Since in the last post I wrote about man’s free will, I thought I would now explain why God cannot will evil.
I am going to write about this without going into a lot of detail and expect that in the comments more will be said that fills in the gaps.
First, we must understand that evil is not a “thing” like a rock, flower or angel. Evil, as Augustine made clear, is a privation. As he put it, "Evil has no positive nature; but the loss of good has received the name 'evil'" (Augustine, The City of God, XI, CHAP. 9.). Evil is kind of like a hole in a shirt. The hole has no positive nature; it just mars the wholeness of the shirt. Therefore, moral evil is turning away from one good (the highest good) to a lower good. Again, Augustine explains it this way, "For when the will abandons what is above itself, and turns to what is lower, it becomes evil--not because that is evil to which it turns, but because the turning itself is wicked" (Augustine, City of God, XII, CHAP. 6.).
Now that we know that moral evil has to do with the willful choice of “goods” we can begin to look at God. For man, the will never aims at evil for its own sake. Men always aim at doing some good—at least that is what they tell themselves. In other words, they convince themselves that choosing a lesser good is the best thing to do. For instance, sex is good. It was created by God for human procreation and pleasure. However, sex was designed by God to be used within the confines of the marriage of a man and a woman so that they could provide a secure home for their children. Yet, men convince themselves that using sex in inappropriate ways is good. This turning from God’s design for sex to a lower use of sex is an evil. By the way, it just so happens that doing evil is destructive as can readily be seen with the misuse of the good of sex.
From all of this we can see that the object of the will is what is called the “apprehended good.” The will cannot aim at evil. Why, well, for one thing, there is no substance to evil. There is no “thing” which has been created which is evil. All things that God created are good. Therefore, the will cannot aim at evil unless in some way it is proposed as a good. Someone (usually ourselves) must rationalize that doing an evil is really a good thing. For instance, re-read Genesis 3:1-6 and notice how the Serpent reframes God’s restriction against eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good as a good thing to do. This, of course, is a huge error in thinking. It is a purposeful error (rationalization), but nonetheless, it is an error in our thinking.
In regard to God, there can be no error in His knowledge. Because He is omniscient (all knowing), He never has any error in His thinking. All His thoughts are true with a capital “T.” Aquinas says, “God’s will cannot therefore, tend towards evil” (SCG I, Ch. 95, A. 2).
|
After that, you almost get it right. Evil does not exist in nature, it is man-made. Good is what is beneficial to Life, Evil is what is detrimental to Life. (AR) That's pretty simples and straightforward isn't it? You are very good on the Sex bit. Sex is the physical demonstration of Love begween two people,(hopefully opposing sexes)for the purpose of procreation and the physical coming together of two loving beings. (Pun unintended) The debauchery of Sex destroys the purpose and beauty of Sex. It is being used either in place of "coke" or in conjunction with "coke" by people who really cannot feel love or joy, and are desperately trying to make some sense out of their empty meaningless lives, in a world going mad. The evil is dripping down from the top. The White House is corrupting Franklin's Freedom, and the Church is corrupting man's metaphysical and biological nature, so where have the ordinary people to look for succor? Never mind Aquinas or Augustine, listen to Osama, he is saying it definitively. He has taken God to His Perfection. Evil, isn't he? Even speaking in tongues won't pull of what you, as a man of the cloth, want pulled off. Some of us really do understand. Frankie
In the past you have created the metaphor suggesting evil has the same relationship to good as darkness has to light. Of course this is not Biblical, totally absent from the scriptures.
It is your problem/fabrications with Evil that have caused the broad spectrum of evangelical youth to leave the church as you define it because they are not learniong gospel truth and are frustrated as your leaders press the inconsistancy forward.
The Christian doctrine concerning evil is by no means universally accepted as you remark here. Evil, of course, is the opposite of good, not the absence of good;…etc., etc., etc., yada, yada, yada.
●First, I never said anything about the universal acceptance of evil as a privation. There is virtually nothing that is universally accepted.
●You obviously have no clue as to the meaning of the content of this post. This is probably do to the Manichean dualism of LDS theology.
I just finished Robert Barron's "Thomas Aquinas: Spiritual Master", which I recommend without reservation.
Father Barron looks at Aquinas from the standpoint of "pastoring" and points out how Thomas' seemingly dry and arid philosophy is actually filled with insights that serve our spiritual needs.
This is the kind of book that when I read it, it makes me realize something I sort of knew without realizing.
Your post is a case in point. For years, I had on some level struggled with the issue of "monsters." How can anyone be a "monster" - a serial killer, a child murderer, an SS camp guard, etc.? On the one hand, it seems that these people are beyond understanding, they can't be human because they find pleasure or satisfaction in things that would make any human - normal, sick, insane whatever - shrink in horror.
On the other hand, they are clearly human. They were once children. They once breathed the air of innocent like the rest of us. They remain human in a way that requires that we respond to their essential humanity with justice and due mercy.
Because of this conundrum, we have the tendency to do one of two things, both of which are in error and fraught with deep errors. On the one hand, we might treat these people as "monsters" - which they are - and as "non-human" - which they are not. If we do this we basically give up any attempt to understand why they became the way they are and we surrender to the idea that at some deep level we might all become possessed by a dark and evil element buried in our psyche.
Alternatively, we might understand them and excuse them. We might say that they are the way they are because of cultural, social or environmental forces, which are really not their fault.
It occurs to me - as I type this - that both tendencies deny free will. We are either the subjects of our hidden psyche or external influences.
Thomas, on the other hand, gives us a way of understanding "monsters" without excusing them. For Thomas, "monsters" are like us - we are all seeking the good - but "monsters" have a disordered relationship to the good.
