This is something that Pacifist stated on the Church Shooting Thread so I was asked to start a new one here with my reply/thoughts:

Quote:

---

Wow. Okay. Well, I believe ECT is the least likely of the 3 major views (Universalism, Annihilationism, and ECT). My views are rooted in Scripture. I don't believe it's a literal lake of fire. I believe it's what is alluded to when Paul and the author of Proverbs tell us that loving your enemy is like heaping burning coals on his head. If our flawed, human love is like heaping burning coals, imagine what being in the presence of Love will be like. Love that is a "consuming fire". We will pass through the consuming fire, but I believe all will be in the presence of God. To some, it will be like being in a lake of fire. Much like impure metals are passed through a refiner's fire to burn away the impurities, so will we. The difference is that the "fire" is God's love. This is much more consistent with who Christ revealed the triune God to be, imo. But we will all be reconciled to Him. That's a promise He made and one I truly believe in. This is why the gates of Heaven will be eternally open. The "lake of fire" those who reject Him are in is His love, not a place He uses to eternally torture us. It's to refine us, and reconcile His image bearer to Himself.

Could I be wrong? Absolutely. We're talking about ancient texts and trying to understand them. But at the end of the day, I look to Jesus Christ. He is the exact representation of the nature of the Father. If it doesn't look like Jesus, it isn't God. Eternal torture doesn't look like Jesus. Love so great that it's like a lake of fire (or heaping burning coals) does.

---

This is a bit off topic from the beginning of the church shooting thread but your post topic is something I have specifically been reading and reconsidering the past couple of years.

I have learned that ECT is the "youngest" understanding of afterlife in the history of the church and that Universalism or Annihilationism were the views for centuries of the early church. I am open to all three being possible but I hope in Universalism for the exact understanding you mentioned here. The fire is God's refinement for his entire creation. Even the word "eternal" was not an accurate translation of the greek. The word was Aion which can be more accurately translated as 'Age' or 'Eon'. This word throughout scripture is translated as forever and ever but the root of those words revolve around the concept of AGES not eternity.

I am no expert of course and was raised in the SBC with ECT as my belief and I participated in Hell Houses etc. But now I just can't square that view of God and ECT. I'm not saying no one goes through a fire but along with Pacifist believe that it is a refining fire meant to purify all of us (maybe differing levels...I don't know, just conjecture at this point).


P.S. What if God's wrath, as mentioned in the Bible, is not an active punishment (ala Zeus and his thunderbolts) but a giving over to? Something that he allows/gives people to their own desires apart from his love and kingdom and we miss the beauty of communion with God by pursuing our own desires, even twisting them (like Adam and Even in the Garden). I have been reconsidering many of these "foundational beliefs" that simply aren't as foundational throughout the history of the church as I have been told to believe.

Username Checks Out

From the CCC
I. THE PARTICULAR JUDGMENT
1021 Death puts an end to human life as the time open to either accepting or rejecting the divine grace manifested in Christ.592 The New Testament speaks of judgment primarily in its aspect of the final encounter with Christ in his second coming, but also repeatedly affirms that each will be rewarded immediately after death in accordance with his works and faith. The parable of the poor man Lazarus and the words of Christ on the cross to the good thief, as well as other New Testament texts speak of a final destiny of the soul--a destiny which can be different for some and for others.593
1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification594 or immediately,595 -- or immediate and everlasting damnation.596

At the evening of life, we shall be judged on our love.597
IV. HELL
1033 We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: "He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him."612 Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren.613 To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."
1034 Jesus often speaks of "Gehenna" of "the unquenchable fire" reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost.614 Jesus solemnly proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,"615 and that he will pronounce the condemnation: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!"616
1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire."617 The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.
1036 The affirmations of Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church on the subject of hell are a call to the responsibility incumbent upon man to make use of his freedom in view of his eternal destiny. They are at the same time an urgent call to conversion: "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few."618

Since we know neither the day nor the hour, we should follow the advice of the Lord and watch constantly so that, when the single course of our earthly life is completed, we may merit to enter with him into the marriage feast and be numbered among the blessed, and not, like the wicked and slothful servants, be ordered to depart into the eternal fire, into the outer darkness where "men will weep and gnash their teeth."619

1037 God predestines no one to go to hell;620 for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want "any to perish, but all to come to repentance":621

Father, accept this offering
from your whole family.
Grant us your peace in this life,
save us from final damnation,
and count us among those you have chosen.622

There's a lot to unpack here. I'm not sure you can start with eternal conscious torment vs other ideas. I think you are at the right starting place in your PS.

