"Good and Evil"
- Thread starter look3467
- Start date
I am RC, yes
Evil as I was taught in catechism was the absence of doing good through God. I'll have to actually look that up..it's been quite a well since catechism classes
St. Thomas Aquinas meets the objection head on and answers the problem with his usual razor-sharp efficiency:
Respondeo dicendum quod
There are no easy answers. In fact, the problem of reconciling the existence of evil with an all-powerful, omnipotent good God is extremely daunting. It's not impossible, but the answer might not be wholly comforting to a father who lost his only son in a chain of events that seem awfully meaningless. It is emotionally gut-wrenching, and intellectual answers like the one St. Thomas provided may seem too antiseptic, even though it is absolutely reasonable. The argument that answers the problem of evil must be given flesh and blood and not just remain as a intellectual proposition on a page.
The Christian faith does just this, which is why I personally find Christianity to be most the satisfying option available. The reconciliation between the existence of an omnipotent God of goodness and the existence of evil, pain and suffering is found in the Cross. There, we find a story -- a true one -- which is the ultimate realization of the horror that the aforementioned father encounters in the seemingly meaningless death of his only son.
In the eyes of history, it seems like the biggest mistake, the worst practical joke, a meaningless mess of a would-be Messiah whose life ended in a death that even our "advanced" civilization wouldn't subject to a dog.
On the other hand, to the eyes of faith, the Cross was paradoxically the most meaningful act in all of human history. Here was God's sharing into the human condition, a partaking of the loss for a most precious love that a father could ever have.
Paradoxically, in the Cross, evil was answered by justice and mercy, which may seem irreconcilable to our understanding. However, in the act that saw the death of Christ, the barrier between justice and mercy was broken and its fruits were given to humanity as the ultimate answer to the problem of evil. The answer to this problem is not a mere intellectual exercise, but was given a human face -- and that is the face of Jesus Christ.
Thus, the answer given by St. Thomas comes full circle: omnipotent Goodness Himself found a way to produce goodness outweighing the evil in which it was taken from. This Goodness gave the answer to the problem of evil for humanity by becoming one of us and suffering through an evil that summarizes the pain of all humanity, including that of the father today who feels the loss of an only son.
The good news of the Cross is that the death that evil brings was too weak to keep Life incarnate in the grave, but Jesus who is Life burst forth in the Resurrection, which proves that God exists, God is Love and Love is stronger than death.
Therein lies the hope of fathers who lose their only sons. It's not an easy answer, and it is undeniably painful. But the pain points to an even greater happiness, when "God will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself will be with them; he will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away" (Revelation 21:3-4).
<Objection> "It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word 'God' means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist."
<Answer> "As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): 'Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil.' This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good."
That's the intellectual answer. Now for the practical one.Respondeo dicendum quod
There are no easy answers. In fact, the problem of reconciling the existence of evil with an all-powerful, omnipotent good God is extremely daunting. It's not impossible, but the answer might not be wholly comforting to a father who lost his only son in a chain of events that seem awfully meaningless. It is emotionally gut-wrenching, and intellectual answers like the one St. Thomas provided may seem too antiseptic, even though it is absolutely reasonable. The argument that answers the problem of evil must be given flesh and blood and not just remain as a intellectual proposition on a page.
The Christian faith does just this, which is why I personally find Christianity to be most the satisfying option available. The reconciliation between the existence of an omnipotent God of goodness and the existence of evil, pain and suffering is found in the Cross. There, we find a story -- a true one -- which is the ultimate realization of the horror that the aforementioned father encounters in the seemingly meaningless death of his only son.
In the eyes of history, it seems like the biggest mistake, the worst practical joke, a meaningless mess of a would-be Messiah whose life ended in a death that even our "advanced" civilization wouldn't subject to a dog.
On the other hand, to the eyes of faith, the Cross was paradoxically the most meaningful act in all of human history. Here was God's sharing into the human condition, a partaking of the loss for a most precious love that a father could ever have.
Paradoxically, in the Cross, evil was answered by justice and mercy, which may seem irreconcilable to our understanding. However, in the act that saw the death of Christ, the barrier between justice and mercy was broken and its fruits were given to humanity as the ultimate answer to the problem of evil. The answer to this problem is not a mere intellectual exercise, but was given a human face -- and that is the face of Jesus Christ.
