How exactly are God and blame connected in your view? — Noble Dust

They are not, blame belongs to man, not to God. Man is the author of his acts, which, being sinful, carry blame with them like a shadow.

Surely your familiar with the idea of God as Love? When you create a piece of music; is that an act of love?

Creation as an act of love vs. God as love seem different to me, which is why I asked for clarification. I guess you can make the argument for God being "one who creates", and thus, naturally creating out of love, as love is also a way to express who/what God is? Is that what you're getting at?

When you create a piece of music; is that an act of love? — Janus

A pure creative act is a free act; love, however, is expressed between beings. So if a song is an act of love, then the song would have to have being. Does it?

When you create a piece of music; is that an act of love? — Janus

That would depend on the music, obviously :P - it could be a work of violence too.

So who "puts" the blame here?

So who "puts" the blame here? — Noble Dust

Man through his actions. Vice and sin are their own punishments.

Ok, I'm on board. But where does sin stem from? (I'm only on board, by the way, because you appear to have rescinded your claim that "God puts the blame on us"; is that true?)

"God puts the blame on us"; is that true? — Noble Dust

No. I've clarified that that claim means that God reveals that blame is on us.

But where does sin stem from? — Noble Dust

Man's actions.

Man's actions. — Agustino

So man is purely and solely to blame?

Absolutely.

But man puts that blame, not God?

But man puts that blame, not God? — Noble Dust

There is no putting of blame, blame exists according to actions. Sinful actions entail blame, the same way you entail your shadow.

But you just said:

So who "puts" the blame here?
— Noble Dust
Man through his actions. — Agustino

But you just said: — Noble Dust

Yep, what I said above doesn't contradict that. Except that I'm guarding against a possible misunderstanding that I sense in you, namely that there is a separation between sin and blame, and there is not. So who puts the blame? Man through his actions. But this isn't to say that the blame is something in addition to the sinful actions that is actually put on top of everything else. It's already included in the package.

Yep, what I said above doesn't contradict that. — Agustino

No, it does. It's not only simple grammar, but simple use of language and sentence structure. You can't say "puts blame" when it suits you, and then deny me when I point out your inconsistency. You need to either say "hey, I messed up with my language", or acknowledge that you do want to use "put" as an action that someone performs here.

Except that I'm guarding against a possible misunderstanding that I sense in you, namely that there is a separation between sin and blame, — Agustino

You're creating that on you're own; my initial critique was based off of the sentence where you said "God puts the blame solely on us". That and nothing more. Whatever you might be sensing is not what I'm trying to communicate here.

Man through his actions. But this isn't to say that the blame is something in addition to the sinful actions that is actually put on top of everything else. It's already included in the package. — Agustino

This doesn't make sense.

Creation as an act of love vs. God as love seem different to me, which is why I asked for clarification. I guess you can make the argument for God being "one who creates", and thus, naturally creating out of love, as love is also a way to express who/what God is? Is that what you're getting at? — Noble Dust

If God is Love, then an act of God is an act of Love, no?

That would depend on the music, obviously :P - it could be a work of violence too. — Agustino

Could the creation of violent music be an act of love (in any sense) as opposed to the music itself being an embodiment of love?

"[So who puts the blame?] Man through his actions. But this isn't to say that the blame is something in addition to the sinful actions that is actually put on top of everything else. It's already included in the package." — Agustino

This doesn't make sense. — Noble Dust

To add what I view to be an added metaphysical dimension to this conversation in terms of causality:

At the very least technically, blame is (one type of) responsibility *, and responsibility pertains to that (he / she / it (angels, for example, are all gender-neutral “its” last I checked)) which creates: i.e., that which causally brings about effects via its own being and impetus.

Then, responsibility in general (and blame in particular) is that obtained through the free-willed act of choice between different alternatives (the choice being the effect one causally brings about).

To clarify that I here personally intend a non-deity/psyche God, I’ll refer to this referent as “G-d”.

G-d is then the a priori reason—or source—for all free-willed action. Yet G-d is absolute, unconditional love. Hence, all free-willed action that is not oriented toward the alternative of closer proximity to an absolute, unconditional love (maybe also here expressible as an absolute harmony of being) is not itself caused by G-d but by the humans in question: choosing alternatives which go in any number of other directions but that of closer proximity to G-d.

Here probably putting words into Agostino’s mouth (may he correct me to the extent that he see fit): it is therefore, and thereby, us humans which expel the love which is G-d via our own freewill, this then being our responsibility and, thus, our blame … these being effects resultant of our own causation and, hence, creation (and not that of G-d’s).

* Its odd to me how we don’t have a succinct word in our lexicon for praiseworthy responsibility, one that rivals that of “blame” for sinful responsibility. To get a bit esoteric in hypotheticals, it could be due to an interpretation that when we act via freewill in favor of alternatives that lead us closer to G-d, we then act as an instrument, or as a vessel, of G-d—that G-d then act through us, so to speak. But I can’t say that I’m certain about this hypothetical interpretation. Still, why “I am to blame” but not “I am causally responsible for that freely willed act of virtue which I chose”? Strange to me.