So, in "monsters" we can see that they seek the good like the rest of us. We all seek personal power, happiness, order or whatever, and these are all good things insofar as we don't pursue these things disproportionately as the end in themselves or an end to which other goods must be sacrificed. The relationship of moral monsters to the goods they seek can be seen to be disordered and disproportionate, somethign that we all suffer on occasion but not to such an extent. We can, therefore, affirm that humanity of moral monsters while holding them responsible for their actions as moral agents.
Now, having said that about men willing their own good, let me shift attention to God.
As I understand it, God does not will evil because God wills His own end, which is to say Himself. Since God is being itself and by willing Himself he will Being and not the absence of Being, He wills good.
Now here is my question: Thomas seems to be saying that God is subject to the same psychological/metaphysical rule that humans are subject to, namely that any being must will and that the will must be directed to a final end and to the final end of willing the being's happiness or perfection.
That seems like a logical conclusion - I certainly can't see how a being could ultimately will anything but its own good, but it also seems to be limiting God's omnipotence by saying that He is subject to the same metaphysical/logical/psychological constraints that we are subject to.
Thoughts?
I quoted the first part of this sentence because it speaks to the understanding of God as a personal being. By definition, a personal being must be able to will or to have a will. I am willing to be corrected on this, however, that is my understanding. Remove will from the quality of God and God is no longer a personal being: God is an impersonal force in the universe.
those are my thoughts
ron
It is more likely that Rand was influenced by Thomas Aquinas.
After all, Rand was quintessentially Aristotelian in her philosophy – note her starting premise of A=A – and Thomas is the great interpreter of Aristotle to Western Civilization.
You write that “evil does not exist in nature.” You almost get it right.
The point is that evil does not exist. Evil does not have an ontological existence, rather it the absence of a due and proper power, attribute or condition found in something that does exist.
This absence can certainly be found in nature. In fact, it is an essential part of nature because nature is inherently finite and the elements of nature are logically and empirically in a state of conflict with each other.
Hence, for a lion it is a good thing for a lion to eat a gazelle. That’s what lions do and when they do that they are tending toward their own perfection. On the other hand, for the gazelle it is a natural evil when the lion eats a gazelle because by doing so a gazelle is deprived of its tendency toward its own perfection.
This kind of example can be extended without end, if necessary.
The point is that evil does not exist outside of some good and there is no thing – no existing being – that is evil. Lions aren’t evil and neither are gazelles. To the extent that they both have actual existence, they are both naturally and inherently good.
Concerning your example of love and sex, you are very correct because we can reason what the reason for love and sex are and we can reason when those good things are being sought – or being employed – in a disordered or disproportionate way. But in talking about “disorder”, we are talking about something that doesn’t have “being”, but is rather a relationship between “beings.”
This is all very Thomistic, and insofar as Rand copied Aristotelianism, it resembles “Objectivism.”
The problem with Rand is that she was a materialist and rode the materialist horse to its logical end. Rand denied the existence of love and altruism and argued for the notion sex was the quintessential expression of selfishness.
Rand made “selfishness” the summum bonum of her philosophical system, which is fine; selfishness is a good insofar as we seek our own perfection. But we also seek our own perfection as a part of a community and we seek the perfection of others as well because “good is diffusive.” We all want to share our good things with others on some level. We can see this in everyday life and in heroic acts of altruism.
The problem with Rand was that the objectivist and radical empiricism of her philosophy denied the object and empirical truths that are all around us.
I agree with you, and that is precisely what Thomas says in the Summa. (Great minds think alike.
But as much as I understand that and agree with it - and even take solace in it - it seems weird to equate the motivational mechanics of the infinite, eternal source of Being with those of my grandma.
Rand made “selfishness” the summum bonum of her philosophical system, which is fine; selfishness is a good insofar as we seek our own perfection. But we also seek our own perfection as a part of a community and we seek the perfection of others as well because “good is diffusive.” We all want to share our good things with others on some level. We can see this in everyday life and in heroic acts of altruism.
I need to clarify.
I think that "selfishness" can be a virtue, so the title of one of Rand's books - "The Virtue of Selfishness" - is not an oxymoron.
But making "selfishness" the summum bonum or "the virtue" puts the person who believes that idea into a disordered relationship with "selfishness", virtue and the truth.
The thing about such disorder is that it infects other and distorts one's relationship with others and the world. Rand's life is a case in point. From Reason magazine:
So much for objectivity and empiricism.
The other thing about Rand and Randites is how "totalizing" their philosophical system is - it is a self-contained theory of everything with no play in the joints. It is fair to say that I was driven away from libertarianism as much by the totalitarian conviction of Objectivist as I was by the Anti-American "New Left" libertarians who took over the movement in the 70s and 80s.
Now here is my question: Thomas seems to be saying that God is subject to the same psychological/metaphysical rule that humans are subject to, namely that any being must will and that the will must be directed to a final end and to the final end of willing the being's happiness or perfection.
●I think Aquinas might say that an intellectual being knowingly wills and the will is ordered to the good. In the case of God, the good that His will is ordered to is Himself. In short, He wills Himself eternally. In fact, the only thing that is necessary for God to will is Himself. All other things that He wills are contingent (they don’t have to be).
●I am struggling with how to say this properly, but, I don’t think we should say that there is a metaphysical rule that God is subject to. We might say that God’s will is ordered to the good (Himself). Therefore, all wills that are created by Him are likewise ordered to the good—which is God. All other wills are a reflection (or are analogous) of God’s substantial will. It is a metaphysical truth that the will is ordered to the good because God wills His own goodness.
Which answers the question: "Why do some non-Christians have better marriages than some Christians?" These non-Christians have their wills turned more fully to the will of God concerning marriage than some Christians.
I stumbled across a post on the Volokh Conspiracy - a legal blog - that had this from the Ayn Rand lexicon:
That makes an interesting philosophical counterpoint to the Christian ideal that charity, or love, is the primary virtue.
This seems to be a tougher variant on the Euthyphro dilemma, which normally deals with the question of moral goodness.
