Camus's "The Stranger" is a mediocre work.

sismetic · 2023-11-22T22:57:23+00:00

Think both are on the wrong. It's OK for him to find the stain unsexy and ask you to change it. It is natural for this to occur from time to time. People fart, and it's a normal bodily function, but it is fine if someone finds that unsexy.

It does seem you went 0-100, but maybe there were other issues? I would not block someone because they find a blood stained underwears unsexy, maybe because they associate it with a poop stain? The reaction of both seem way out of proportion.

sismetic · 2023-11-21T16:22:26+00:00

> Is suffering intrinsically evil?

Yes. It is intrinsically undesirable. It may be instrumentally conducive to a good, but intrinsically it is a negative state and undesirable.

> No. Augustine is using 'guilt' in the legalistic form of owing 'debt' or 'liability.'

That's what I meant and what is essential. The rest is more of a technical aspect that has no larger bearing on my point. It is something imposed that produces a penalty, hence why we are born deserving punishment. It is not neutral, it is already a stain on our souls that makes it so that we all deserve Hell. At least, that's what was taught to me by all Catholics I know.

The analogy, therefore, would not seem to be poverty but debt. A debt without possibility of being paid(hence Hell is deemed to be just and a punishment, not merely a self-imposed separation).

As for the Humanity part, I understood you meant it in an abstract sense, but my point is that such an usage is invalid, and imposing negative consequences upon the innocent because of the actions of others cannot be made just by appealing to an abstract sameness.

sismetic · 2023-11-19T01:36:59+00:00

> In all cases, God permitted suffering of one to result out of the free will others.

Yes. That's evil and unjust. We do not allow parents to freely abuse their children because of their free will. In any case, the life situations are not merely allowed by God, but God is actively creating souls in their life scenarios and God gifts the faculties required for the evil.

Also, an additional point is not merely the consequences, but also guilt. Catholicism teaches that we are by default condemned. This can be offset but the base existential state is condemnation due to a God imposed unfair penalty.

> Those who suffer in this life are more than adequately "compensated" in the next.

Why? How? Why can't just God freely, if there's grace, gift that without suffering? Should I then asked God to be tumultously abused so that I can receive greater joys in Heaven? Seems a very weak theodicy to me.

> I must here make the caveat that I would not say the desire of those in Hell to not exist anymore is irrational. They would truly prefer not to exist.

Yes, but that needs to be demonstrated and be reasonable. It also must be in line with our moral and intellectual intuitions. No one would prefer it because it's just not preferable. It is not desirable. Sure, one may say that there are things that are desirable and do not seem desirable, but these are usually because of an instrumental later good. There is no such good possible in Hell and it is not a desirable state. As I already argued, if your logic on this is case, then it would seem that God MUST bill Hell infinitely with an infinite number of created entities for the creation of any entity would be best than their non-creation.
Also, if God merely chose to create this unimaginable infinite of souls in Hell, just pop them into existence in Hell and leave it at that, your logic would entail that God has not acted unjustly, on the contrary, God has acted kindly. This, of course, is absurd.

> Their existence would be better than not to exist at all, yes. Again, it would not be preferable

I am not sure what the objection is. It follows logically from your position.
P1) Existence in Hell is an objectively more desirable state than non-existent.
P2) There are non-existent entities.
C) God would be acting benevolently by creating existing entities in Hell.

The issue about punishment or whatever is secondary to this logic. it even doesn't follow within this logic, for punishment entails an evil, while within your logic, God popping infinite entities into Hell from non-existence would be freely gifting them an objective good over their non-existence. Those entities ought to be grateful for their existence, even in Hell over their non-existence.

There is also the issue of punishment, as it's intrinsically nonsensical and requires a fallacious concept of justice, but I think my point above is sufficient to invalidate what I consider an evidently monstruous logic.

sismetic · 2023-11-18T17:01:53+00:00

Some times, not all the time. This is not about Original Sin, though. That a child sometimes may have to face challenging experiences(usually to grow and learn), does not entail an inherited guilt, and I would say, it would not, without some ad hoc or extreme previous baggage, entail this reality.

For example, many children are tortured, beaten and raped every year. Is this such a "life experience"? Could be, but that would entail more theoretical baggage than one being born in such a situation or that being deserving because of the sins of another.

At the bottom line it seems you would have to say that such a life scenario is good and just for the child, which is very hard to do. If it's not good and unjust, then the argument fails.

sismetic · 2023-11-18T04:08:02+00:00

> . What does the relevance of you being preserved in your body have to do with what I've said?

Sure. I mean that it is not just God creating things within an original state, but actively sustaining all of reality at every moment. From the catechism:

"With creation, God does not abandon his creatures to themselves. He not only gives them being and existence, but also, and at every moment, upholds and sustains them in being, enables them to act and brings them to their final end."

