Can God be evil?

I know He can't, but how would I show this? It does go against His nature, His nature is good. But that doesn't seem to answer the question good enough.

And what about: Can God make a rock so big not even He can lift it?

-- Jacob Rainey (jacobrainey@hotmail.com), October 18, 2003

Answers

God is not simply good. "Good" is a relative term. We all know people who are basically good, but who can still do bad things sometimes. God is goodness itself, and any good we experience as human beings is a merely a dim reflection of God. It is possible for relatively good people to do evil, because good people are not completely good; but it is not possible for absolute goodness to do evil. That's what absolute means. Besides, doing evil means rebelling against God, since God is goodness and evil is the opposite of goodness, and God cannot rebel against Himself.

Regarding your other question - if there were a rock He could not lift, then by definition He would not be God. Therefore this silly question is actually asking if God can create a situation in which He would not be God. No. Such a situation cannot exist, for God is eternal.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 18, 2003.

Thanks a bunch! I once read a book by Frank Sheed, Theology for Begginers, or something along those lines. He actually went over the rock question, but I have since forgotten how he did so and do not have the book to explore through. What other good Catholic Theology books are out there?

Thanks again,

Jacob

-- Jacob Rainey (jacobrainey@hotmail.com), October 18, 2003.

Jacob,

To start with the second question, the actual question lies not in can he create the rock itself, but rather in is God God? I would reccomend the answer at http://www.getpurpose.org/publications/articles/big_rock.html as a very good answer to this question.

As for your first question, can God be evil?:

I agree completely with Paul, citing Aristotle's idea of non- contradiction*. We know that God and all that he has created is good, so there is no way that he can be not good (or evil).

Theology books? It really all depends on what you are interested in studying and into how much depth you wish to study it. I don't have any direct reccomendations for a general book, unfortunately, but there are many books availible on many topics. Send me an e-mail and maybe I can help find something of interest, though I very much reccomend your local Catholic book store, should you have one.

James McNellis The Catholic University of America

* "It is impossible for the same thing at the same time to belong and not belong to the same thing at the same time and in the same respect." -Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1005b12-20

-- James McNellis (82mcnellis@cua.edu), October 19, 2003.

Jacob,

I've used some Sheed books myself, they are quite good.

As for other books, I suggest you find a book called "A Tour of the Summa" by whom I forget, but it's put out by TAN publications I beleive. If not that, then find some other paraphrase-type review of the Summa Theologica. Or, if you are brave, you could try reading the Summa itself! There's a copy here: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/

Good luck.

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), October 20, 2003.

"Regarding your other question - if there were a rock He could not lift, then by definition He would not be God. Therefore this silly question is actually asking if God can create a situation in which He would not be God. No. Such a situation cannot exist, for God is eternal. "

so, He's not omnipotent. He has limits?!?!

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 15, 2004.

" Can God make a rock so big not even He can lift it? "

Yes.

That big rock is similar to the free will God has given us. God will not mess with our free will; that is one big rock that God will not lift.

.........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 17, 2004.

Good answer, Rod. Well, then again, nothing is impossible for God.

And because of free will, Satan's choice of DISobedience, evil was born ... Satan's evil caused an avalanche of evil for humankind.

-- catholic8450327913065297 (catholic8450327913065297@Catholic.Truth), January 17, 2004.

"Omnipotent" means "all powerful". It does not mean "without limitations". There is nothing God cannot due because He lacks the power to do it; therefore He is omnipotent. But there obviously are things God cannot do because they are incompatible with Divine Nature. He cannot learn, because He is already omniscient. He cannot err, because He is perfect. He cannot do evil, since He is goodness itself, and evil is defined as rebellion against God. He cannot hate, since He is love itself. And He cannot cease to exist, for He is eternal. None of these truths about God compromise His omnipotence.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 17, 2004.

question for Paul M.

is this doctrine?

i have tried researching it but have drawn blanks.

you see, i guess that God can do anything. He chooses what to do. He elects to be good. To us, that is the yardstick. He could, if He wanted, re-define "good" -- because He can because He is God.

in the context of your examples, that i found interesting, i could answer as follows:

" He cannot learn, because He is already omniscient."

