with the "existence of evil". Natural "evil" is just that, natural occurrances in our lives which we have little, if any, control over. Human "evil" can be based on many things but is still just a determination of society as to what is "evil" and what isn't. Slavery used to be okay. Now it's seen as "evil". In many cultures of the past, it was okay to put a crippled child to death. "Evil" is merely an agreed upon opinion by individuals and groups. IMO
Greynomad38 1 year ago
@Greynomad38 It does not matter if you are atheist or theist, or any kind of believer-
you can not be relativistic upon good and evil. Slavery never used to be okay. Yes, it was accepted in society, but it was wrong, because people was suffering, and such societies are crippled. Sense of good and evil, justice and injustice is part of the human being, but it can be distorted, as it can be seen in the world today.
zkmplayer 1 year ago
Wasn't Mill just putting Epicurus in his own words? "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God"
Greynomad38 1 year ago
god permits evil for an ultimate good, god permits evil for a more aesthetically beautiful work of art.
so god cant allow the ultimate good with permitting evil?
which means god isnt all powerfull.
theres a reason why the problem of evil is the best argument against god
because whatever excuse u make up, I just say, why cant god acheive 'x' without 'your excuse'
if he cant do it without 'your excuse' then he's not all powerfull
argument from evil wins
ajsatchwell 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 continued; your argument addresses the logical PoE. God could have justifiable reasons to create a world that involves hundreds of millions of years of pain and suffering for innumerable sentient beings, provided there is a "greater good". So far though, I have heard no ideas as to what this good might be.
However, the evidential PoE is much harder to defend. If you don't believe that gratuitous pain and suffering exist in nature, then you haven't been paying attention.
ecosophist 1 year ago
@ecosophist "If you don't believe that gratuitous pain and suffering exist in nature, then you haven't been paying attention"
--But this is false. I have no evidence gratuitous suffering exists. I only have evidence that much suffering exists. "Gratuitous" is precisely what implies God has no morally sufficient reasons for suffering. I see no reason for thinking this is true. You are talking yourself in a circle.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 gratuitous pain, suffering and death is all around. Here's the well known Bambi argument.
“In some distant forest lightning strikes a dead tree, resulting in a forest fire. In the fire a fawn is trapped, horribly burned, and lies in terrible agony for several days before death relieves its suffering” (Rowe ).
What is the greater good that lends value/worth for this example, one of just many. May I suggest you do a quick search for "The evidential problem of evil" in Google.
ecosophist 1 year ago
@ecosophist I know the logical and evidential problems of evil well enough. What's your point? Presumably, you want me to admit that great amounts of natural suffering implies moral evil, even for creatures like Bambi. But I don't think it does. End of story. You presume some kind of moral principle, for which you've failed to specify--so your argument (whatever it is) is so far an emotional argument.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 Emotion, sentiment, I get those words thrown at me on several message forums. There are some Catholics who simply deny the PoE. They go so far as to claim that non-human animals don't have emotions or even feel pain. I hope you're not one of those neo-Cartesians.
If you believe that the evidence for natural evil (pain, suffering, death) is compatible with an all-loving God, then we are at an impasse.
ecosophist 1 year ago
@ecosophist "Emotion, sentiment, I get those words thrown at me on several message forums"
--Most likely because you are not specifying the moral principle you are implicitly assuming in your normative judgments--nor do you specify "the Good." So most of it sounds like whining to us.
" go so far as to claim that non-human animals don't have emotions or even feel pain. neo-Cartesians."
--Not so sure how that helps their case for human suffering, but ok.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@ecosophist "
"If you believe that the evidence for natural evil (pain, suffering, death) is compatible with an all-loving God, then we are at an impasse."
--Indeed, we are. I find it very telling so many nontheists out of touch with the Judeo-Christian tradition think it is so naive and pampered as to have never bothered facing the problem of the evil before. False. People in these very traditions have grappled with it for 2 thousand yrs of theology & in their own persons. Start w/ Job.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 Right, and the answer Job got was "sit down and shut up, where were you when I created the cosmos?". Nice.
I find it hard to believe that this is the best of all possible worlds, and certainly God would have created the best of all possible worlds, right? Or would He have created something sub par?