Thus, the answer given by St. Thomas comes full circle: omnipotent Goodness Himself found a way to produce goodness outweighing the evil in which it was taken from. This Goodness gave the answer to the problem of evil for humanity by becoming one of us and suffering through an evil that summarizes the pain of all humanity, including that of the father today who feels the loss of an only son.
The good news of the Cross is that the death that evil brings was too weak to keep Life incarnate in the grave, but Jesus who is Life burst forth in the Resurrection, which proves that God exists, God is Love and Love is stronger than death.
Therein lies the hope of fathers who lose their only sons. It's not an easy answer, and it is undeniably painful. But the pain points to an even greater happiness, when "God will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself will be with them; he will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away" (Revelation 21:3-4).
Darn you sanctus - I just came back from a company dinner and I'm in no shape to read what you've written - and I can't wait to nitpick it!
Too many mohitos (what an awful drink!) to even spell carefully - I am at a decided disadvantage - just you wait until tomorrow.
I sincerely hope you are doing well, sir.
Pangloss.
Too many mohitos (what an awful drink!) to even spell carefully - I am at a decided disadvantage - just you wait until tomorrow.
I sincerely hope you are doing well, sir.
Pangloss.
The good is not the opposite of the evil. It has never been touched by that which is evil, though it is surrounded by it. Evil cannot hurt the good but the good may appear to do harm and so evil gets more cunning, more mischievous. It can be cultivated, sharpened, expansively violent; it is born within the movement of time, nurtured and skilfully used. But goodness is not of time; it can in no way be cultivated or nurtured by thought; its action is not visible; it has no cause and so no effect. Evil cannot become good for that which is good is not the product of thought; it lies beyond thought, like beauty. The thing that thought produces, thought can undo but it is not the good; as it is not of time, the good has no abiding place. Where the good is, there is order, not the order of authority, punishment and reward; this order is essential, for otherwise society destroys itself and man becomes evil, murderous, corrupt and degenerate. For man is society; they are inseparable. The law of the good is everlasting, unchanging and timeless. Stability is its nature and so it is utterly secure. There is no other security.
Why did God make this earth it is simple God wanted to have good entertainment.
God is busy creating new worlds and expanding the universe.
Different religions to God, is like watching the comedy channel.
You got the Christians that replaced the almighty with the son he sent down to try to teach the chosen few.
He sent down the ten commandments for the Jews but was stolen by the Christians and they still will not follow it.
God loves the Christians because they are so funny.
The Christians cannot agree on what to believe in so they separated and decided to believe in their own version that is why there are so many Christian religions.
When they go to war to fight other Christians and kill them as well and God laughs.
Christians will even kill their offspring because they believe they have that choice.
Christians is a good source of entertainment so keep up the good work Christians and make God happy.
God is busy creating new worlds and expanding the universe.
Different religions to God, is like watching the comedy channel.
You got the Christians that replaced the almighty with the son he sent down to try to teach the chosen few.
He sent down the ten commandments for the Jews but was stolen by the Christians and they still will not follow it.
God loves the Christians because they are so funny.
The Christians cannot agree on what to believe in so they separated and decided to believe in their own version that is why there are so many Christian religions.
When they go to war to fight other Christians and kill them as well and God laughs.
Christians will even kill their offspring because they believe they have that choice.
Christians is a good source of entertainment so keep up the good work Christians and make God happy.
That'll teach you a lesson Pangloss.
And to further compound what I already wrote, consider that there are as many attempts within the Church throughout the ages to define these concepts as there are in the secular world. In his struggles with the problem of evil, Augustine, for example, argues first that the fact that there are things of varying goodness makes for a greater goodness of things as a whole than if there weren't such variety. And he further argues that evil is not something fully real but only something dependent on that which is more real, as disease (which is an evil) can exist only in a body (which is a good). Thus God, as the source of all that is, is not in contest with a positive being or an ultimate reality which is evil and would be His counterpart. Though Augustine's ideas were bold and daring, they troubled many later Christians who felt they were unable to reconcile them with the existence of sin, Satan, and damnation. Yet variations on this theme continue to be popular: what we perceive to be evil is, in some ultimate sense, good.
It is always a pleasure to read your well-founded and theologically relevant points of view. I bow to your intellectual talents at defining these issues.
Sanctus
Do you realize however that your 'good and evil' are within your own personal perceptions and do not belong in the exact same degree of definition as others who read what you have written.