....but He could create knowledge and learn that; because He is God.

" He cannot err, because He is perfect."

..no, "perfection" takes its definition from God, whatever He chooses to do.

" He cannot do evil, since He is goodness itself, and evil is defined as rebellion against God."

...ditto

" He cannot hate, since He is love itself."

...ditto

" And He cannot cease to exist, for He is eternal."

He could if He wanted. He defines eternity. we can't even begin to understand it.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 18, 2004.

There's both doctrine and theology in Paul's paragraph, but you would have to sift through it to figure which is which. It sounds accurate, though, especially this:

"But there obviously are things God cannot do because they are incompatible with Divine Nature."

It's a goodness/truth/beauty question or a study of Being; that's a huge topic; it would be hard to point someone in the right direction as to where to begin. I'm not sure you can get the answer by browsing the net, and I'm not sure you can just walk up to Aristotle's works or the Summa and just start picking away at them without some help. Maybe some people can, I don't know.

The first time I heard that question about God and the rock was in the non-denom Protestant high school I went to. They had a Bible class in which the teacher asked this question; he let the students mull it over for several minutes and then took various answers from them, rejecting each one. Finally, he said the correct answer was "it's a stupid question!" That never sat well with me at all. I felt like I was crazy because I didn't agree... felt that way ever since, come to think of it. The first objection should be that God doesn't have arms.

It's a good question anyways because what it does is it forces one to contemplate Being, which can't possibly be a waste of time since if we make it to Heaven, this is integral to what we will be involved in for all eternity.

Are you sure you want to answer this the hard way with limited results in this life, or just lead a good one and find out in Heaven? If you're not sure Ian, don't worry about it; I can't make up my mind either.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 18, 2004.

"is this doctrine?"

A: Yes. It is doctrine that God is perfection; that he is omniscient; that He is omnipotent; that He is goodness and love and the essence of every virtue; and that He is eternal.

"He elects to be good"

A: No, God does not elect to "be good". The only way He could elect to "be good" is if some higher authority defined goodness, and then gave God a choice. God is not "good". God is goodness itself. We are "good" when we act like Him. We are "bad" when we don't act like Him.

"He could, if He wanted, re-define "good" -- because He can because He is God."

A: No, he could not redefine goodness, for He is goodness, and He could not redefine Himself. Goodness is now what it has been from all eternity, and will be for all eternity. Goodness is absolute, eternal, and immutable because goodness is God, and God is absolute, eternal, and immutable. God "always was, always will be, and always remains the same". Therefore goodness always was, always will be, and always remains the same. Therefore, neither goodness nor God can be validly "redefined".

"....but He could create knowledge and learn that; because He is God."

A: No, He could not, because knowledge beyond ALL knowledge is a contradiction in terms, and God already possesses INFINITE knowledge.

"..no, "perfection" takes its definition from God, whatever He chooses to do."

A: Perfection does indeed take its definition from God. Not from what He chooses to do however. That is simply a manifestation of His perfection. Perfection takes its definition from what God IS. God IS Perfection, because that is His eternal nature. If He had any imperfection at all, He would not be God.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 18, 2004.

Posted earlier somewhere else:

That imperfection does not indicate God, but man. Or, even more directly Satan. But, I think that all of this imperfection is the flip side to Free Will. God cannot be good unless He does good things. Those good things open the door to evil if we choose not to obey or learn from God's will. So, it is really man's own weakness that evil is in the world. [A poster] may chant "Sin Nature" and man's inability to choose God. I think that man has every open door and may choose which door he thinks is for him at the risk of rejecting God. Free Will can be the purist form of obedience because it is a conscious choice to accept Christ.

...........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 18, 2004.

..................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 18, 2004.

You've got a really familiar concept of Being, Paul. Can I ask where you picked it up out of curiosity?

I'm not totally sure about this though:

"We are "good" when we act like Him. We are "bad" when we don't act like Him."