But I don't think it really is a kind of Euthyphro dilemma.
I think that we agree that Thomas teaches that kind can't do things that are logically impossible - because logical impossibilities are non-existent things, and God as Being itself can only create being and not non-being. God can't create a square-circle or make one and one equal three because such logical impossibilities cannot exist.
So, the question is, is it logically possible to have a will that is not directed to some end?
Well, it doesn't seem likely, since the definition of will is to will some end.
Similarly, is it possible to will other than the final end? Well, that doesn't seem likely because the definition of the final end is that which the will ultimately wills.
And that final end would be the perfection of the being or Being...
Well, that's where I get hung up as a logical notion, albeit it seems to make sense from a practical standpoint.
(Quoting me) Thom, you wrote, "Therefore, all wills that are created by Him are likewise ordered to the good—which is God. All other wills are a reflection (or are analogous) of God’s substantial will."
(Ron’s response) Which answers the question: "Why do some non-Christians have better marriages than some Christians?" These non-Christians have their wills turned more fully to the will of God concerning marriage than some Christians.
●Exactly!!!
Peter wrote:
God as Being itself can only create being and not non-being.
●Non-being, of course, is nothing. It is impossible—as you noted—to create nothing, because…ah…there is nothing created. However, our Muslim and Mormon friends might disagree.
Peter wrote: Similarly, is it possible to will other than the final end? Well, that doesn't seem likely because the definition of the final end is that which the will ultimately wills…And that final end would be the perfection of the being or Being...Well, that's where I get hung up as a logical notion, albeit it seems to make sense from a practical standpoint.
●I’m not sure why you are “hung up” here. Can you explain.
●I’m not sure why you are “hung up” here. Can you explain.
Why is it a logical given that we will our own perfection?
Or why is it the case that even now I am willing my own perfection?
I can understand my willing my own happiness as my own final end because anything I choose is chosen because it is seen as better than the alternatives, and anything "better" is better because I desire it more than other things, and any time I get something I desire I am by definition happier than when I don't get it.
But why perfection? Why not say that I'm staving off deterioration or corruption?
Do we all really desire our own perfection? Maybe we reallly just want to stay in the status quo?
But why perfection? Why not say that I'm staving off deterioration or corruption?
●I believe staving off deterioration and willing one’s own perfection are equivalent—it is the desire for immutability or complete actuality or wholeness; hence, perfection. These can be looked at individually; but, they are all different aspects of the same thing.
"This is probably do to the Manichean dualism of LDS theology. "
I suppose you mean do-do, but I can't be sure.
Manichean dualism? .....are doctines characterized by darkness and evilness of matter, and the necessity for a sexual, vegetarian asceticism."
My goodness, I would be intrigued in seeing how the Orthodox practically apply these to our doctrines and/or life style. We have been criticised as being too sexy by those less inclined, and seldom as vegans. So, I dance about bewildered.
As for the orthodox, you will find Protestant denominations where vegetarianism is a doctrinal trait. But is there really something wrong with that or does it too much contrast with the religious right's lust for the warm flowing spilt blood of war?
ST I, Question 5, Article 1: Whether goodness differs really from being?
I answer that: Goodness and being are really the same, and differ only in idea; which is clear from the following argument. The essence of goodness consists in this, that it is in some way desirable. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. i): "Goodness is what all desire." Now it is clear that a thing is desirable only in so far as it is perfect; for all desire their own perfection.
ST I , Question 6, Article 1: Whether God is good?
I answer that: To be good belongs pre-eminently to God. For a thing is good according to its desirableness. Now everything seeks after its own perfection; and the perfection and form of an effect consist in a certain likeness to the agent, since every agent makes its like; and hence the agent itself is desirable and has the nature of good. For the very thing which is desirable in it is the participation of its likeness. Therefore, since God is the first effective cause of all things, it is manifest that the aspect of good and of desirableness belong to Him; and hence Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv) attributes good to God as to the first efficient cause, saying that, God is called good "as by Whom all things subsist."
●I think Aquinas is saying that goodness and being are the same thing except goodness has the aspect of desirability. Therefore, as explained by Aristotle, “Goodness is what all desire.” Additionally, all things desire to be perfect which is defined as the likeness of an effect to its cause (the “agent”). For instance, a human child is “perfect” as it approximates the “human form” of its agents (its parents). Consequently, a birth defect lessens the perfection of the child. Perfection in this sense means to be a full and complete human. In the big sense, God is the “first effective cause of all things” and, therefore, all things in desiring their own perfection desire God. To desire our own perfection and to desire the good are ultimately a desire for God who is the perfect Good.
Manichean dualism? .....are doctines characterized by darkness and evilness of matter, and the necessity for a sexual, vegetarian asceticism." …My goodness, I would be intrigued in seeing how the Orthodox practically apply these to our doctrines and/or life style.
●Actually, the connections between Manichean religion and Mormonism are remarkable. Obviously, one can stress the differences, but, the similarities are startling. Let me list a few.
1. The theological view of evil as having substance—metaphysical dualism.
2. The establishment of the two religions by charismatic leaders who both attempted to purify Christianity. As Joseph Smith declared himself to be the “prophet” of God, so Mani declared himself to be the Paraclete promised by Jesus.
3. The division of the faithful into two groups: the Manichean Primates and the Hearers and the LDS division of Priesthood and regular adherents. As with LDS, the majority of Mani adherents were Hearers.
4. The extreme reverence asked of regular adherents for the founder of the religion and his successors.
5. The emphasis on moralistic precepts as a means of salvation.
Now hang on to your hat:
”Though Mani called himself the Paraclete he claimed no divinity but with show of humility styled himself ‘Apostle of Jesus Christ by the providence of God the Father.’” (Catholic Encyclopedia) Hmm…sounds eerily familiar to me.