The two words have no meaning unless viewed as a personal reality.
Finally: Good and Evil are not of religion as much as you wish to make them - religion's role is to promote one vs. the other - in what the religion deems to be 'good and evil' not what people experience in a personal manner.
They are of humanity - not religion....as much as you find it necessary in your strong beliefs to attach them to religion.
They also belong in the secular world - and have many roles in which they are played out.
Do you realize however that your 'good and evil' are within your own personal perceptions and do not belong in the exact same degree of definition as others who read what you have written.
The two words have no meaning unless viewed as a personal reality.
Finally: Good and Evil are not of religion as much as you wish to make them - religion's role is to promote one vs. the other - in what the religion deems to be 'good and evil' not what people experience in a personal manner.
They are of humanity - not religion....as much as you find it necessary in your strong beliefs to attach them to religion.
They also belong in the secular world - and have many roles in which they are played out.
China welcome back - I have missed your amazing thoughts and writings here..... please try to visit soon again... Curiosity
I'm not sure I agree. Would we even have the two concepts without a religious background? Some might argue that the very ideologies of good and evil derive directly from religious thought.
"Evil" is not some self-existent "thing," out there. Evil is from our own minds - from that sense that "I am some separate entity, an isolated ego, separate from the rest of the universe." When I have this egoic self-consciousness there is the potential to feel that I am the judge and arbiter of my individual destiny, deciding for myself what is harmful or beneficial (good or evil) for "me" as a separated identity. This is the "knowledge of good and evil" in the garden of Eden story in Genesis. It doesn't grow on a tree, it grows in self-consciousness and is the root of all our disjointed relations: with God, nature, ourselves and our fellows. The knowledge of good and evil is also the root of all religious and ethical systems! Humanity in our origin "knew God," that is, knew only unbroken union with Being, and this was exchanged for the pseudo-spiritual knowledge of ourselves as isolated, separate entities who could arbitrate good and evil out of wrong this sense of separation.The first murder, the subsequent power struggles, fears, nationalisms, racism, violence, and all our disjointed relations to God, each other, nature, and ourselves come from this mental delusion, this leaving of our original union. The Buddhist asks, what was your original Mind? The Taoist speaks only of returning to the Source.
Bonhoeffer
Bonhoeffer
My conscience is not based upon religious teaching any more than a laugh from something I find amusing raises up from my being, or tears which cloud my eyes when I am hurt - these are from within and only those without conscience lack these inner triggers.
Children long before their conception of religious belief have good and evil.
It less complicated than we are discussing it in our search for 'what it is' which is belonging to self - not what we learned from religious teaching, our parents, or our society, we are born with humanity even though we do not comprehend what it is.
Only later on do we try sophisticated measures of the two - when they are very base and primitive.
Children long before their conception of religious belief have good and evil.
It less complicated than we are discussing it in our search for 'what it is' which is belonging to self - not what we learned from religious teaching, our parents, or our society, we are born with humanity even though we do not comprehend what it is.
Only later on do we try sophisticated measures of the two - when they are very base and primitive.
Of course it is. Regardless of your family background and its associated religious views, you are born and raised in Canada, and the Christian mindset frames the conception of all our value systems, whether we are in fact Christians or not.
jwv
Are you actually writing that only the Christian mindset frames the conception of all our value systems?
You have excluded huge populations of major religions, plus all the little humans who are far too young to have any concept of religion and moral values whatsoever.
I am talking about the beginning innate knowledge of evil and good. It is something we are born with and later we give it names, it becomes more sophisticated and as we grow we get to see both at work in our lives. Have you ever seen two year olds 'at play' where one will find a toy and bash the other in delight, yet a child will pick up a toy and give it to another.
Do you actually believe religion is the source of the motivation in a two year old?
Simplistic: the roots of good and evil.
Our original perception is as childlike as tears and smiles. We do not know 'what' it is, because we have yet to be taught to give it a name and have it explained.... but all humans have potential good and evil will within ...
Religion merely gives it definition as it is the perception of that particular religion, and sorry but I have to correct your statement...Christianity is not the only teacher of our moral values.
A particular practitioner of religion set my life on a path of horrendous agony for one full year and guilt for six years thereafter ... is that what you believe 'moral values' to be? But I have forgiven him because that is how I work - I cannot force forgiveness - it is just there.
Yes, in our society. Christianity has been the major religious thought for Europe and Canada.