Could the creation of violent music be an act of love (in any sense) as opposed to the music itself being an embodiment of love? — Janus

If one presumes something along the lines that love is ontic Truth and that ontic Truth is always expressed through some form of love, then: the creation of violent music can be an expression of love when it seeks to express some truth of the human condition, this for the sake of the truth’s expression, imo.

No. You're using it in the non-standard sense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule — Thorongil

You're right. My interpretation was given as an alternate one, but it was not the original meaning. But then, Thorongil didn't use it correctly, did he?

I'd like to suggest that Kabbalah is closest in this explanation of divinity. Ein Sof is the Absolute Source, but is itself unknowable. We don't know if it is a God or a passive force or what. It's just an unknowable Absolute. From this Absolute emanate things like virtue, goodness, existence which owe their being to the Absolute and in some way reflect, though imperfectly the nature of the Source. — MysticMonist

That explanation of "Ein Sof" makes it sound a lot like the Tao. If that were the case, it wouldn't be God. It would come before God. It would be the source of God. Yes, I know. All of my posts seem to end up back at the Tao Te Ching. I can't help it.

I'm all ears if I didn't. Go ahead and show me, T.

That makes sense to me.

All my posts come back to Judaism somehow, so it's fine to keep bring up Toaism. Yes I would agree that the Tao is also a good explanation.

Pacem's response is one of the shallowest yet offered by humanity. Are you seriously saying that if a serial killer is operating, there is no evil and therefore he is doing no evil and therefore we should not try to stop him?

There's a lot of power involved in existence and sometimes risks are taken; such as by letting life arise on a planet, rather than in some simulate field.

I do not believe in God, but I believe in good and evil - evil tends to arise when risks are taken, or trust is expected.

There is a way out of this conundrum about God and Evil: The "Chain of Being" as in the philosophy of Plotin.
"God" - according to this philosophy - is just what we might call the highest order of the *Chain of Being*, the lower orders are all necessary manifestations of Being, and what we call "evil" is a necessary feature of the lowest order ( i.e. "matter")

Therefore, what we call "good" and "evil" are just necessary (!) features of the lower levels of Being / Reality itself, no God could abolish evil, because God does not "exist" outside Reality but is "part" of it. The problem of "theodicy" only exists if people treat God as an independent actor outside of Being, like a man building a model railroad in his basement.

See also : "Philosophia perennis" or "Perennial philosophy" in Wikipedia

If God exists and He is all good and all powerful why does He allow evil? If there is no satisfactory answer to this question does it disprove God? — MysticMonist

I do not see a conflict between god and nature for evil, --- not that god exists, --- and see human to human evil as a small part of the greater good of man's ongoing evolution.

I wrote the following more for religionists so excuse the language.

Can you help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?
And if you cannot, why would God punish you?

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by putting forward their free will argument and placing all the blame on mankind.
That usually sounds like ----God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy. Such statements simply avoid God's culpability as the author and creator of human nature.

Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

If all do evil/sin by nature then, the evil/sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not do evil/sin. Can we then help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?

Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that evil and sin is all human generated and in this sense, I agree with Christians, but for completely different reasons. Evil is mankind’s responsibility and not some imaginary God’s. Free will is something that can only be taken. Free will cannot be given not even by a God unless it has been forcibly withheld.

Much has been written to explain evil and sin but I see as a natural part of evolution.

Consider.
First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created. Without intent to do evil, no act should be called evil.
In secular courts, this is called mens rea. Latin for an evil mind or intent and without it, the court will not find someone guilty even if they know that they are the perpetrator of the act.

Evil then is only human to human when they know they are doing evil and intend harm.

As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.
Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil, at all times.

Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.

This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.

Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, you should see that what Christians see as something to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks for being available to us. Wherever it came from, God or nature, without evolution we would go extinct. We must do good and evil.

There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be. We all must do what some will think is evil as we compete and create losers to this competition.

This link speak to theistic evolution.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/pope-would-you-accept-evolution-and-big-bang-180953166/?no-ist

If theistic evolution is true, then the myth of Eden should be read as a myth and there is not really any original sin.

Doing evil then is actually forced on us by evolution and the need to survive. Our default position is to cooperate or to do good. I offer this clip as proof of this. You will note that we default to good as it is better for survival.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBW5vdhr_PA

Can you help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?
And if you cannot, why would God punish you?

Regards
DL

I do not believe in God, but I believe in good and evil - evil tends to arise when risks are taken, or trust is expected. — Schzophr

I understand and agree with you except for your " or trust is expected".

Are you just talking of a breach of trust?

If so, + 1.

Regards
DL

If God is Love, then an act of God is an act of Love, no? — Janus

Scriptures say that god created all things for his pleasure. Both the good and the evil.

What pleasure do you think god would get from creating evil?

If you do not see god as creating evil, then who is his co-creator that did?

Regards
DL