I could vastly mitigate natural evil, simply by creating the world and everything in it in six days, as opposed to hundreds of millions of years of pain and suffering.
ecosophist 1 year ago
@ecosophist " find it hard to believe that this is the best of all possible worlds, and God would have created [it]"
--*Leibniz*....You're talking yourself in circles. I deny both that (1) a world in which no suffering exists is a better candidate for the best possible world than one in which it doesnt' exist, & that (2) we can know w/ certainty that lessening suffering will, ceteris paribus, always hands down produce a better world. Both are your own not-obviously true personal assumptions.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 So the New Heaven and New Earth will be less than perfect because it will have no suffering? Same case before the Fall when there was no suffering?
No equivocating please.
ecosophist 1 year ago
@ecosophist No, are you listening? I don't think suffering and happiness are sufficient for determining which worlds are better than others.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 So you are one of those Catholics who dismiss the PoE by simply denying the premise that pain, suffering and death are natural evils, things to be averted. Then explain to me why philosophers and theologians have wrestled with this problem for thousands of years? Apparently there are many, including Fr. Barron who think it is a worthy argument. Indeed, Fr. Barron explicitly states that this is the strongest argument against an omnibenevolent God.
ecosophist 1 year ago
@ecosophist "simply denying the premise that pain, suffering and death are natural evils"
--No, I don't deny that. (1) I deny that natural evils are morally relevant evils. (2) I deny that one can even know whether all the suffering that exists is gratuitous, since this requires omniscience of all past, present, and future suffering. (3) I think the "amount" of happiness/suffering are neither necessary nor sufficient for determining the best possible world, since utilitarianism is false.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 So you take the stance that justification for all the gratuitous pain, suffering and death over the last few hundreds of millions of years is a mystery, which will be revealed to me once I'm dead? That's pretty convenient.
I think a more plausible answer is that there is no omnibenevolent God, and that nature is cold and indifferent.
ecosophist 1 year ago
@ecosophist "all the gratuitous pain, suffering and death over the last few hundreds of millions of years is a mystery,"
--Again, empirically show me there is *gratuitous* pain and suffering. I only see suffering. You beg the question.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 You keep avoiding my questions. Do you believe that this great mystery of evil, this "greater good", will be revealed to you in the after life?
Anyways, I never said all pain and suffering were gratuitous, I said some, not all like you misstated. I gave you the classic Bambi example for one. The only purpose for such a painful death I can think of is during decomposition of the corpse. But these nutrients can be found from other sources. So I still think it's gratuitous.
ecosophist 1 year ago
@ecosophist "Do you believe that this great mystery of evil, this "greater good", will be revealed to you in the after life?"
--I do, but I don't argue for this claim. The burden of proof is clearly your own. You simply have no way of knowing that some suffering is gratuituous, so that your arguments are, at best, arguments from ignorance, that, "If I don't see X, X doesn't exist." Your problem is solely an epistemic one.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 You are contradicting yourself. You believe that this mystery of a greater good will be revealed to you, but yet you claim there is no gratuitous pain and suffering, so what's there to explain?
ecosophist 1 year ago
@ecosophist "You are contradicting yourself. You believe that this mystery of a greater good will be revealed to you, but yet you claim there is no gratuitous pain and suffering"
--Absolutely not. I said there is no evidence for making a claim either way whether or not gratuitous suffering exists. My reason for thinking there is a greater good is logically deduced a priori from my belief in the Goodness of God, and is not empirical. Your belief, on the other hand, so far is groundless.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 You keep equivocating and talking in circles, I think I'm done here. To paraphrase a Bank CEO talking about the recent financial meltdown caused by self-delusion, including consumers who never bothered to read the fine print in their credit card applications; "People believe what they want to believe".
ecosophist 1 year ago
@ecosophist I equivocate nothing. It is a simple fact you have no evidence that gratuituous suffering exists. Therefore, you don't have an argument. Period.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 Well, 5 days and no reply. So I can make the inference that you have some difficulties believing that theodicy will be revealed to you after your dead.
Theology is just so much hand waving, or as Aquinas put it, so much straw.
ecosophist 1 year ago
@ecosophist Bambi. "The only purpose for such a painful death I can think of is during decomposition of the corpse. But these nutrients can be found from other sources. So I still think it's gratuitous."