If we zoom out as far as possible on the scriptures, there is this story arc that runs through everything. It is about creation as a work of God, culminating in creation of Man. Parallel to this you have rebellion of demonic Powers, and this conflict meets in humanity. Humanity is either going to serve God, or the Powers. The Powers want to destroy creation and humanity, and corrupt Man to this end. God intervenes into His creation in order to save it, and mankind, and to defeat the Powers - ultimately by stepping into creation in the person of Jesus Christ. This is the framework that our entire understanding of God, Man, the world, the Incarnation, everything fits into.

In this framework God's wrath is a very particular thing, serving a specific purpose. It is wrath against everything that was not supposed to be. It is inseparable from His judgment, because His judgment is tied up in the idea of setting things right, restoring. The very name of God in the OT can be translated as something like "the One who causes things to be" and in this image this grace to make things exist that His judgment is clearly defined.

It's not (merely) anger. And it's not (merely) a pronouncement of right and wrong, and it certainly isn't limited to inflicting punishment. Punishment doesn't fix anything. It doesn't cause anything to be.

The idea of our own mortality fits into this framework. If humans were not mortal we would not be mutable, and would become just like the demons - unable to repent. Our lives are there for us to repent and to turn toward God. This is why the fathers say - "there is no repentance after death." And the purpose of demons, to give people over to these false desires, so that they can be lead to repentance.

I think the seeds of how we can look at the age which is coming are here. The age which is to come is marked by the Day of the Lord. This is a day of judgment where the LORD (YHWH in the OT, who St Paul links with Jesus) comes to judge both His people, and the world. The age which is to come started on the Cross, which was a judgment against the Powers. In that act, the world no longer belongs to the Powers; He gained dominion over all of it. No longer is there "the world" which is corrupt and under the Powers versus "the Camp" which was holy and set apart for God. Now the world has been restored to the dominion of Christ; the kingdom of heaven is here. This is why the gospel is called the gospel - not just good news, per se, but the word means the list of victories read to the public for them to make ready when a king or great general is arriving. Here it is in the singular - THE pronouncement of THE victory, the single victory of Christ over all His enemies, so that we can be ready for His re-appearing. His appearing and the judgment to come is unextractable from the gospel; it is the purpose of the gospel.

So the wrath of God is mercy, it is justice, it is restorative, and it is His love to cause things to be. Because evil has no place in this creation, it will not be - it never properly existed. Evil is procession toward nonbeing. Evil is separation from being, separation from Life, and He who causes things to be. It's not punishment. Nowhere does the scripture say punishment. And its not legalistic, the court case motif used throughout the scripture isn't like our modern criminal trials. You're not on trial because you're accused. The court case theme is the judge declaring who is in the right - but everyone is judged.

For anyone like me who was left wondering what the hell ECT is, it's eternal conscious torment.

dargscisyhp said:

---

For anyone like me who was left wondering what the hell ECT is, it's eternal conscious torment.

---

Someone in an earlier thread guessed it to be an acronym for Evangelical Child Torture.

I owe it to myself to study more, but the best insight I've personally been able piece together builds off of Zobel's theme above. To unite with God in the world to come, we can't have the bad stuff of this world with us. To the extent that we reject God, there's nothing of what a person perceives as himself left that is able to be united there.

A holy, righteous life is one where we manage to recognize ourselves once we're in the presence of God. I don't see how someone given over to sin would have a "consciousness" left, to the extent that a human "consciousness" even makes some kind of sense in the presence of God.

I have a very difficult time with some of the language used here. Particularly the part about hell "existing" but also being "separate" from God.

Eternal separation from God is to be cut off from Existence itself. From Life itself. This is something different than death, because the scriptures confirm that God is even present in death or the grave or sheol (Ps 139:8, Prov 15:11, Amos 9:2, Romans 8:38). I can't understand how a being which is dead beyond death and cut off from the God who Is, and causes to be, can still exist.

It also implies that God ultimately separates people from His love. This also doesn't make sense to me, because it implies that God changes based on our choices. He starts loving us, creates us, and then based on our choice ultimately cuts us off from Himself. It also seems to force a distinction between God's justice and His love and grace. I don't understand how His perfect judgment which is Love, which is Mercy, could disconnect from His love.