Thom, this quote from Augustine is very clear--I like! "For when the will abandons what is above itself, and turns to what is lower, it becomes evil--not because that is evil to which it turns, but because the turning itself is wicked" (Augustine, City of God, XII, CHAP. 6.).
Good work once again, sir.
●Okay, Peter, you are “into” all kinds of interesting stuff. By way of self-disclosure, I have certain Libertarian leanings. I, therefore, believe in “enlightened self-interest.” In other words, we love ourselves by loving others. Or as Paul puts it in Ephesians 5, “He who loves his wife loves himself.” The virtue would be the love of oneself through the love of others. Another way of saying the same thing is that the means of loving oneself is through loving others.
Love, therefore, naturally encompasses an authentic love of self, including our own bodies and, also, to the love of neighbor. When we love others we wish good things for them, just as we wish good things for ourselves. This, I believe, is truly enlightened self-interest and not pure selfishness which I define as a narcissistic focus on oneself. In reality, selfishness harms oneself.
As long as you write about lions and gazelles in terms of evil and good you are safe for the total irrelevance of it. You would have what happens between two adversarial dumb instinct driven animals teach wisdom about an evil that doesn't exist. Well, wow. It doesn't exist there. There is evil in the heart of the perpetrator of Pederasty as well as the evil in the consequence to the innocent victim child.
I don't understand why people don't strictly rely on God's Word, the Bible. It's the greatest HOW-TO book ever written. I liked your explanation on sex. It coincides with God's teachings. The Bible specifically tells us how God expects us to worship and how to achieve salvation. The problem with human thinking is, they interpret the Bible the way they want to live their lives. They make it into a huge jigsaw puzzle, trying to fit the pieces into the wrong places, twisting and turning them and even jamming them into place, which makes the puzzle bulge and be misshaped. They turn a blind eye to how ugly it is, as long as they feel they are satisfied with their own way of doing it, then they think they have accomplished something great. Arguments about religion or one's beliefs are an ongoing thing, but usually one aspect of it is left out. What does God want us to do? No one should rely on their own abilities and say, "What a good boy or girl am I!" God should be the core of all we do. I wonder how many people stop each day and just look around them at all the glory God has created for us and say out loud, "Thank you,God, for allowing me to be born. Now what can I do for you, Dear Lord? Please let me know somehow, so I may glorify You. I know the more I put away self and do for others, the more I know I will be pleasing in Your sight."
Thank you for your blog.
Blessings,
Karen
Did you notice the number of scriptures used to support Thom's thesis here?
Did you notice how the thesis in the topic is supported?
This is how evil becomes a button hole and simply .......... nothing ................at all.
Of course anyone intimate with the Bible knows that evil is no buttonhole. The Bible tells us in no uncertain terms that evil is the opposite of good, not the void where good is not performed or some other silliness as that. The Bible tells us that evil is a created thing for it comes from the Father of all lies, does it not? does Satan not orchestrate forces to do his work, evil work?
Thanks for the reminder.
You criticize Thom for not using Bible verses in this topic. Then you wax on about what the Bible says. Where? How about one verse that says what you say it says. Where does it say "evil is the opposite of good"?
●Karen, first, thanks for your kind words and for leaving a comment. If you have read Gecko’s comment to you then you may now be realizing why just believing the “Bible is God’s Word” is not sufficient for Christians. Gecko, as you may know, is a High Priest in the LDS Church. It is axiomatic that those who propagate false teaching are extremely conversant in the use of Scripture to mislead people. You may have also noticed on my profile that I am a Baptist pastor. Just to let you know, I am not a “liberal” Christian. I am a very conservative evangelical Christian who has taught the Bible for 30 years. I believe that I have the credentials to say that orthodox Christians need to know their theology as well as their Bible. With this in mind, allow me to make a little comment about one of your insights.
●You wrote that “God is Good and Satan is Evil.” As you know, the Bible teaches us that God has created all things (“visible and invisible”). This means that God created Satan as well. The Bible also tells us that all of God’s creation is “good.” God does not and cannot create evil things. Therefore, in his created form as an angel, Satan is good. In his ontological (meaning “being”) substance he is “good.” That which God created when He created Satan is good. Consequently, what we mean when we say that Satan is “evil” is that he has turned away from God and now is totally immersed in opposing God’s will. Satan is willfully and knowingly evil in what he does.
●You’ll notice, however, that Gecko writes the following:
The Bible tells us that evil is a created thing for it comes from the Father of all lies, does it not?
●His comment can only mean one of two things—neither of which Christians believe. It can mean that evil was created by God or that Satan created evil. As you know, only God can create something. He has created the whole universe, seen and unseen from nothing. Therefore, Gecko’s comment implies that God created evil. By the way, Mormons do not believe that God created the universe from nothing. They believe that matter has existed eternally. The point I am making is that I want you to notice how Gecko laced LDS false teaching in with his insistence that people believe the “Bible.”
Gecko wrote: “…evil is no buttonhole.”
●Anyone intimate with my post would know that a buttonhole is not an “evil.” A buttonhole is a hole in a shirt where one “should” be. Another kind of hole--like a tear--is a hole in a shirt where it “shouldn’t” be. Therefore, the tear in the shirt is a “defect” in it. Sin is like this. Sin takes a good thing (which God created) and uses it in a bad way. Satan misused his freedom and fell from his high position. Adam and Eve took of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and did something they were told not to do because they convinced themselves (prompted by Satan) that it was “good.” False teachers take the good of the Scriptures and use them in an evil way.
The Bible tells us that evil is a created thing for it comes from the Father of all lies, does it not? does Satan not orchestrate forces to do his work, evil work?
*Sigh*
The more you write, the more you confirm Thom's point.
The doctrine that Satan has the power to create is Manichean.
Orthodox Christianity teaches that only God can create substances, which is why he can create. If Satan could create substance then he would be a god, rather than a created thing.