--How can you possibly know Bambi's death is "gratuitous"? Clearly, you seem to think the principle of ecology, or interconnectedness and comprehensiveness, holding for all events stops in the case of nutrients available from elsewhere. I see no reason for thinking this.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
who made god???
TheUndeadAznDude 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheUndeadAznDude "who made god???"
--This question itself is senseless because it presupposes there was a point at which an eternally and necessarily existent being, God, did not exist--which is a contradiction. If God exists, he necessarily exists.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
I love what you say starting at 3:43 - I am wondering, are you quoting or paraphrasing Dante, or is that your own thought on the matter? Thanks.
nosfearic 1 year ago
Alvin Plantinga's response to the problem of evil is better.
kkallebb 1 year ago
@kkallebb , it's Plantinga that argues that natural disasters are caused by malevolent demons. Got anything more plausible?
ecosophist 1 year ago
continued;
I have never heard a sufficient answer to this question. Theologians use terms such as "nomic regularity", but that's just a fancy way of saying "that's just the way it is". That's a non-answer. There are worse answer from supposedly smart people such as "before the fall, there was no pain, suffering or death in the natural word" or "there are malevolent daemons that push around tectonic plates". Both of these "answers" are insulting.
Anyone have anything better?
ecosophist 1 year ago
Theologians like to address moral evil, i.e. the holocaust. The answer is easy; free will. There is a dearth of scholarly work on natural evil though, "nature red in tooth and claw". Gratuitous pain and suffering is inherent in nature. How could an all-loving deity use such a slow, painful method such as evolution to bring about his ultimate creation homo sapiens sapiens?
ecosophist 1 year ago
@ecosophist "Gratuitous pain and suffering is inherent in nature."
--How do you know it is "gratuitious"? It only seems that way to you because you already think a good God wouldn't allow it. The appearance of suffering in the world is not actually a problem for the theist who thinks a good God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting suffering. However irrational and counterintuitive this may seem to you, it is not an objection facing the theist who believes God has sufficient reason.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 Certainly, not all pain is gratuitous; pain can be a useful warning. But what is the greater good of a young fawn being burnt alive in a forest fire which no one witnesses? To me this is the definition of gratuitous. I can think of many other examples.
Nature is cold and indifferent to suffering, macro-evolution is a prime example.
p.s. why does Fr. Barron use the word "disorder" instead of evil (natural). In a video on theodicy, I would expect the correct theological term; evil
ecosophist 1 year ago
@ecosophist " But what is the greater good of a young fawn being burnt alive in a forest fire which no one witnesses? To me this is the definition of gratuitous."
Right. U think an animal dying in a forest fire is gratuitous because the context of your judgment is determined by your time-parameters limiting what you can imagine as a foreseeable good. The theist extends those very parameters to include all the time of eternity. Given eternity, the theist sees no reason to suppose gratuity.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 To justify the pain,suffering and death of untold sentient beings over hundreds of millions of years would require one hell of a "greater good". Does anyone know what this greater good actually is?
If I ask you a question, and you reply that it will be explained after I'm dead, or in the "fullness of time", or simply state that it's a mystery, well that's a non-answer, sorry.
ecosophist 1 year ago
@ecosophist
"If I ask you a question, and you reply that it will be explained after I'm dead, or in the "fullness of time", or simply state that it's a mystery, well that's a non-answer, sorry."
--Again, I said this is only because you already think God, if he exists, lacks a morally sufficient reason for allowing suffering. Theists don't think this. So none of this is an objection to their belief in God. There are many apparent "bads" whose good purpose we don't understand until later.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 As I've said before, this video and your posts seem to address moral evil only. This is evident from the shared usage of the phrase "allows suffering".
Again, this works well for moral evil, i.e. God allowed the Holocaust, God allowed Stalin's purges, etc. But does a lethal virus need God's permission before it infects a host species? Does an earthquake need God's allowance before it kills 100,000 people?
ecosophist 1 year ago
Some day we will see this beautiful canvas that demonstrates that suffering has ultimately a "good" purpose. hmmm. Hard to imagine the ultimate good that comes out of say, Ascaris worms-an obligate human parasite designed to latch onto a human gut and suck nutrients from it's host. 1 billion people are tortured or killed by this worm every year. What greater Good comes from malaria, smallpox, leprosy? These preferentially torture and kill children!
adstanra 1 year ago 2
@adstanra Why do you think we're the center of the universe?