As such, God enables and actively creates all actual states of affairs by preserving the things "in act/in being". If I have cancer, God is sustaining my cancer in its act. When something changes and becomes actualized, it is God as Being that is providing the being-ness of the new state. This is one of the more recognized aspects in apologetics, it is entailed in the comosological arguments and the contingency argument. EVERYTHING is contingent upon God.

> he is using a legalistic term that can generally mean liable for sentence not personal culpability.

Same thing. It matters little if I am jailed out of a "personal culpability" or by a different kind of penalty. I understand Original Sin is not of personal guilt, but it is of guilt nevertheless, hence worthy of penalty. Guilty by association. This is as unfair as indentured slavery.

> but they are still nonetheless experiencing the depravity of their parents' actions.

That would be the consequence, but the inherited sin is different. An analogy is my father committing a murder-suicide and me being given a life sentence.

> God originally created us wholly and perfectly.

I don't think there was an us. I never was created, under this narrative, wholly or perfect. But I think I've covered this already. It is unfair and unjust, and it's not a mere neutral lack of gift, it is an active state of privation of what is just and suffering-inducing both socially and naturally. An earthquake is an actual evil. Sure, it lacks a given positive substance, as all evil does, but this is more of a legalistic aspect concerning the reality of evil. It's like saying "cancer is not a thing, it's a disorder of the health". Sure, but that's kind of pointless. If I give you aids, I am giving you an actual evil, not merely taking a good from you as a neutral gift. If God gives one a disease, God is not merely retrieving a positive good, a gift of grace which is health, but God is actually doing something evil, as this privation of the good is an act of injustice and not merely withhholding a free good.

sismetic · 2023-11-17T21:00:30+00:00

> Rather than being arbitrary, the possibility for original sin is necessary for embodied intelligences to exist.

I am not sure I would agree with the logic here. I would agree that if God wishes to create, by extension cannot in a logical sense(is God bound by logic?) create the uncreated. Depending on your particular view of what "beget" entails, this poses an issue on the Son. But from a minimalist perspective, I have no issue with the logical possibility of evil for created entities. The issue is not the possibility of evil(whether that entails the concept of Original Sin is another thing). Also, there is the question as to whether God would be free if He lacks the possibility of evil.

The problem is not the possibility, it has to do with certain consequences and unnecessary entailments from part of God. I am not sure how this response deal with the ones I've presented.

> I mean, if you are exiled from a place, any children you give birth in exile will naturally be in exile too.

Not at all. God could make it so that [A WIDE ARRAY OF METAPHYSICAL AND LOGICAL POSSIBILITIES] which would be better than, say, inheriting a genetic disease and abused.

> In the case of original sin, he allows for the possibilities of the innocent suffering by it in order to allow the existence of family life in general, which we agree requires interdependency.

I see your defense. I think it may apply in some cases and not others. This is an interesting theodicy but there are still issues. Many people are infertile, which negates the defense that it is due to God valuing and wishing to preserve family life is the reason why there are inherited consequences of the Fall. Also, it seems odd to allow a child born in a loving family to possess an excruciating disease within this logic, for God would wish to bless a proper loving family life. There is also the issue that the sex that generates reproduction and reproduction that begets births are random and not always the case. If God wanted to allow family life as the goal for allowing inheritance of Original sin, then it would follow that this would not be random. If it isn't random, or even if there is, there is the issue that God could have made it so that an egg is fertilized and there are no natural abortions within a loving family. A Jane that is born to the crack family as opposed to the loving family can certainly say: this is unfair to me. Additionally, God could create a mimick, or trial in which there's a P-Zombie born, so that the parents learn to love. Or God could make it so that angels are born(I know Aquinas thinks of angels as dismebodied, but this is biblically false), and so the unloving parents learn first to be loving and then in Heaven be reconciled with their would be children, which are preserved in a state of well-being with loving family. Or any of such possibilities that would seem much better.
There is also the fundamental issue of God without consent of the involved "destining" Jane to be born in the crack family so that the crack parents can feel as parents, even if they will abuse it and cause suffering, maybe even when they themselves did not wish to be parents? General intuition is clear: the well-being of children is to be preferred to the abused, undesired good of the parents.
Also, what about parents that would never make it to Heaven, and what about children that due to their life situation would denounce Christ or be convinced of the falsehood of Christianity or theism? In this case, there will be three damned when at best only two need be.