As long as you write about lions and gazelles in terms of evil and good you are safe for the total irrelevance of it. You would have what happens between two adversarial dumb instinct driven animals teach wisdom about an evil that doesn't exist. Well, wow. It doesn't exist there. There is evil in the heart of the perpetrator of Pederasty as well as the evil in the consequence to the innocent victim child.
Do you disagree that for a gazelle, being eaten by a lion is evil?
Or do you disagree with the idea that for the 250,000 men, women and children killed by the tsunami in Indonesia, they did not suffer from a natural evil?
Moral evil is easy. We can understand how moral evil is caused by a disordered attraction of the will to a good.
Natural evil is difficult because we can't explain it by free will.
Certainly the pederast's action is evil and his will works and evil and the distortion of his will from the highest good is evil. No argument there, but your demurrer misses my point entirely.
Welcome. Please participate.
I hope that our tone - which does sound like a "sparring match" - doesn't mislead you. I'd like to think that most of us are directing our attention to the truth, which often requires framing some sharp objections.
Thom,
Several comments.
First, in my humble opinion, your reply to Karen was inspired. This observation in particular:
If you have read Gecko’s comment to you then you may now be realizing why just believing the “Bible is God’s Word” is not sufficient for Christians. Gecko, as you may know, is a High Priest in the LDS Church. It is axiomatic that those who propagate false teaching are extremely conversant in the use of Scripture to mislead people.
When I read, Karen's question about "I don't understand why people don't strictly rely on God's Word, the Bible," I was at a loss to respond. I think it is terrific that people can believe that they are relying strictly on the Bible, but having done my fair share of Bible reading, I think that there is an awful lot of interpolation and reasoning that they are engaging in without being consciouly aware of it. This is fine and fair, of course, but we ought to know that is what we are doing.
Second, while your youthful fling with radicalism was with Karl Marx, mine was with Murray Rothbard and Ayn Rand. I actually hung around with Randites in law school and met Milton Friedman's son, David, who was a professor at UCLA at the time.
I bought into a lot of that ethos, such as the idea that if a friend wanted to kill himself, I lacked moral authority to try to preven it, on the grounds that it would be unjust, presumptuous and authoritarian to interfere with someone else's autonomy. (This view is not idiosyncratic, incidently; it is shared by most hardcore libertarians.)
Well, it takes a particularly distorted view of the good to remain neutral in the face of the monstrous evil of that perspective.
One of the problems with pure libertarianism is that it is essentially materialistic. There are no moral duties to anyone else that are not freely assumed - as Rand argues - because there are no moral duties or other metaphysics. The end result of that viewpoint - and the insistence on autonomy as the final good - usually leads to a kind of nihilism.
Like you and Marxism, I spent a decade "walking it back" from hardcore libertarianism.
Third, nonetheless, we can't deal "self interest" out of the equation because we are embodied creatures with self interests. I think you missed our discussion of Deus Caritas Est, but Benedict explains why it is wrong to present love as agape and love as eros as two different forms of love that are in conflict or tension with each other:
and:
So - perhaps, surprisingly - a major point of the current pope's first encyclical is to explain the essential role that erotic love plays in the full flowering of human life...which is why Rand was not completely wrong to write a book entitled the "Virtue of Selfishness."
Finally, you wrote:
Additionally, all things desire to be perfect which is defined as the likeness of an effect to its cause (the “agent”). For instance, a human child is “perfect” as it approximates the “human form” of its agents (its parents). Consequently, a birth defect lessens the perfection of the child. Perfection in this sense means to be a full and complete human. In the big sense, God is the “first effective cause of all things” and, therefore, all things in desiring their own perfection desire God. To desire our own perfection and to desire the good are ultimately a desire for God who is the perfect Good.
The interesting thing about this observation is that it implies that the telos, highest good, final cause, ultimate destiny of everything - from rocks to humans to angels - is God, who is the first effective cause.
Looking at this from a different angle - via Father Barron's book - God is Being itself and the continuous cause of all being at all moments. Anything that has being is caused right now by God as a kind of outpouring of His being.
Since all things desire perfection in the sense that an effect wants to resemble its cause, then the good of all things is God who is His own good.
Wow! The implications for the free will/predestination issue are profound. According to Father Barron again, God's will does not work in conflict with human free will because human free will rises out of the eternal flow of God's outpouring of being from Himself to Himself. If I will my own good freely, and God wills my good, then we are willing the same thing. If I will something other than what God wills, then I am not willing my own good and, presumably, the only reason I would do that is because of some constraint on my free will to will my own good.
Hmmmm.....
Cool.
Nonetheless, I just know that if I tossed out the claim that all things desire their own perfection, I would be met with a raft of objections by atheists and secularists. I'll try to frame some of those objections later. If anyone else has such an objection, please post it.
"You criticize Thom for not using Bible verses in this topic. Then you wax on about what the Bible says. Where? How about one verse that says what you say it says. Where does it say "evil is the opposite of good"?"
Before I take the time to create the cogent biblically supported children's lesson that "evil is the opposite of good", I would like an answer from you.....are you so unfamiliar with the Bible that you do not see that the righteousness of man is good, and the unrighteousness of man is evil? Or do you, in addition to Thom, feel that there is a higher written authority from which doctrine arrives?
That being, of course, Aquinas and other personalities from the dark ages...
Note the word is "UNrighteousness", not "ANTIrighteousness". The prefix "Un" implies an absence, not an opposite.
"Orthodox Christianity teaches that only God can create substances, which is why he can create. If Satan could create substance then he would be a god, rather than a created thing."
Peter, I've got to tell you, this is pretty flakey. In the past you and Thom have demanded that God creates/created stuff from nothing in defiance of the etymology (true meaning) inherent in scripture. Mostly though, you base this upon the science of yesterday(nothing new for a Catholic). The preponderance of evidence all faithfully adhering to the LAW "conservation of energy" and all the evidence we can see through the Hubble and other sources, there is not a single event in the history of history where something was made from nothing.