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago 4
@wordonfirevideo I don't think we are. It is religion that argues that we are. The greatest achievement of the work of art, the pinnacle, is human attainment of perfect freedom, love etc...is it not ? Do other animals achieve this?. It may be all an expression of his glory, but it has us in mind...no?
adstanra 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo I don't think @adstanra is being anthropocentric, "nature, red in tooth and claw" affects all species. If anything, I would say the RCC is anthropocentric, according to its teachings only homo sapiens has any intrinsic worth.
ecosophist 1 year ago
Is this in the Summa Theologica? If so can you tell me where so I can read up on this?
Stitchman3875 1 year ago
that...moved me...i dont know what to say...im chocked
therealziman 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Everyone please watch Deliver Us From Evil by Amy Berg for the truth about catholic church and its priests, bishops, and cardinals.
knight91105 1 year ago
It's so refreshing hearing a priest who isn't full of shit.
drunkdonutboy 1 year ago
@drunkdonutboy Ditto! It is refreshing and we need more of that in our churches.
xiragata 1 year ago
Buddhists call evil the "dark mind" if I am not mistaken. I guess you could say the evil mind is the most extremely deluded state of mind. I like to think of it that way.
oracleofaltoona 2 years ago
@gointoeatpizza I'm sure God was not pleased with the bad the Church did in the past but there has been plenty of good the Church has done too and is still doing. People have this misconception that priests and bishops are immune to sin but the truth is that they are not due their human nature and they need prayer more. Let me ask you this do you condemn all Germans on account of the Nazis?
leakim26 2 years ago
@Cwateyou The Catholic Church was founded by St. Peter. Jesus tells him that he is the "rock" upon which His church will be built. Matthew 16:18. To me it doesn't make sense that Jesus came to earth and then told the apostles to spread His Word then leave without establishing an authority? He knew what would happen if he didn't and the 30,000 other christian denominations are a perfect example of that.
leakim26 2 years ago
What does god think about the past atrocities committed by the Catholic Church in order for the church to keep its control over the people?
What does god think about the church's back flip today to once again appeal to the masses to keep its control over the people?
If there was a God and that God agrees with the actions of the church then that God is not worth worshiping.
goingtoeatpizza 2 years ago
@goingtoeatpizza I think that was peoples doing.. not gods doing. I AM a christian, but i think that the catholic church and other religions and other types of Christianity was made by people NOT god.
Cwateyou 2 years ago
@goingtoeatpizza The same thing he has always thought. I
That unless the men who abused their power in the Catholic church repent, (just like anyone else) then they will have to pay the price by their own doing.
This does not reflect on the Catholic faith at all. Only on the corruption within the Church. Jesus himself foretold this would happen.
BloodOfRayne 1 year ago
God is not the Church. The Church was founded by St. Peter. God intercedes in the Church, but He is not the actual Church. Therefore, any evil done inside the Church is caused by man, not God. This isn't necessarily directed towards you, but it seems as though any person who is so against God or the Church or religion in general, has little to no facts on any of it. They only comment on arguments everyone else tends to use. Maybe people should gain more knowledge before accusations.
HisWayIsTheWay 1 year ago
Hm. Good and evil are aesthetic elements?
Awesomesome 2 years ago 3
Can the screams of a child who is being raped/murdered be heard in Heaven? Do those in Heaven ignore those cries, satisfied with the explanation that the child's pain is a dab of dark pigment on God's Rembrandtesque canvas of life? I work with people who would swap Heaven
for a year of freedom from Schizophrenia or intractable physical pain. Live one of those lives before you marvel at their decision. The effort to mitigate the existential indictment created by their suffering will always fail
samuelu2lavern 2 years ago
To your first question, yes. To your second question, no. God will make good come form the evil experienced by a child, just as he made good come from the crucifixion of His own son. I'm not going to pretend like I expect this to make sense to someone who rejects the salvific power of suffering, but that is a big thing that makes Christianity different in that it can take even suffering (which comes from rejecting God) and use it for a good end.