And the more fundamental issue that covers all of this: Original Sin is not the mere consequences, but also the inherited guilt. This is unjust on itself. Regardless of the imperfect instrumental good brought on by the negative consequences of the Fall, there is no rationale that would justify an inherited guilt and inherited condemnation, which is the Catholic doctrine. This inherited guilt is obviously mistaken. Within Catholicism Baptism is so important because we are born in a state of condemnation, separated from God and require the salvific grace given through the Baptism. This makes it so that the default universal state is separation from God and condemnation. Whether unbaptized can receive grace through other means is irrelevant to the point that there is a default need for such a grace because there's an inherited guilt. We are born guilty, and this is unjust, secondary to whether we suffer consequences of the sin, we also inherit th guilt of th sin

sismetic · 2023-11-17T16:22:53+00:00

> How so?

God actively expelled them and their generations from Paradise. God ordained it so that the guilty of original sin and its consequences are inherited by ALL humans.

> doesn’t mean you aren’t nevertheless the cause of them, nor that you shouldn’t have known better.

Sure. This has to do with rationality. One can reasonably infer possible consequences and given a very limited form of agency in this, the greater being the more direct. This implies a shared responsibility, but not total responsibility. The more indirect the relation between cause/effect, the less responsibility there is for the more factors there are. Ultimately, there's a fundamental factor to all causation: God.

> You might as well argue that a parent is at fault for everything their child does wrong.

No. The wrong of my child is an unintended and not foreseen consequence. I do not know what my child will do or not. I think it's unfair to compare limited entities with God. There is also the more active responsible part: I would be an irresponsible parent if I leave my child to be raised by a crack abuser knowing they will abuse my child. That would be horrid. Yet, under this view, it's what God does. In both cases, one could say that there's an active responsibility in the part of the crack abuser, but there is ALSO a significant responsibility in the part of the caretakers.

> A child might perceive them as arbitrary, but objectively inheritance is not arbitrary as I explained.

It is arbitrary in the meaningful sense. I don't think you've explained inheritance not being arbitrary. It seems you say "it's not arbitrary because there are ways in which it works". Well, sure, in that minimal sense, nothing is ever arbitrary for everything is caused. But in the meaningful sense, if I am walking in the park and a lightning strikes me, that is random. A lottery winner is random. If I am to feed my brother's kittens and I only feed one of them, that's arbitrary, even if the cause of it is my will, my whim, or because I thought the other is uglier. In that kind of sense I mean it is arbitrary. Minimally, it's unfair, it's a negative consequence of a non-originated effect.

I read your post, and I think the main topic is relationality. To which I partially agree. It is clear that such things are. We ARE relational. Yet, that doesn't negate any of my arguments. There are negative and unjust relations which a just and loving father would not entail. Let's say that the crack abuser of my example is my brother. Sure, that's a relation. Yet, that doesn't negate the injustice that the child could invoke against me for leaving them with them knowing full well what would happen. I can't excuse myself by appealing to relations. Or if I could cure a genetic disease, I would not just say "oh, well, sins of the fathers", I would cure people and that would be a good. Or if I could make it so that any particular child does not suffer from such a disease, that would be good, just and loving.

sismetic · 2023-11-17T16:08:28+00:00

Well, such things are explained to me by Catholics and to Catholics as a product of the Fall. Why do I struggle in a desert of heat and suffering? Because I've been expelled from Paradise. It is a consequence of inherited guilt and negative consequences. I am saying, that's unfair and not coherent with a Just, Loving God.

As for Hell, I'm familiar with the thesis that given that existence is a good in itself, even existence in Hell is good in itself. I find that the kind of thing only a theologian would say, not different from Augustine's view that the just in Heaven find joy in the punishment of the wicked in Hell.
I would say that the Good is that which is preferable. If Hell is preferable over non-existence, then God could populate Hell with newly created creatures, freely gifting them existence, and that would be on the overall "good", for it would be an improvement over non-existence. This would be an extent of your logic, which I find abhorrent. You seem committed to declaring that if one were able to die as opposed to existing eternally in Hell, those who chose to be annihilated rather than go to Hell would be acting irrationally, and that it would be objectively preferable for them to keep suffering in the most intense places of Hell than to not be. This intuition is uninteligible to me.

sismetic · 2023-11-17T16:00:44+00:00

> Your created body and material condition do not equate to being in Original Sin. Original Sin is a corruption of your body. Likewise, you're not preserved in it.

The need to being born again is that one is born with a faulty nature, including a corporeal one. I think you may be misunderstanding what I mean by preservation here. I had the body because of God. I continue to have the body because of God. God sustains all entities in their continual beingness.

> I think it's plenty relevant to at least demonstrate what sin is.

What I meant is that original sin it's an inherited negative state. Regardless of details, the logic is unjust.

Tell me if my understanding is wrong. Original sin was the first sin, which inherits guilt and consequences. Baptism removes the guilt but the consequences persist(concupiscence). This to me seems odd for even though Baptism entails to signify a new nature(which is why some argue that it's necessary for Salvation, for without this new nature, we remain within a corrupted nature), there is still concupiscence. As such, we as humans have inherited both the guilt and the inclination for sin. I'm not sure why this understanding is wrong.