Today we watch creation continue with unorganized matter and energy becoming Galaxies. My friend, it was a long time ago that science discarded the stupidity of "spontaneous generation". Intelligent man no longer believes that crocodiles spontaneously spring forth from submerged logs....or in a larger sense or any sense at all - that organized matter comes from nothing.
Please stop this insipidly ignorant doctrine. God creates the universe(s) by fashioning the useless into the incredibly useful. Have you been watching Him continue to do it? We know that 80% of the matter and energy out there remains undetected....yet we know it is out there. Why can we not detect it? It is not organized.
You are so immersed in the physical creation that you can't tell God from what He creates. You make Him subject to some unexplained rules of existence and "exultation", which you somehow never quite come to grips with where they originate. You just ignore it and start with the assumption of a grand and complex stage on which God is just a bit actor. When God says "I am, Who am", He means it...everything, all existence, all time, all the rules. Anything you see in His creation is just a highly limited reflection of what He is in Himself.
"I just know that if I tossed out the claim that all things desire their own perfection, I would be met with a raft of objections by atheists and secularists. I'll try to frame some of those objections later. If anyone else has such an objection, please post it."
Your premise is much more scientific than theological. More accurately, all things desire their own survival through adaptation. One need not be conscious of a God to "desire perfection".
Christ spoke to the apostles commanding them to be perfect as His Father is perfect. Obviously, Christ came to set an example of perfection for the rest of us. He began as a babe, not a king. He grew up with no societal advantage. In the manner He lived He made sure that we could see ourselves in Him. And He commanded perfection like His Father. We have many more stories in the scriptures of those who chose a different path than His than those who did. He was rejected of man. Those who follow God's path are rejected of men. They wanted no part of His command of perfection. As a result, through practice some of them became perfect charletains, perfect confidence men even as words of faith poured from their mouths. Witness the "Christian" scandals of our day.
"I just know that if I tossed out the claim that all things desire their own perfection, I would be met with a raft of objections by atheists and secularists. I'll try to frame some of those objections later. If anyone else has such an objection, please post it."
Your premise is much more scientific than theological. More accurately, all things desire their own survival through adaptation. One need not be conscious of a God to "desire perfection".
Christ spoke to the apostles commanding them to be perfect as His Father is perfect. Obviously, Christ came to set an example of perfection for the rest of us. He began as a babe, not a king. He grew up with no societal advantage. In the manner He lived He made sure that we could see ourselves in Him. And He commanded perfection like His Father. We have many more stories in the scriptures of those who chose a different path than His than those who did. He was rejected of man. Those who follow God's path are rejected of men. They wanted no part of His command of perfection. As a result, through practice some of them became perfect charletains, perfect confidence men even as words of faith poured from their mouths. Witness the "Christian" scandals of our day.
"When God says "I am, Who am", He means it...everything, all existence, all time, all the rules. Anything you see in His creation is just a highly limited reflection of what He is in Himself. "
Mormons have a very clear concept of God, and especially a clearly defined idea about the relationship between God the Father, Jesus Christ, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. We do not confuse God with His creation, nor are we so vague as to describe Him as a reflection of something.
Mormons believe that the concepts identified by such nonscriptural terms as “the incomprehensible mystery of God” and “the mystery of the Holy Trinity” are attributable to the ideas of Greek philosophy. These philosophical concepts transformed Christianity in the first few centuries following the deaths of the Apostles.
All viewers should note the philosophic constructs that are exta-scriptural here. It's all Greek to me.
Talk about confusion, you have it exactly backward. I said creation reflects Him, not He reflects the creation. Now that I think about it, your theology does seem to make Him more a of a reflection...a reflection of his infinite chain of predecessors...a reflection of the pre-existing matter...a reflection of the rules of exaltation that somehow mysteriously exist on their own.
You mock and twist and make up stuff and continue to criticize as if from the Bible and yet still you haven't cited to a single scripture for your blather.
You leave out of your various posts most of your core theology and where it comes from. You don't say that it supercedes the Bible where your theology contradicts it. You don't say that man can be God.
Clever lizard.
I will answer your question forthrightly even though you replied to mine with mockery.
I will answer that I am familiar enough to know that in fact, in the Bible are reference after reference to men doing evil, not referenced as a thing at all but to their acts, generally of turning away from God. In fact, most of the references to evil in the old testament describe exactly that, evil as the act of turning away from God. Easy to find at a searchable Bible web site. http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/index.php?search=evil&version1=31&searchtype=all&limit=none&wholewordsonly=no&startnumber=26
Amazing how Augustine sums up the concept in the quote brought to us by Thom and repeated by others:
"For when the will abandons what is above itself, and turns to what is lower, it becomes evil--not because that is evil to which it turns, but because the turning itself is wicked" (Augustine, City of God, XII, CHAP. 6.)."
The preponderance of evidence all faithfully adhering to the LAW "conservation of energy" and all the evidence we can see through the Hubble and other sources, there is not a single event in the history of history where something was made from nothing…Today we watch creation continue with unorganized matter and energy becoming Galaxies.
●This is a non sequitur and, ironically, your comment supports the Christian contention of ex nihilo creation. First, it is the Christian contention that ex nihilo creation is a one-time event; therefore, the fact that no one now sees things popping into existence from nothing works in favor of the Christian belief.
●Second, it obviously does not follow that if we don’t see things presently popping into existence that this means that a belief in a singular act of total creation did not happen in the past. Just because I don’t have cars popping into existence on my driveway doesn’t mean that my 2003 Avalon wasn’t manufactured by Toyota. Such an assertion, of course, is absurd.
●Additionally, we have been over this scores of times, but the notions of pre-existent and eternal matter with an infinite regress of gods—one of which lives on Kolob—who “organize” matter into new worlds for them to be gods of, is a fantasy developed in the fevered imagination of Joseph Smith.