HammerofHeretics 2 years ago
I don't reject the possibility of the salvific power of suffering; however, it is a problematic concept. Sometimes a "greater good" emerges from an evil event; sometimes that doesn't appear to be the case. I don't accept "on faith" the idea that somewhere, somehow, Gods master-plan will redeem all suffering. Hitler, Pol Pot and others have used the "greater good" concept to justify genocide and other atrocities. As mere mortals we are taught that evil is never a morally
samuelu2lavern 2 years ago
If God were the cause of the evil, you might have a point. But the Judeo-Christian God exhorts us to love one another. Most evil is the direct result of human beings using their free will in a way that is contrary to that commandment. For God to prevent man-made evil He would need to take away our free will. I don't know about you, but I like knowing that I am free to choose my destiny.
HammerofHeretics 2 years ago
If God permits evil, then he is complicit in its consequences. The writers of Job understood this, because they had Job confront God on the grounds of moral injustice. The "Where were you when..." response is not adequate because it is grounded in a differential in power not justice. The question is: can God through his straw-man Satan violate his own moral code. The answer, apparently, is yes, although I think that that still results in an existential indictment, which is what Job is
samuelu2lavern 2 years ago
all about. Free will is an illusion. Your will is conditioned by a million factors: genetic predispositions, events in childhood, peer pressure, cultural influences, etc. etc. You are free to will what you have been determined to want.
samuelu2lavern 2 years ago
First, you don't really fully comprehend what the consequences of any given act are as an all-knowing God would, so you aren't in a position to judge whether what He allows is not better than any other alternatives. In fact, if you are like 100 percent of human beings you make misjudgments every day regarding just your own actions. Second it wouldn't violate God's nature to allow evil if a greater good may come of it. God's in a position to know those things, we aren't.
HammerofHeretics 2 years ago
What you say is only partly true. Yes, our habits, up-bringing, etc., can affect how we exercise our free will, but we still have the ability to change pre-programmed behaviors. If that weren't so you'd have no call for holding anyone accountable for any wrongdoing. Not racism, not sexism, not killing, not rape. After all, they can't "help it", right?
HammerofHeretics 2 years ago
justifiable (although perhaps necessary) means to an end. Does God operate independently of the moral system he has imposed on us?
samuelu2lavern 2 years ago
Comment removed
samuelu2lavern 2 years ago
God is the Creator Almighty thus He had to have created evil. Now as to His Purpose for it, I don't know, cannot understand it and my being does not accept it. Fr. Barron, if He did not create it then he is not the Almighty Creator in charge of all. Did evil just creep up on Him and He said O.K. let me work with this? The O.T. is full of violence and war Commanded by Him b/c somewhere in His Mystery that does exist within Him otherwise it could not be in Creation.Can you explain this, please?
Isabel5Justice 2 years ago
God did not create evil. It's not a thing, it's the absence of a thing (i.e., it's the absence of what is good or proper).
HammerofHeretics 2 years ago
This explanation makes no sense with an omnipotent omnibenevolent deity, as said deity should be able(if all powerful) and willing (if all good) to stop evil.
Also, evil being absence of good makes no sense by itself. What is an evil act the absence of? Is murder the absence of un-murder? Is theft the absence of un-theft?
These things are due to the presence of preventable actions, not the absence of good.
MattPointGrat 2 years ago
You obviously are missing the connection between free will and the ability to choose evil. If God made it impossible for people to choose not to do good, they would have no freedom. So yes, God could have eradicated evil choices, but only at the expense of our freedom to choose.
HammerofHeretics 2 years ago
Defining free will as being superior to the cessation of evil is a hard position to defend.
Furthermore, if there's no evil in heaven, then there must not be the freedom to choose evil while in heaven, no? Free will, by proxy, does not exist in heaven. Seems like a pretty bad deal if you define free will as being superior to cessation of evil.
MattPointGrat 2 years ago
I don't think it's a hard position to defend at all. Would I prefer to be a puppet and never have to deal with evil or a free agent and have to deal with evil during my mortal lifetime? I would choose the latter if given the choice.