The text in the NT doesn't say people are away from Him. It just says "from" the presence of the Lord. The away is an interpretation, because the word apo is like the English from - it can mean of, as in proceeding out of, and it can mean from, as in away from. The text doesn't add additional modifiers to denote which. 2 Thess 1:9, the common verse cited, simply says "apo prosopou tou Kyriou" - from the face or presence of the Lord. Acts 3:20 says "apo prospou tou Kyriou" - from the face or presence of the Lord. One is times of refreshing, and one is the eternal penalty. I don't see how you can translate one away from and the other as arising from without some kind of further assumption made.

Many of the OT references to the day of the Lord show people in terror because of His presence. This altogether leads me to understand that the presence is the same, because He makes the sun shine and the rain fall on the good and evil alike. He is who He is, and He does not change. It is us, in our mortality and mutability, who can receive Him, who are purified at the judgment and tested, and who react. If loving your enemy by giving him food and drink heaps burning coals on his head, how much more will the pure and utter power of the love of God feel to those who have made Him their enemy? As St Isaac says, those in Gehenna are "scourged by the scourges of love."

Even the understanding of Gehenna is a reference to a judgment narrative in the OT and should not be taken literally. And the Orthodox church has always rejected the ideal of material hellfire.

There are ways to understand these things that are nuanced. I would even say that the only way we can approach these things is with considerable nuance. Here are two articles with two Orthodox understandings - both different, both acceptable.

https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/nootherfoundation/the-morality-of-gehenna/

https://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/prayingintherain/st._isaac_gehenna_and_hope

I agree considerable nuance is required for these things. That is the underlying place I am coming from because nuance was not encouraged in my early learning.

I struggle to grasp all of this. All I started this thread for was the allow me to 'say' these things, read and enjoy discussion. I hope in a universal reconciliation after purification for all people. I understand many more believe that Annihilationism to be the more prominent view. But I do not believe that ECT squares with the God I am learning to see better and more clearly each day.

Thanks for the reading and articles to go through. I appreciate the nuanced and cordial discussion in this thread (knock on wood)

Very astute. I did a Bible study on Malachi. I was confused by chapter 4 where it speaks of a day coming like a burning oven, the wicked will be stubble, they will be set ablaze, they will be tread down and become ashes.

At first glance it seems like a prophecy of the final judgment, but v5 "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes."

In which it seems to me this "day" was the life and ministry of Christ. But what about the language that seemed to constitute a hellfire for the wicked and them becoming nothing? Nothing like that happened during his ministry.

Except:
John 9:39 Jesus said, "For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind."

This made me think that the fulfillment of this prophesy in Malachi that the evildoers becoming stubble and set ablaze is simply the arrogant within the Pharisees and broader Jewish community becoming enraged at Jesus and showing their ignorance. Their hatred of God became so enraged that they plotted to kill the Son of God. They weren't physically set ablaze, but certainly mentally and emotionally. And at the time, they were the political and religious elite of Jewish society, but today "Pharisaical" is used by Christians as an insult. They've become stubble and ashes.

Though there will be this spiritual hell, I do think there will be a material aspect to it. In the resurrection, the righteous will be raised imperishable. I'd have to think that the wicked will be raised with a body that is still subject to corruption.

It took me a couple of read-throughs, but I think I understand what you're saying. I agree with you on most of it, so I'll just point the the places where I don't. I'm sure I've said all these things before, but this is a decent enough thread to say it again.

First, I have a problem with the idea of God's love causing sinners to experience eternal anguish. There is no mercy in taking people who actively rejected you and forcing them to endure your love to the point of causing them pain. I cannot fathom a love that afflicts it's objects this way. It would be far more merciful to let these people who actively reject God to simply cease to be. After all, God is the wellspring of existence, and intentional defiance of Him is an open embrace of oblivion. While it is still tragic, it seems in some way more in the character of mercy and love to let these people have their oblivion instead of subjecting them to the unwanted and irresistable love of God. This also follows from the scriptural references of the "second death".