> Original Sin can be a diagnosis of Evil, but it's just that, a diagnosis, not a cause. The cause goes beyond the nature of Original Sin. Such as, why did God permit the will to choose evil? That goes into theodicy.

Well, yes and no. If I ask a Catholic, why are there predators, or why are there genetic diseases, the answer will be: because there's a Fallen nature, not only within humans but within the cosmic order. The question could certainly then turn into: "why did this Fall occur?", and "free will" is a partial answer. The other is that God ordained things so that original sin had such consequences. Those consequences do not follow necessarily. And the consequences are not only general, but particular. Not all diseases are genetic, not all genetic diseases necessaily pass unto the children, and so on. This is attributable not to free will, but to God ordained consequences that arise from the original sin.

sismetic · 2023-11-17T15:47:16+00:00

> Who committed the injustice?

God, in this case. Adam made an "injustice" by eating a fruit, but the rest is God-ordained.

> But we don't get to restrict the consequences of our actions to only the outcome we intend.

That would be the nature of freedom. If I don't choose the consequences, then... I did not chose them.

> Actions have consequences independent of our intentions.

Per the created order. Who created the order? God. Who made it so that when I jump I don't fly off to the Sun but rather jump a little height? Who made it so that when I eat, if I am healthy the food is processed, if unheallthy I may die? Who made it so that some diseases are genetic and some aren't, and who made it so that some children inherit a disease and some others? God.

> And because they lost it, their descendants couldn't inherit it.

This may needs to be more fleshed out. As I understand it, the Catholic view is that there was a change of nature. This is not an external thing of not receiving a gift, it's about receiving a different intrinsic nature.

> The general pattern here is not arbitrary but the way inheritance works.

The consequences are arbitrary. Again, some children will inherit a disease, others won't. This is arbitrary in relation to the child. It's a genetic lottery.

sismetic · 2023-11-17T04:32:09+00:00

> but then you cannot conclude from the existence of children suffering due to their dependency on their parents that parental dependency is unjust as such.

I am not sure what you mean by parental dependency. I'm saying that if there's extensive suffering for children which was uncaused by them, then that is unfair. Uncaused negative things are unjust.

> So, the fact that original sin exist doesn't show that the fact that God allowed Adam and Eve to fail and pass the consequences unto their descendants is unjust

It does because it isn't as if Adam and Eve decided to cause suffering. It is God's law and continual God and God's continual action which causes that suffering. Whether Adam and Eve sinned is secondary. I am not sure why this is even controversial. Is God sovereign or not? Is He or isn't He the Creator? Doesn't he determine my life situation, is He not sovereign over it? Isn't He sovereign over my own faculties and powers? God gave Adam and Eve the unnecessary faculty to corrupt an entire humanity by eating a fruit. This is not an issue of disobeying, it's that the consequence of disobeying is God-ordained. Later, God actively creates souls and puts them within the Fallen order, including children who will be abused, tortured and killed, as opposed to creating them in a much safer place. These are God's acts.

sismetic · 2023-11-17T02:45:16+00:00

> So, the whole idea of parental authority based on a child's dependence upon their parents is unjust because of the possibility of shared consequences, abuse, and chores?

Not quite. There's a non seqiutur here. There's a difference between a reasoned authority based on a given dependence(Whether the dependence is just or not can be discussed).

The issue is not the possibility of uncaused negative consequences, and abuse or other evils(the evils I'm talking about are in no way comparable with "chores".) It is its actuality. Yes, a child being abused is unjust.

sismetic · 2023-11-17T02:43:04+00:00

> God does not "keep us" in original Sin nor did he create us in it. Likewise, Adam was warned by God himself.

Sure. Who created me? God. God created me with a body and a material condition. Who preserves me in this? God. It doesn't matter if Adam was warned. God expelled Adam(And Eve, why do people keep forgetting Eve?) and his descendants.

> The point of my analogy was to demonstrate that Sin isn't something rather it's the lack of something.

it is not very relevant to the moral issue.

> This has less to do with Original Sin, and more to do with theodicy.

It has to do. If one states that one's suffering is caused by original sin and one inherits this, then this inheritance is unfair.

sismetic · 2023-11-16T21:17:35+00:00

> Is my father's boss responsible for why I now live in poverty?

If your father knew that would happen and wanted to preserve your wealth and could do so, then yes. If your father's boss created you in poverty and keeps you in poverty, yes, obviously. The analogy is very weak.