As for the absolute goodness in heaven, the will has already been fixed by the time a person gets to heaven. Those in heaven have irrevocably made up their minds that they want to spend eternity with God..
HammerofHeretics 2 years ago
Comment removed
MattPointGrat 2 years ago
What the position really says is that the ability for the murderer to choose is more important than the life of the victim. Which, aside from flying in the face of even the most primitive criminal justice system, is completely morally indefensible.
So you admit that free will doesn't exist in heaven, then? Then my point stands. Why is free will more important than stopping evil on earth, but not in heaven? I thought God's moral judgments were unchanging?
MattPointGrat 2 years ago
You are basing your complaint on the mistaken idea that a person stops existing after they die. They don't. The worst life on earth would be worth it to spend even a moment in heaven, and if you live your life right, it doesn't matter how you die in this life, you will get ETERNITY in heaven. So yes, to have that opportunity, and to get free will in the bargain is a very good deal.
HammerofHeretics 2 years ago
Comment removed
MattPointGrat 2 years ago
My argument was never based on the idea that a person stops existing after they die. It would make no sense to deprive someone of free will in heaven if they don't exist.
MattPointGrat 2 years ago
I agree, but my comment was based on the one you removed, which implied that it was better to not die than to have free will.
HammerofHeretics 2 years ago
Are you serious? god justified himself to a man?By taking him through the cosmos! Were he then complained to job? Job was but a man who lived maybe 70 years and god asks him where was he when he was creating the universe?What a stupid question,If god is all knowing, he already knew the answer?!?!?!
MultiGazman 2 years ago
LOL! Are you unfamiliar with a rhetorical question?
HammerofHeretics 2 years ago
Love this priest!!!
Breedoe 2 years ago
Your words filled my heart with profound gratitude ;-)
Gratitude for what? Thank heavens, you will never be able to figure THAT out ;-)
wolf1750 2 years ago
Copy that.
SmokiSounds 2 years ago
Who defines disorder/order? Jainism doesn't believe in an omnipotent supreme being, creator, but rather in an eternal universe governed by natural laws. What is nature? There are a lot of jebish in their descriptions; but Syadvada, one of Jains doctrines, highlights this: Every view is only relative to its view point. Views are relativity. God's view of this universe should be relatively BEYOND our psychologies, languages and communications. Judao is just confused as any traditions we have.
beancube2008 2 years ago
I want to know why god created this filter we call earth for the people who will go to heaven and go to hell. If he's all powerful why would he need the filter? He already knows who will make it and who wont. Its so norrow minded, something you'd think a god wouldnt be
57113042 2 years ago
This is his way of giving us a choice of whether or not we love him. If he made us join with him against our will that wouldn't be love nor would we have any dignity. We'd be like his pets. By giving us a choice he gives us the ultimate gift of freedom. It's up to us to use it well.
HammerofHeretics 2 years ago
A choice with such a stringent penalty if you choose one option is simply no choice at all.
It would be like saying "Hey, do you want to go see a movie? Also, if you say no, i'll beat you to death with a baseball bat. But hey, it's totally your choice because I love you."
MattPointGrat 2 years ago
It's more like telling someone, "If you eat moderately and exercise you will stay fit. If you eat garbage and sit around you will likely get fat and unhealthy." Evil is the lack of goodness, and the absence of God from Hell is what makes it so awful. So if you don't want to be with God, you should understand the ramifications--no God means no good. There really is no other option, because if something is good, God is the author of it.
HammerofHeretics 2 years ago
Comparing Hell to getting fat is a bit of a stretch. But only if you think Hell is eternal torture, which many Catholics disagree on. "Annihilationism", which is a position wherein Hell is simply a separation from God, is certainly a more moral model, but it certainly isn't indicated in the Bible.
Eternal torture is indicated in several places (Jer. 13:14; Ezek. 5:11-13; 7:4-9; 8:18. Matt. 13:40-42, 48-50; 2 Thess. 1:5-9)
MattPointGrat 2 years ago
Separation from God IS eternal torture. What you are failing to grasp in my analogy is that it is the natural consequence of being separated from God. What you are asking for is to want to do something (reject God) but not accept the consequences (being separated from God). It's the height of irrationality.
HammerofHeretics 2 years ago