Second, and more tenuously, the damned are often said to share the fate of the demons and Satan. In my mind, these were created to tempt men away from God and make free will possible. So while they are against God, they were created to be so and serve a necessary purpose in God's overall plan. At some point that purpose is fulfilled and their existence no longer has any purpose. So does God unmake them, does He subject them to His love even though they are against Him, or does He repurpose and redeem them? From the best I can tell from Scripture is that they will either be extinguished or suffer eternal torment. Per the same reasoning as the paragraph above, it seems to me they will be extinguished.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Second, and more tenuously, the damned are often said to share the fate of the demons and Satan. In my mind, these were created to tempt men away from God and make free will possible. So while they are against God, they were created to be so and serve a necessary purpose in God's overall plan. At some point that purpose is fulfilled and their existence no longer has any purpose. So does God unmake them, does He subject them to His love even though they are against Him, or does He repurpose and redeem them? From the best I can tell from Scripture is that they will either be extinguished or suffer eternal torment. Per the same reasoning as the paragraph above, it seems to me they will be extinguished.

---

Satan and the Demons were not created to tempt man. God can only create good and therefore would not create that which brings evil into the world. Satan and the rest of the fallen angles were created to serve God in the same fashion that the angels that did not rebel. With their rebellion they were cast out of Heaven and have since then realizing they can never be redeemed have worked to bring man down to their level and share their fate. Out of hate for us and for God's Justice. Now does their rebellion work into God's plan, yes but he didn't create them for that purpose. So their punishment is from God and if he is all just then their punishment is just.

jrico2727 said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Second, and more tenuously, the damned are often said to share the fate of the demons and Satan. In my mind, these were created to tempt men away from God and make free will possible. So while they are against God, they were created to be so and serve a necessary purpose in God's overall plan. At some point that purpose is fulfilled and their existence no longer has any purpose. So does God unmake them, does He subject them to His love even though they are against Him, or does He repurpose and redeem them? From the best I can tell from Scripture is that they will either be extinguished or suffer eternal torment. Per the same reasoning as the paragraph above, it seems to me they will be extinguished.

---

Satan and the Demons were not created to tempt man. God can only create good and therefore would not create that which brings evil into the world. Satan and the rest of the fallen angles were created to serve God in the same fashion that the angels that did not rebel. With their rebellion they were cast out of Heaven and have since then realizing they can never be redeemed have worked to bring man down to their level and share their fate. Out of hate for us and for God's Justice. Now does their rebellion work into God's plan, yes but he didn't create them for that purpose. So their punishment is from God and if he is all just then their punishment is just.

---

This logic seems very much like you want to have your cake and eat it too.

God can only create good. But some of what he created is now evil. Does this spontaneously happen? Quantum moral fluctuations? Or was there something less than 'good' within Satan and the demons that caused them to go bad? If that's the case, then God created something not good, right?

The idea of an embodiment-of-good Creator God and the existence of evil doesn't make any sense. Or, if I'm wrong, and it does make sense - we need an explanation for the existence of evil. An explanation outside of God or beyond God. What is outside of God or beyond God?

Zobel said:

---

I have a very difficult time with some of the language used here. Particularly the part about hell "existing" but also being "separate" from God.

Eternal separation from God is to be cut off from Existence itself. From Life itself. This is something different than death, because the scriptures confirm that God is even present in death or the grave or sheol (Ps 139:8, Prov 15:11, Amos 9:2, Romans 8:38). I can't understand how a being which is dead beyond death and cut off from the God who Is, and causes to be, can still exist.

Thank you for the links, I plan on reading those this evening outside of work so I will comment on them later. Now in the context given the separation from God is on the part of the damned not on God. Hell is a creation and God would be aware of it and can see what happens there, however the separation would be on the part of the person who turned away from God.

It also implies that God ultimately separates people from His love. This also doesn't make sense to me, because it implies that God changes based on our choices. He starts loving us, creates us, and then based on our choice ultimately cuts us off from Himself. It also seems to force a distinction between God's justice and His love and grace. I don't understand how His perfect judgment which is Love, which is Mercy, could disconnect from His love.

God doesn't change but the person does. God respects the freedom he gave us. If we choose to turn from God it is not his will we suffer, but it is just that we don't get the reward of the faithful. It is hard for us to handle justice and mercy as the Lord does. It is easy to be to harsh and claim it to be just or too lax and claim it to be mercy. The cross is where justice and mercy intersect. God's ways are not our own and he will respect our freedom and reward us based upon our choice which is made by how we live, the love we show neighbor, how we serve the Lord and how we have responded to the knowledge and faith that we were given.