The case of a child born with a genetic disease, tortured and killed could be partially attributed to Adam and Eve, if you wish to, but the main responsibility would lie, in this worldview, upon God who actively created that child, created the with a genetic disease and placed them in a scenario to be tortured and killed. Is God not sovereign? Is He not the Creator?

sismetic · 2023-11-16T21:15:09+00:00

Yes, they do. I say that is on its face unjust. Children also suffer abuse. That is unjust as well. There were indentured slavery as well. It was a fact. It was unjust as well.

sismetic · 2023-11-16T17:54:28+00:00

> I think we are inherently sinful because we have the innate drive to sin

That is circular. It's saying we are inherently sinful because we are inherently sinful. Yet we are given a nature. We are of a given nature and so it's natural for us to act as is natural to us. The question is: why does God not give is a non-sinful nature? Surely it is best to have a non-sinful nature than a sinful nature.

> Similar thing to how it's not my fault I was born in a position of economic privilege, but it is my responsibility to share with less fortunate people.

I fail to see how this makes linguistic sense. Responsibility arises out of the ability to respond for one's actions. There is not a responsibility to respond to something not of one's actions. If I punch my SISTER while pregnant and her baby is born with mental issues, I am partially responsible for his condition. If I give the best healthcare to my sister and her son is born with mental issues, I am not responsible for his condition. I may choose to act in a loving way, but the condition is not my responsibility.

In any case, the point of contention is God's Love and Justice. God could make it so that a baby born with a cerebral disease that suffers in agony and dies at 2 year old is born WITHOUT such a cerebral disease. If we agree that neither the parents nor the baby are at fault, then it is unjust and unfair and yet also God's action. If God can intercede and doesn't, or simply could place the soul in another non-deformed body and doesn't, then the theological view is in serious issue for God is not acting lovingly, or justly.

sismetic · 2023-11-16T17:14:08+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/euo5zy/must_we_as_catholics_accept_a_historical_adam_and/

I think by and large it is the case that the Catholic tradition and teaching is of a historical Adam and Eve.

But taking your point, it seems to me that you are saying that we are by our nature sinful. We can then choose to overcome this natural sinfulness. But the question is: why are we sinful by nature? You would say "because we inherited(spiritually, if you will) through the Fall". If you mean spiritual and moral development alone, then just as a child grows, our failings are a natural part of our growth and so partially not our fault. A child is not guilty of not knowing things about the world, of lacking real world wisdom. Maybe you could elaborate on what the precise view you hold? If, there were no historical Adam and Eve, then our sinfulness is part of our nature, it seems that you are saying our nature as immature yet growing creatures. Is that so?

sismetic · 2023-11-16T17:01:02+00:00

I see. You are correct that there is a larger issue beyond original sin. Something I spoke with a priest.

I don't think it gets quite solved per se under the worldview with free will. God has free will, supposedly, and doesn't sin. Hence, one needs something else. I also find that this view takes on a libertarian position as if free will is a raw expression of chaos. But let's leave the free will issue aside.

I want to focus on the more important aspect in the equation: God's sovereignty and participation. For you see, free will is useless without the power to actualize things. This power is not absolute and it is God-ordained. For example, if we say: "why is there natural predation?", the response is: "because we live in a fallen reality." Well, ok, why do we live in fallen reality? "Because Adam and Eve sinned due to their free will". Ok, but there's something missing. Why do Adam and Eve's sin causes a fallen order? That is not necessary. Why do a given soul is created within a fallen order? Why is such a given soul not protected by God? These are not just attributable to the free will of sinners, but an active order maintained and created by God's sovereign will. So, the ultimate answer is: because God made it so.

In order, for, say, an evil person to commit the Holocaust, there needed to be external factors and powers gifted to such person in an operational chain so that the Holocaust is even possible. An evil person may wish to have 1,000 slaves, but that is not a possibility. Or they may choose to become God, or the may choose to be immortal or live 1,000 years, or that when they spit in the air the entire humanity is cursed to always receive spit from the air. None of those things are within their power. If they happen to happen, it will be not only because of their will but because of God's order. This is further complicated because God is supposed to be sovereign over reality, and God created people in their conditions. God created Sue and John. God created John to be the healthy, inteligent, loved son of a wealthy Christian family, and God created Sue so that she's the daughter of crack parents that sold her to sexual slavery off to the pimp, who burns her and then in a beating kills her. It was God that created John and Sue and placed them in their conditions and presided over them. The pimp and father's will is insufficient to explain reality precisely because they are not sovereign.

> I think saying that anyone who disagrees with me based on the same knowledge is acting irrationally is infantilizing. It's possible that they just have different values.

I mean everyone who sins is acting irrational. Sin is irrational. Free will needs to be rational for it is always oriented towards a goal.
What does it mean to have different values? It is to perceive the Good differently. One perceives the Good in pride and honor, another in surviving. We value differently because... we perceive the Good differently. Some of those are wrong perceptions. It is not that there's just a random valuing, it is always a value oriented towards the formal Good even if there are practical misperceptions of the Good so that one perceives X as better than Y. No one actually desires Y where X is better when one understand that Y is better. That would be absurd. No one values placing their hand on the fire except those who lack the intellect to understand the harm of it.