Crushing come-back.....
It's like engaging in wit to wit combat with an unarmed man.
Just so you stand revealed....
I'm still waiting for the answers that should have arrived from my original comment. Otherwise, my justification stands fixed/unmoved and you indeed give credence to an authority above holy scripture.
Quote from Gecko’s “original comment:”
In the past you have created the metaphor suggesting evil has the same relationship to good as darkness has to light. Of course this is not Biblical, totally absent from the scriptures.
●Okay, show of hands, please. How many think that if I list key NT Scripture where the Bible clearly uses the metaphors of darkness (evil) and light (good), that Gecko will somehow NOT be “fixed/unmoved” in his view that I am giving “credence to an authority above Holy Scripture?” Oops…sorry, Gecko…nobody thinks you will be moved by these obvious examples from Scripture.
Luke 22:52-53 Then Jesus said to the chief priests, captains of the temple, and the elders who had come to Him, “Have you come out, as against a robber, with swords and clubs? 53 When I was with you daily in the temple, you did not try to seize Me. But this is your hour, and the power of darkness.”
John 1:4-5 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
John 3:19-20 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.
John 8:12 Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.”
Romans 13:11-13 And do this, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep; for now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed. 12 The night is far spent, the day is at hand. Therefore let us cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light. 13 Let us walk properly, as in the day, not in revelry and drunkenness, not in lewdness and lust, not in strife and envy.
Ephesians 5:8-12 For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light 9 (for the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness, righteousness, and truth), 10 finding out what is acceptable to the Lord. 11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. 12 For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret.
Colossians 1:13-14 He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, 14 in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.
1 Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;
1 John 1: 5-7 This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. 6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.
I don't know what Toyota has to do with it. You need to shine more light on this new metaphor.
●Well, when reading your comment, at first I thought you were joking. Peter’s response, however, clued me in that you may actually be serious.
●Okay, here is how the Toyota metaphor works.
A. Your assertion is that:
1. Because we don’t see anything now suddenly popping into existence from nothing,
2. Therefore, this must mean that the universe wasn’t created in the past by God from nothing.
B. This is like saying:
1. No Toyotas are now (5/28/08) popping into existence in my driveway.
2. Therefore, this must mean that my Toyota Avalon was not manufactured in 2003.
Not much of an accusation from someone who's whole theology centers on the authority of a charlatan who used "seeing stones" to con people into giving him money to find Spanish treasure; who fabricated a whole new scripture tailored to satisfy his own fantasies of multiple sexual partners and that reduces God to a co-equal with himself.
If you read scripture, you will find that Paul identifies the authority as the Church "...the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth." 1 Tim 3:15
Pleased to see you find scriptures that mentioned darkness and lightness, no matter the purpose you had in doing it. I was expecting something about the spontaneous generation of Toyotas. But good work. Perhaps you can enlighten us on the common theme these scriptures contain specifically?
Why don't we start with Genesis. Within the tradition of the Old Testament, the most universal exercise of divine judgment to have been passed on the world was the Great Flood in the days of Noah. This judgment was decreed by God because "all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth." (Gen. 6:12.) The destruction was to be total, "both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air," so that the earth might be cleansed from all corruption. (Gen. 6:7.)
Now I can't even fathom how from this you can assert that Evil in the form of corrupted flesh has no real existance, that needed to be destroyed, for the need to cleanse the Earth from it. Wow, that sounds like existance to me. And of course, drowning it is to put it out of existance.
I can certainly understand your motivation in wanting evil to be somehow diminished by claiming it not to be real, not to exist. As some bathe in adultery, pornography, priestcrafts, we wish as leaders to thankfully wash our hand symbolically because that stuff really isn't corrupting us, it just isn't real. Just keep on feeding yourself that stuff. "Every day in every way we are getting better and better."
Well, I'm no high priest but I get the point. Just as darkness is the absence of light, evil is the deprivation of good. Darkness is not a thing, it is the absence of a thing, that being light.
I'm sure you are still fixed/unmoved but playing dumb is not your strong suit. You said the reference Thom made was not biblical. That was wrong. In fact, it looks like a recurring theme and.....get ready for it, supports his thesis entirely.
On a side note, earlier you mocked me for asking you to provide citations for things you said were in the Bible (still waiting) and implied my ignorance. Funny how Thom posted so many verses saying exactly what you claimed was NOT in the Bible. What a scholar you are.
Interesting premise. The entity of evil was drowned in Noah's flood? If it was put out of existence as you say, how is it that we see so many evil acts in our own time? No, it was the people who had turned away from God, turned to evil thoughts and acts, and they were drowned.
The evil then is the same as now. It isn't a thing with existence or it would have had to be created by God.
Is it your belief that God created evil?
Interesting premise. The entity of evil was drowned in Noah's flood? If it was put out of existence as you say, how is it that we see so many evil acts in our own time? No, it was the people who had turned away from God, turned to evil thoughts and acts, and they were drowned…The evil then is the same as now. It isn't a thing with existence or it would have had to be created by God…Is it your belief that God created evil?
●Ah…Timbo, your assessment of Mr. Gecko’s thinking is impeccable. There is no need for me to add anything. With you I will just quietly await Gecko’s response.
In Genesis of the Bible we read where God created a flood.
Noah did not create a flood. God did it.
Genesis tells us literally word for word that all of human flesh had become corrupted and it was God's singular purpose to destroy the corrupted flesh. There is nothing in the scriptures that God worked out of revenge here.
It was good that God created the flood to destroy this corrupted flesh.
You ask, given He cleansed the Earth by destroying those who were evil, how come there are evil acts today?
I can understand your confusion on that given your lack of current reliable reading material. As I have stated, it is in our nature to regularly defy the Lord. Paul writes about that artfully. We can choose to throw off that nature, to diminish that inclination, through great effort. But, if we spend day after day defending the corrupt, their freedon to do evil increases.