The text in the NT doesn't say people are away from Him. It just says "from" the presence of the Lord. The away is an interpretation, because the word apo is like the English from - it can mean of, as in proceeding out of, and it can mean from, as in away from. The text doesn't add additional modifiers to denote which. 2 Thess 1:9, the common verse cited, simply says "apo prosopou tou Kyriou" - from the face or presence of the Lord. Acts 3:20 says "apo prospou tou Kyriou" - from the face or presence of the Lord. One is times of refreshing, and one is the eternal penalty. I don't see how you can translate one away from and the other as arising from without some kind of further assumption made.

I honestly don't know the Greek and the interpretations as well as you do. In the Douy-Reheims translation
2Thess 1: 9
Who shall suffer eternal punishment in destruction, from the face of the Lord, and from the glory of his power:
This does match you translation, but we taught that the eternal reward is the Beatific Vision which is to see the face of God and eternal be in his presence. I believe this is shown in the Acts 3:20 That when the times of refreshment shall come from the presence of the Lord, and he shall send him who hath been preached unto you, Jesus Christ.

Many of the OT references to the day of the Lord show people in terror because of His presence. This altogether leads me to understand that the presence is the same, because He makes the sun shine and the rain fall on the good and evil alike. He is who He is, and He does not change. It is us, in our mortality and mutability, who can receive Him, who are purified at the judgment and tested, and who react. If loving your enemy by giving him food and drink heaps burning coals on his head, how much more will the pure and utter power of the love of God feel to those who have made Him their enemy? As St Isaac says, those in Gehenna are "scourged by the scourges of love."

Even the understanding of Gehenna is a reference to a judgment narrative in the OT and should not be taken literally. And the Orthodox church has always rejected the ideal of material hellfire.

There are ways to understand these things that are nuanced. I would even say that the only way we can approach these things is with considerable nuance. Here are two articles with two Orthodox understandings - both different, both acceptable.

I can agree with all of this. I do think that hellfire can be both literal and symbolic. I think there are too many references to the eternal fire to outright dismiss it. I do think that based on the reason for damnation the punishment given can differ, such as in Dante's Inferno. St. Paul has told us that eye has not seen and ear has not heard what the Lord has prepared for those who love him. The same can be said for those who do not love the Lord. All I can say with certainty is that it is eternal and not pleasant.

---

Quote:

---

https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/nootherfoundation/the-morality-of-gehenna/

https://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/prayingintherain/st._isaac_gehenna_and_hope

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

This logic seems very much like you want to have your cake and eat it too.

God can only create good. But some of what he created is now evil. Does this spontaneously happen? Quantum moral fluctuations? Or was there something less than 'good' within Satan and the demons that caused them to go bad? If that's the case, then God created something not good, right?

The idea of an embodiment-of-good Creator God and the existence of evil doesn't make any sense. Or, if I'm wrong, and it does make sense - we need an explanation for the existence of evil. An explanation outside of God or beyond God. What is outside of God or beyond God?

---

What I am trying to say is God is all good, what he creates is good. In Genesis after creation what does he say it is good. Now he gives freedom to man and angel, who both posses intellect and will. If a creation wills something that is in opposition to God who is all good, then what they have willed is evil. When Peter speaks against Jesus' plan of salvation through his death Jesus tells him get behind me Satan. Peter's plan for Jesus not to suffer and die doesn't to our mind seem evil, however being against God's plan it was.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Second, and more tenuously, the damned are often said to share the fate of the demons and Satan. In my mind, these were created to tempt men away from God and make free will possible. So while they are against God, they were created to be so and serve a necessary purpose in God's overall plan. At some point that purpose is fulfilled and their existence no longer has any purpose. So does God unmake them, does He subject them to His love even though they are against Him, or does He repurpose and redeem them? From the best I can tell from Scripture is that they will either be extinguished or suffer eternal torment. Per the same reasoning as the paragraph above, it seems to me they will be extinguished.

---

Satan and the Demons were not created to tempt man. God can only create good and therefore would not create that which brings evil into the world. Satan and the rest of the fallen angles were created to serve God in the same fashion that the angels that did not rebel. With their rebellion they were cast out of Heaven and have since then realizing they can never be redeemed have worked to bring man down to their level and share their fate. Out of hate for us and for God's Justice. Now does their rebellion work into God's plan, yes but he didn't create them for that purpose. So their punishment is from God and if he is all just then their punishment is just.

---

This logic seems very much like you want to have your cake and eat it too.