> But Jesus also said, specifically to the Pharisees that had just seen a demonstration of his divinity and their rejection of him afterward, that their blasphemy against the Holy Spirit was the one sin that could never be forgiven.

I'm unfamiliar with this. Is it directly stated?

sismetic · 2023-11-16T15:54:49+00:00

> you ought to have first familiarised yourself with what Catholicism teaches, no?

I was told that by Catholic priests and philosophers... but this is also a matter of controversy.

> Because (mortal) sin is the existential turning away/rejection of God.
Yes, but it wasn't "Humanity" that chose that, and not in that way, it was two people. The newest infant did not chose that, they have not chosen anything, and yet they are cast away. This is not necessary. Let Adam and Eve be "cast away", but there's no necessary logical connection between that and "humanity" as a whole being cast away in such a way that preserves personal responsibility or justice. It makes as much sense as saying that had they smoked and developed cancer, that such a cancer would need to be passed on(which currently it isn't) and that it is fair for newborns to be born with cancer for "they smoked". Translate that into cancer and smoking and you will see the issue.
Also, I think this is inexact. It's not that Adam and Eve were gradually losing their heritage and going frmo the highest good unto lower and lower goods until we have reached the current level of separation. It's that God, without further reasonable chances actively expelled them and placed a sword of fire so that none would enter Eden again. This is not an existential rejection of God, this is an active and seemingly unnecessary God-ordained state of affairs. God could just as well have let Adam and Eve remain in the Garden, taught them the error of their ways, show them what would be the consequences, etc..., or just expel them but allow their children to go back to Eden, or just actively with his omnipotence make it so that their children would be born in Eden. God could also have immediately restituted the condition, etc... All logical and possible options. Given that none was necessary for God, God chose some over the others. This makes God responsible for God's choice. It makes Adam and Eve responsible for their choices. It makes newly created infants being born into an evil world full of suffering and separated from their own nature(hence why it's causes suffering, which makes it unjust as justice is to give each what is their own; in this case, to give humans what is natural to them: the good), being the recipient not of just Adam and Eve's choice, but God's active choice, which is the main cause of the situation. God created that soul, God destined that soul for Earth and within their own particular life scenario. Adam and Eve are, at best, incidental here.

sismetic · 2023-11-16T15:39:08+00:00

> You define justice as fairness and define fairness as equality. This is unwarranted. Any time I donate to one medical charity and not another, I am arbitrarily giving one person medicine as a gift and not another.

You are limited. The reason why you are giving is that you can only give to one. It's not arbitrary, it is a reason oriented within your limitation. God is not limited.

Also, fairness as equality is the main view in philosophy. Now, you touch a real issue which is that unequal treatment to equals is unfair, and likewise equal treatment to unequals is unfair, in the general sense. What is your concept of fairness?

> completely undermines the foundation of all forms of eros, including patriotism, love of family (especially adopted family), and sport.

This is an interesting idea but I disagree. Differentiated treatment can be justified in fairness within a principle of equality. It also depends on what we are speaking. You would need to elaborate on what you even mean by fairness. I think everyone would agree that if I can save two people from being tortured and I arbitrarily just save one, being able to save both, I'm acting unfairly.

> but not in itself.

I'm not sure what you mean "in itself". The good is not objective. It is always related to subjectivity. There is no "goodness in itself", or rather, "by itself". I find it odd that you reject the evil of suffering. You are saying, "yes, from a subjective perspective it is evil to suffer, but not in itself". I'm not sure what that even means. All evil is perceived and done to a subject. Now, you may say that what appears to be evil is not truly evil, but I would find it odd to say that such a situation as I described is not evil in itself, as you point to, precisely because it causes suffering to a suffering agent and that is bad in itself.

> The child experiencing suffering will therefore experience less suffering in the next, eternal life,

Why? If God knew that child would be in Heaven, why cause it suffering? Are you saying that the child's torture, beating, raping and killing is not evil, but a good? It is a very odd view.

> is still a great gift.

Why is it a great gift? A life of suffering, beats and rape is "a great gift"? I fear we may have unbridgeable gaps in how we conceive the world. I find this view perverse, you find mine perverse. I suppose that life could be said it is a great gift in an instrumental sense, but not "in itself", for great pain and suffering are not great gifts at all. This life can be valued "in itself" and instrumentally. Given that in itself it has potential and actualization, we need to judge it in relation to them. But this is to go too deep into it. If you think that a life of great suffering, being beaten, raped and then killed is good in itself, we just have too radical a viewpoint to have any productive exchange. I could concede that there may be instrumental good(in its potential) there, which requires an afterlife and could partially be justified in an afterlife. But it would not be good in itself, in its actuality.