Now although quite clearly the Bible tells us that God created the flood to destroy corrupted flesh, to kill corrupted people, you believe evil should have been defeated. I'm sorry, because evil is real and the father of lies (Satan) and his fallen angels were not His target YET, the reality of corrupted future flesh was certain. God's purpose was to allow Good to get a secure foothold which it must have lost prior to the flood.
Tou wrote "The evil then is the same as now."
That's an outrageous error.
"It isn't a thing with existence or it would have had to be created by God." That's an outrageous error and a circular argument. You should know that God creates good, not evil. Satan (dah) is the Father of all lies. Do you not recognize him when you see him in the courtroom? Or, do you see another handsome fellow Immaculately dressed?
Is it your belief that God created evil? You are having problems with your spiritual memory.
by Timbo (PM , CC ) on Thursday May 29, 2008 @ 9:36 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timbo wrote:
Interesting premise. The entity of evil was drowned in Noah's flood? If it was put out of existence as you say, how is it that we see so many evil acts in our own time? No, it was the people who had turned away from God, turned to evil thoughts and acts, and they were drowned…The evil then is the same as now. It isn't a thing with existence or it would have had to be created by God…Is it your belief that God created evil?
●Ah…Timbo, your assessment of Mr. Gecko’s thinking is impeccable. There is no need for me to add anything. With you I will just quietly await Gecko’s response.
In Genesis of the Bible we read where God created a flood.
Noah did not create a flood. It was not Noah's flood. God did it.
Genesis tells us literally word for word that all of human flesh had become corrupted and it was God's singular purpose to destroy that corrupted flesh while preserving the uncorrupted (Prophet and family) to Himself. There is nothing in the scriptures that God worked out of revenge here as you suppose.
It was good that God created the flood to destroy this corrupted flesh.
You ask, given He cleansed the Earth by destroying those who were evil, how come there are evil acts today?
I can understand your confusion on that given your lack of current reliable reading material. As I have stated, it is in our nature as man to regularly defy the Lord. Paul writes about that artfully. We can choose to throw off that nature, to diminish that inclination, through great effort and conversion. But, if we spend day after day defending the corrupt, their freedon to do evil increases. And we in turn begin to stink with it.
Now although quite clearly the Bible tells us that God created the flood to destroy corrupted flesh, to kill corrupted people, you believe evil should have been defeated. I'm sorry, because evil is real and the father of lies (Satan) and his fallen angels were not His target YET, the reality of corrupted future flesh was certain. God's purpose was to allow Good to get a secure foothold which it must have lost prior to the flood.
Tou wrote "The evil then is the same as now."
That's an elementary error. You speak from ignorance.
"It isn't a thing with existence or it would have had to be created by God."
That's an outrageous error and a circular argument. You should know that God creates good, not evil. Satan (dah) is the Father of all lies. Do you not recognize him when you see him in the courtroom? Or, do you see another handsome fellow Immaculately dressed?
Is it your belief that God created evil? You are having problems with your spiritual memory.
You see, the atheists are quick to note your problem with evil. For it is you contention that all things created were created by God. You cannot escape the inconsistancy, for if evil is but a void in good, you cannot obsolve God from being implicating in all torture and ultimately allowing all that is evil. A recent study shows that when evangelical teens leave high school, in huge numbers they are never to return to you churches simply because they see your slight of hand by then.
LDS doctrine speaks to the Plan of Salvation. Because of the Lord's plan the "problem of evil" does not fall on us.
I chuckle simply because you thought it fell on us while know it is killing you.
Christ's true church cannot have these self-contradicting doctrinal problems.
"Benefits of the Fall"
The Fall is an integral part of Heavenly Father's plan of salvation (see 2 Nephi 2:15–16; 9:6). It has a twofold direction—downward yet forward. In addition to introducing physical and spiritual death, it gave us the opportunity to be born on the earth and to learn and progress. Through our righteous exercise of agency and our sincere repentance when we sin, we can come unto Christ and, through His Atonement, prepare to receive the gift of eternal life. The prophet Lehi taught:
"If Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.
"And [Adam and Eve] would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.
"But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.
"Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.
"And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall" (2 Nephi 2:22–26; see also 2 Nephi 2:19–21, 27).
Adam and Eve expressed their gratitude for the blessings that came as a result of the Fall:
"Adam blessed God and was filled, and began to prophesy concerning all the families of the earth, saying: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God.
"And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient" (Moses 5:10-11)."
http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=14730bbce1d98010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____
This is essentially gnostic dualism as Thom pointed out in this thread. It isn't a "problem of evil" for the LDS when your theology believes that evil is a necessary good, which is obviously an impossible contradiction in itself.
So Satan has the power to create a thing- namely evil. Doesn't this make Satan a God, with the power of creation?
Doesn't this statement describe the essence of gnostic dualism?
This is moving us noticeably in a positive direction. The fact that you have abandoned the evil is donut hole theology is productive. I love it though how you pull stuff out of the hat.
But no. We do not believe that evil, in the sense of partaking of the Apple, was a necessary good. I have never stated such a thing. But let me assist in your confusion.
Committing the first sin was certainly not a "necessary good"; it was a sin (dah). It was rather a "necessary condition"; But that supposes God had no contingency plans that would allow Adam and Eve to both procreate beyond Eden while not sinning. And subsequent to that every offspring until now would not have sinned. As a consequence of a sinless human race (remarkable don't you think?) we would have no need for Atonement. The great plan would be a different one. It doesn't sound promising especially since we know it didn't turn out that way.
We passed right through that buttonhole - donut hole nature of evil. The view is wonderful from the high ground.
"Doesn't this statement describe the essence of gnostic dualism?"
If it were gnostic, it would not have been placed blatantly for all to read in the Book of Mormon. There's nothing secret about that now is there?