God can only create good. But some of what he created is now evil. Does this spontaneously happen? Quantum moral fluctuations? Or was there something less than 'good' within Satan and the demons that caused them to go bad? If that's the case, then God created something not good, right?

The idea of an embodiment-of-good Creator God and the existence of evil doesn't make any sense. Or, if I'm wrong, and it does make sense - we need an explanation for the existence of evil. An explanation outside of God or beyond God. What is outside of God or beyond God?

---

Irrespective of jrico's fanciful story about Satan, et al, when you turn off a light, does darkness spontaneously happen?

If the switch was for the light you were already in a dark place. However you have the freedom to turn on the light to change that.

jrico2727 said:

---

What I am trying to say is God is all good, what he creates is good. In Genesis after creation what does he say it is good. Now he gives freedom to man and angel, who both posses intellect and will. If a creation wills something that is in opposition to God who is all good, then what they have willed is evil. When Peter speaks against Jesus' plan of salvation through his death Jesus tells him get behind me Satan. Peter's plan for Jesus not to suffer and die doesn't to our mind seem evil, however being against God's plan it was.

---

Would it be correct to say that God created man that was good, but handed him the keys to do evil if he choose to do so? And since we know that man has done good, we should ask why man choose to do evil and God did not.

God possess freedom, intellect, and will but does not do evil because God is all good. Man possess freedom, intellect, and will, but does sometimes do evil because man is what? Not all good?

If what God creates is good, then why does this creation do bad?

AstroAg17 said:

---

Evil is definitely distinct from neutral. The light metaphor is a bad one. Dark isn't the opposite of light, it's the absence of light. The absence of good is neutral, which is the default. If there's nobody in a room, neither good nor evil are occurring in it. It's not an evil room.

---

Beat me to it - this was my thought too.

AstroAg17 said:

---

Evil is definitely distinct from neutral. The light metaphor is a bad one. Dark isn't the opposite of light, it's the absence of light. The absence of good is neutral, which is the default. If there's nobody in a room, neither good nor evil are occurring in it. It's not an evil room.

---

"Good" and "evil" only make sense in the context of moral actors and choices. So why are we talking about empty rooms?

you brought up 'light' which is not a moral actor. He was building on your analogy.

Good : evil :: light : darkness.

He got the analogy. But I disagree that the absence of good is neutral since there is no such thing as a neutral choice.

Quote:

---

Satan and the Demons were not created to tempt man. God can only create good and therefore would not create that which brings evil into the world. Satan and the rest of the fallen angles were created to serve God in the same fashion that the angels that did not rebel. With their rebellion they were cast out of Heaven and have since then realizing they can never be redeemed have worked to bring man down to their level and share their fate. Out of hate for us and for God's Justice. Now does their rebellion work into God's plan, yes but he didn't create them for that purpose. So their punishment is from God and if he is all just then their punishment is just.

---

You and I are going to have to disagree. I believe God created Satan and demons to specifically tempt men away from Him. This gives mankind an alternative to loving God, and the ability to exercise free will. Without that, the only choice would be the goodness of God and free will would not be possible. My whole theology is based on the fact that the greatest love is love for those who hate you, and God created men so some would hate Him and He could love them anyway. Satan and the demons are all part of that plan. I also don't think Satan and the demon have or ever had free will.

In regards to evil existing despite a supremely good God, my answer would be that evil can magnify good. Christ's self-sacrifice is far greater than anything that could have happened in a world without evil. Goodness in the face of evil and suffering is a far greater good than goodness in the face of peace and ease.

Where I think MQB is going is that no moral choices can be neutral. I think that could be interesting to think about.

If I give a homeless person a sandwich, I could argue I've done something good. If I throw something at the homeless person, I could say I've done something bad. If I do nothing, I could also say I've done something bad. What is a neutral action in this example?

The examples of passwords and gas pumps are not moral choices.

You and I are going to have to disagree. I believe God created Satan and demons to specifically tempt men away from Him. This gives mankind an alternative to loving God, and the ability to exercise free will. Without that, the only choice would be the goodness of God and free will would not be possible. My whole theology is based on the fact that the greatest love is love for those who hate you, and God created men so some would hate Him and He could love them anyway. Satan and the demons are all part of that plan. I also don't think Satan and the demon have or ever had free will.

In regards to evil existing despite a supremely good God, my answer would be that evil can magnify good. Christ's self-sacrifice is far greater than anything that could have happened in a world without evil. Goodness in the face of evil and suffering is a far greater good than goodness in the face of peace and ease.