I've always figured it that our perfection was in relation not necessarily to God directly but in relation to fulfillment of our own created nature... at least what it was intended to be. I don't mean the popular idea of self-fulfillment, but something like this:

"We are "good" when we act according to the nature of human being as God intended. We are "bad" when we don't act like that."

That's just a rough guesstimate. In your defense, He did say "be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect", but again from my perspective, He said that we were in His image and likeness... but images and likenesses aren't the thing itself.

I think it's safe to say that all created things are going to reflect something of the nature of God in the form of likenesses or shadows. You know the old analogy of different cups where perfection is described as the cup being full, but each cup is full in relation to it's own capacity.

rod says:

"That imperfection does not indicate God, but man. Or, even more directly Satan. But, I think that all of this imperfection is the flip side to Free Will. God cannot be good unless He does good things. Those good things open the door to evil if we choose not to obey or learn from God's will. So, it is really man's own weakness that evil is in the world. [A poster] may chant "Sin Nature" and man's inability to choose God. I think that man has every open door and may choose which door he thinks is for him at the risk of rejecting God. Free Will can be the purist form of obedience because it is a conscious choice to accept Christ."

It seems like you're passing back and forth between two areas, one of being and the other of the will. They are both part of the good/evil discussion, but I'm wondering if a person would want to isolate a discussion of Being and address that first, and then move afterwards to a discussion of the Will. Working them together simultaneously seems confusing, at least to me it does.

Technically, when talking about Being, 'evil' is always considered a privation, or a lack of 'being' where 'being' is supposed to exist. For instance, a man missing an arm. Not 'lack of being' such as Space, where something wasn't necessarily intended to be there.

But when you bring the Free Will into the equation, it gets more difficult. It doesn't seem enough to say that Satan is 'evil' because he's "missing something that ought to be there"... that just doesn't account for what we might best describe as sinister or malicious about him.

How something can fall short of perfect being-wise seems the simple part; the big, big mystery is accounting for good and bad will. What is it that causes someone to choose evil, or choose God?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 18, 2004.

A goldfish is a being, but does it have a free will or just a response to stimuli?

What would be the point of our being if it were not for free will?

Satan has a free will. But, the good question is the one you've asked, Emerald. What makes one good or evil? Calvinist will tell me that it is man's nature to be evil and reject God by default. They will continue to tell me that only God can "elect" those for Salvation. That pretty much shoots down Free Will, scoot over goldfish and make room for the lost souls.

I think that Being and Free Will are too connected to isolate from each other. Of what purpose would one's existence be without a will to accept Christ? Damnation.

...................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 18, 2004.

For the human and the angels they're connected, right. But all of nature fell, including all of what's below human and includes what doesn't have free will. Good Will and Being are connected when it comes to salvation/damnation, no doubt, but in a way it seems like Being and Good Will have to be isolated and treated separately before looking at both of them together as a whole phenomena, as in the human being or angels. Maybe something like the difference between Orginal and Actual sin. I'm not sure if I'm making any sense here.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 18, 2004.

Plz , can someone explain to me , the title of this thread ??

Thx in advance !!

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), January 19, 2004.

I think we are talking about the paradox of God creating something that He cannot or will not have control or power over. I think that Free Will is one of those paradoxes. The "big rock" is a metaphor, in my view.

.....................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 19, 2004.

Emerald, I am thinking that you will eventually say that Man is one of those paradoxes--God cannot control Man, yet He still created Man.

........................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 19, 2004.

actually rod,

God CAN perfectly easily control man. He just refrains from doing so because freedom of will makes it all the more important when we choose Him.

im sure sometimes the victims of God would much rather He actually controlled them than the alternative. I wonder if pharoah would rather have had God control his will for two days, than to have had God wreak havoc on egypt and send blight to kill his son?

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), January 19, 2004.

Hi paul.

Well, that's just it. God will not mess with our free will. He has the power to control us, but then He wouldn't be God anymore because we would then become like a goldfish. I think that we can surrender completely to His will, but it is us doing the surrendering. God has control of nature, yes, but nature has no free will.

.....................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 19, 2004.