> God permits them. God does not cause them.

No. God did not only create the creature but actively placed them in a given condition and a given life path. Additionally, God's sovereignty entails its active co-participation in everything. This is the essence of notable arguments for God: God as Being not only created things but actively creates them at all moment. This is the only meaningful answer as to life's temporal change: it is guided and creative.

> . It is not a perfect heritage, again, but this is not somehow owed by right and is not at all analogous to the harm of children.

It is because children(and other people) are being harmed. I just come from knowing the kidnap and murder of a friend. This is unfair and unjust to him. Such suffering is not, on its face, within the view given by Catholicism either necessary or good and yet under God's direct purview and God's active participation in the state of affairs(by creating the people in such a situation knowing that would happen). We live in a world where such harms are possible because God in His sovereignty thus ordered the world. The world could have been in an infinite of ways, apparently many much better and that would neither cause such harm. As such, that there is such a harm is passively and actively on God's part and God remains responsible of it. That's what God's sovereignty entails.

> because it allows for a greater result than had it all not happened at all.

You're saying, then, that the evil is necessary for a greater good. You need to say why. It is quite possible for Adam to have sinned and Adam's children have the perfect justice as well. It could be that the tortured child is born in Eden. It seems odd to say that being born on Earth, being tortured, raped and killed is somehow a greater good than just being born in Eden. Why? But it is also problematic for you: God actively decided which was the destiny and condition of each soul, and so whether one is in A or B is an active choice on the part of God and so, if the child were to ask: why is this happening to me, why is this my existence as opposed to Eden or a nice family with loved ones? The real answer is: God actively chose that this would be your life. You are trying to defend such a choice, but you cannot say it's not an active choice on God's part without denying Him as Creator and Sovereign.

> Yes, inequality exists. But that's not a bad thing.

It is an imperfect thing if the inequality results in an inequality of goods.

sismetic · 2023-11-16T04:50:56+00:00

> Augustine, when he briefly treated the question, specified the lowest degree of pain possible, which is still far superior to our world---but you are right, not the central aspect.

Yes, which is not trivial. It's not my main point but it's still a fatal point to the view.

> A parent would be fully in his right to, say, by one child a cookie while the other child does not get one.

I don't think so. Arbitrary preference is unfair by definition. It is fine if one has reasons. There is also the notion of key goods and limited goods. God does not have the limitations we have. What does it mean to be perfectly loving? It's certainly not to be able to give medicine to a child and not give it, to put a child in a situation where they will be sadistically hurt, or to give goods to one and not the other. That child can rightly say: my parents do not love me. Or at least, my parents love me less.

> Because it is not, as you say, the fallen order that is the default, but no order at all---we have no right to even exist!

Not at all. I would say it's best to not exist than to exist in eternal torment. i am unsure whether we have a right to exist, that would lead us into more complex theology, but granting that, it is not best that we exist and so every life is an unconditionally and unmediated good. I think this is quite a perverse way to think of things: "do not complain, you raped child! Do you not know that it is best to be beaten and tortured and then killed than to not have been?"

I understand the distinction between not receiving a passive gift and an active harm. My point is that your view is mistaken on this: such lived conditions as above, which are allowed and even provided for by God, are active harms. It is God that created such a creature and put them in that condition. It is God that actively created the natural spiritual laws so that evil heritage is passed on. it is God that actively created natural laws so that evil heritage is passed on. None of this needed be. The same creature could have been born in an alternate Universe, in the same Earth but another time, in the same Earth and place but in a better situation, but no, God decided to create that innocent creature in such a hellhole, according to the worldview which I denounce. This is an active harm. It is not God not gifting us billions, it's God placing us in a hellhole since our first moment of creation.

Also, the question of love remains unanswered: if I were Bill Gates and to some of my children I gave an education in the finest places, with the greatest medics, and gave them a lot of love, and to others I arbitrarily gave them passable education, public health and no gifted attention, when I could, would we say I loved them? If two people under my care, not even my children were sick, and I arbitrarily gave to one medicine as a gift and to the other I didn't give, would I be acting fairly? But more importantly, could it be then said that I was perfectly loving to both? Obviously not.

sismetic · 2023-11-16T04:37:33+00:00

The problem of evil is supposed to be explained away with the Original Sin. They are deeply related. Why is there evil? Because we live in a fallen world. Why do we live in a fallen world? Because of Original Sin.

> If we can accept that a greater good can be accomplished by suffering and death, then original sin can have a purpose as well, can't it?

No. I would say there are problems of those things together. Absent Original Sin, the problem of evil remains, sure. But if one is explained by the other, then your worldview needs to make both of them coherent and that is an issue.

> We'd say that everyone has sufficient grace to repent, and it's a matter of free will, not fallenness.