Fair enough. I agree with the role that you see Satan and his demons having. It is by resisting their temptations we grow in virtue. However they are fallen and we're not created for evil, although God can use their wickedness for the overall good. I will leave you this from the Catechism to reflect upon.

II. THE FALL OF THE ANGELS

391 Behind the disobedient choice of our first parents lurks a seductive voice, opposed to God, which makes them fall into death out of envy.266 Scripture and the Church's Tradition see in this being a fallen angel, called "Satan" or the "devil".267 The Church teaches that Satan was at first a good angel, made by God: "The devil and the other demons were indeed created naturally good by God, but they became evil by their own doing."268

392 Scripture speaks of a sin of these angels.269 This "fall" consists in the free choice of these created spirits, who radically and irrevocably rejected God and his reign. We find a reflection of that rebellion in the tempter's words to our first parents: "You will be like God."270 The devil "has sinned from the beginning"; he is "a liar and the father of lies".271

393 It is the irrevocable character of their choice, and not a defect in the infinite divine mercy, that makes the angels' sin unforgivable. "There is no repentance for the angels after their fall, just as there is no repentance for men after death."272

394 Scripture witnesses to the disastrous influence of the one Jesus calls "a murderer from the beginning", who would even try to divert Jesus from the mission received from his Father.273 "The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil."274 In its consequences the gravest of these works was the mendacious seduction that led man to disobey God.

395 The power of Satan is, nonetheless, not infinite. He is only a creature, powerful from the fact that he is pure spirit, but still a creature. He cannot prevent the building up of God's reign. Although Satan may act in the world out of hatred for God and his kingdom in Christ Jesus, and although his action may cause grave injuries - of a spiritual nature and, indirectly, even of a physical nature- to each man and to society, the action is permitted by divine providence which with strength and gentleness guides human and cosmic history. It is a great mystery that providence should permit diabolical activity, but "we know that in everything God works for good with those who love him."275

Does old army go to new hell?

A good synopsis about the problem of evil that Saint Thomas Aquinas lays out in the Summa.

+++

Basically, evil IS the opposite of good, just as cold is the absence of heat. However, evil is not something - but a privation or a lacking of good. Aquinas goes on to describe two types of privations: privation of perfection of existence (death or blindness) and privation as reduction of perfection (such as an illness).

Aquinas answers the question about whether evil can exist in the good by saying it can in 'potency'. Potency, he would say, has itself the form of a good. Man therefore is good just by being - existing. It does not follow though that this man or that man is good. He has the potential to be good by his actions!

+pablo

AstroAg17 said:

---

The moral choices thing wasn't stated, but if good and bad are opposites on the same spectrum, then there has to be a neutral point. There may not be a neutral option available in a given scenario, but some choices in some scenarios can be neutral. Also, if a neutral option is available, identifying it may be non-trivial and dependent on how one defines good.

---

Yes - Aquinas would call this neutral point - potency.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

What I am trying to say is God is all good, what he creates is good. In Genesis after creation what does he say it is good. Now he gives freedom to man and angel, who both posses intellect and will. If a creation wills something that is in opposition to God who is all good, then what they have willed is evil. When Peter speaks against Jesus' plan of salvation through his death Jesus tells him get behind me Satan. Peter's plan for Jesus not to suffer and die doesn't to our mind seem evil, however being against God's plan it was.

---

Would it be correct to say that God created man that was good, but handed him the keys to do evil if he choose to do so? And since we know that man has done good, we should ask why man choose to do evil and God did not.

God possess freedom, intellect, and will but does not do evil because God is all good. Man possess freedom, intellect, and will, but does sometimes do evil because man is what? Not all good?

If what God creates is good, then why does this creation do bad?

---

In a word - freewill.


What God did create was good. This good creation has the potential to fulfil the plan that God had in mind for him/her. If God made those choices for that creation - it would be a violation of their freewill.

AstroAg17 said:

---

The moral choices thing wasn't stated, but if good and bad are opposites on the same spectrum, then there has to be a neutral point. There may not be a neutral option available in a given scenario, but some choices in some scenarios can be neutral. Also, if a neutral option is available, identifying it may be non-trivial and dependent on how one defines good.

---

I would agree with you. I think choices are black, white, or one of the endless shades of gray in between. But, I think a lot of religion looks at it more simply black and white.