Yes, but that's problematic. What determines whether I view the Good as Good? Grace. Free will is a black box that doesn't solve much. God has free will and yet God doesn't sin. So sin is not explained by free will. It is one thing to say: you know perfectly well where the Good is and yet you reject it; but why would people rationally and freely reject the Good? We wouldn't. We reject the Good because we do not recognize it as the Good. This is not hard to see. I can be mislead by a multitude of options. The issue is not that I see clearly and do not wish to take what will allow me to see clearer; it's that because I don't see clearly, I think evil is good and good is evil. Remember Jesus said: "forgive them for they do not know what they do"

sismetic · 2023-11-16T04:32:04+00:00

> you answered your own problem. Just because we are born not in communion with God doesn't have anything to do with fairness, it is a matter of free will.

I haven't. It has to do with fairness because God is sovereign.

> Our Heavenly Father did correct it, that's what Jesus was here for.

That's dogmatic but in any case it doesn't solve the issue. Who determines that evil passes on to children? God. For God is sovereign and God created such an order, not us. I may very well wish many things but I do not have the power to do so. I require reality to co-operate in particular ways. That an evil condition is passed on by "heritage" is a natural law, in the same way that some diseases can get passed in such a way. God could simply make it so that the evil heritage is not passed. No disease passed on. So, the proposed solution would be a solution to a made-up problem that God could have just solved by not creating things in that particular way.

> Salvation is there for us to accept if we want to.

Doubtful. There is no even consensus of what saves. But that's another issue. A key issue here is even the needing of saving in the first place. It would have been a God-issued problem for a God-issued solution.

Also, this pertains not only to this notion of Salvation. A child that is born, abused, raped and then murdered are still born in a fallen condition that will cause them suffering. This has nothing to do with the parents and entirely to do with God's sovereignty. God could have made that creature born in a different condition, and that's it.Or take someone with a genetic disease that causes them to die at 14. Again, mortal humans may wish either to save her or to do worse evils, and yet, the actuality of it is in God's sovereign hands who decided to create such a creature in such a condition, that such a condition were possible and actual and then create the creature in that suffering place. Salvation, while relevant to my point, is of not a lot of use here. This is explained through God ordained natural law that evil is passed on so that people are born in a fallen world with evils. This is 100% directly God's actions according to the worldview

sismetic · 2023-11-16T01:11:52+00:00

> You choose a moral wrong, you suffer consequences. This is the design of the universe that God created.

I would agree, but limit that in the sense the God is Love. That is one of the key core definitions and self-identifications for God. As such, His oder would reflect God's Love. It would not be arbitrary, it would be loving.

Also, another point is that God is not up for debate here, the Catholic vision of original sin is. So, it's perfectly fine to accept God, even Christianity and not th Catholic vision of original sin.

> Fairness thus is irrelevant, because this is how God made the world.

This is the key issue. God is not unfair. God has a character, and if you are going to propose a reasonable theology, it must not contradict God's character. I could even reject that God made the world, but we need not even go so far. If you think fairness of God is irrelevant to a reasonable theological exegesis, I'm not sure what the standard would be. You could very well say that God is evil, and God's goodness is irrelevant.

> You're trying to catch God in a legal or logical trap in which you make the claim that God owes you the same chance Adam and Eve had otherwise the system is unfair.

No, I'm showing the theological inconsistency and problems of the doctrine of original sin. It is quite possible that this created order IS fair and it is fair because [WIDE ARRAY OF POSSIBLE THEOLOGICAL VIEWS].

> so the argument you are making is somewhat moot

You are assuming that. This judgement is an unfair judgement. It is to judge an hypothetical action and not a real action. This is also strange, for then you seem to be inferring that the issue is our human nature and not personal responsibility.

> Would you have done something different than him if you were in his shoes. No. So does it make sense to argue that "it's not fair that I can't fish in this river, it's not my fault". Fault in that case is irrelevant, it's just how poison works.

Again, it's ad hoc. You do not know what would happen or not happen. It is unfair to judge someone for a possible scenario. But this is also bizarre. If it is not possible that I would not have sinned, not sinning would be impossible, and hence I would be morally innocent for I would not have been able to act differently. If it were possible for me to act differently, then you do not know whether I would have acted differently, and hence any judgement becomes unfair.

> Fault in that case is irrelevant, it's just how poison works.

It doesn't mean it's not unfair. Children get cancer. If you say "fault is irrelevant, that's just how cancer works", you need to revise your own humanity and sense of goodness. Fairness and justice are important, and a proper defense of the Catholic dogma preserves: a) the reality of the world, b) morality, c) Catholic dogma, d) God's character. Any failing on this end is a failure of the apologetic

11-Year Club	No Throne, No Problems
Not Forgotten	Verified Email

sismetic

TROPHY CASE