Design

[tonyrey]

So you admit that the catechim contradicts itself.

Only in your imagination, Brad!

NB:

The Catechism sets forth the content of the faith in a comprehensive yet summary fashion and in a positive and explanatory manner. In this sense, it answers many questions about doctrine in a clear and unambiguous way. On the other hand, however, the Catechism recognizes that faith is an ongoing journey on which questions and doubts come naturally and need to be addressed at the opportune moment. ** The Catechism** - far from preempting discussion - provides accurate information with which to carry on informed discussion.

One obvious question is “What does repentance involve?” How can we possibly know whether a person genuinely regrets what they have done or failed to do? How much time is a person given to decide whether to repent or not?

One thing is clear. When faced with the choice we must have full knowledge of the consequences. Hell is not a trap but the result of a decision made by us - whether to live solely for ourselves or for others and ourselves.To reject that reasoning is to have a vested interest in proving God is unjust whereas in reality it is the sceptic who is being unjust!

 

[Bradski]

Only in your imagination, Brad!

Vonsalza insists upon it. You should read his posts on this matter.

 

[inocente]

Then it may be prudent to specify what you mean by “design” as it is over-broad once you accept that the Discovery Institute doesn’t have a monopoly on the word.

I, like one Catholic philosopher you’ve cited often, think literally everything is a derivative of God - ergo “designed” in some way. But my view of biological design and the DI’s view are not the same.

I honestly think there are fewer hardcore DI acolytes here than most would think.

The OP is dedicated to an article copyright the Discovery Institute, so on this thread “design” is defined by fans who self-selected themselves from that.

The article is about biology. But wasn’t written by a biologist. Its author used to be a software developer until he retired to become a ‘business consultant’. And the article is risible - superficial, amateur hour, only about nice things, nothing nasty, wishful thinking. This is followed by many posts which can’t agree on the intelligent designer’s job description and what if any ethics yon designer designed.

Whereas right here on Catholic Answers there’s an article on how Aquinas would not be a design fan, written by a professor of medieval and natural philosophy. And an article by a senior apologist, Jimmy Atkin, about the Church’s real position, as opposed to what design fans would have us believe.

catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/aquinas-vs-intelligent-design
catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/evolution-and-the-magisterium

 

[Aloysium]

. . . The article is about biology. But wasn’t written by a biologist. Its author used to be a software developer until he retired to become a ‘business consultant’. And the article is risible - superficial, amateur hour, only about nice things, nothing nasty, wishful thinking. . .

From the article:

"For the human body, though, the whole is much more than the sum of its parts. . . as if the body was designed specifically to enable the mind: thought, language, love, nobility, self-sacrifice, art, creativity, industry, and my favorite enigma (for Darwinists): music. The human body enables these things, but does not determine them. As near as we can tell, no combination of the body’s substrate — information, machinery, or operations — alone can achieve these things. . . "

Seems self-evident to me, not risible, not “nice” and not superficial. I don’t see any evidence of wishful thinking. Common sense is what I’d call it. With respect to the entire article, I may not phrase things in the same manner, but the opinions expressed are worthy of consideration. Ad hominems may add fuel to the emotional side of an argument, but are counterproductive to the furthering of understanding.

 

[tonyrey]

Vonsalza insists upon it. You should read his posts on this matter.

You should address these issues:

The Catechism sets forth the content of the faith in a comprehensive yet summary fashion and in a positive and explanatory manner. In this sense, it answers many questions about doctrine in a clear and unambiguous way. On the other hand, however, the Catechism recognizes that faith is an ongoing journey on which questions and doubts come naturally and need to be addressed at the opportune moment. ** The Catechism** - far from preempting discussion - provides accurate information with which to carry on informed discussion.

One obvious question is “What does repentance involve?” How can we possibly know whether a person genuinely regrets what they have done or failed to do? How much time is a person given to decide whether to repent or not?

One thing is clear. When faced with the choice we must have full knowledge of the consequences. Hell is not a trap but the result of a decision made by us - whether to live solely for ourselves or for others and ourselves.To reject that reasoning is to have a vested interest in proving God is unjust whereas in reality it is the sceptic who is being unjust!

It seems evasion is the name of your game.

 

[tonyrey]

"For the human body, though, the whole is much more than the sum of its parts. . . as if the body was designed specifically to enable the mind: thought, language, love, nobility, self-sacrifice, art, creativity, industry, and my favorite enigma (for Darwinists): music.

It seems evasion is the name of the Design opponents’ game!

There is no evidence that the brain is aware of what it is doing or capable of self-control but of course that is a minor issue not worthy of attention…

 

[tonyrey]

As this thread is drawing to its close it’s worth repeating that the richness and beauty of Christ’s teaching is that suffering is never wasted. Regardless of the comments on this thread the short lives of children who die of hunger and die of disease are not empty and purposeless. They would be if there were no afterlife but Jesus came to demonstrate nothing is in vain except negativity in our outlook and conduct. By human standards He was a lunatic who achieved nothing except increase the amount of injustice and conflict in the world but the reverse is true. He has inspired countless millions of people to follow His example by living and dying for others instead of pursuing wealth and power for themselves.

God created us to have faith in His goodness and love for all His creatures, not to be sceptical about His power and wisdom when confronted with apparently needless tragedies and misfortunes. Jesus has told us our prayers will be answered - not necessarily in this world but always in the next. Shakespeare summed it up perfectly:

“There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio”…

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

As this thread is drawing to its close it’s worth repeating that the richness and beauty of Christ’s teaching is that suffering is never wasted.

Oh, the incredible arrogance and hypocrisy of those who are always willing to “endure” the suffering of others! Maybe it would be uncharitable to wish upon them the suffering of those whose pain and suffering they like to “downplay” - as if it did not “really” matter… after all it will be compensated in the afterlife. I wonder what their reaction would be if they would be exposed to the fate of those whose suffering they make light of in such a casual and dismissive manner. It is always the well-fed that have no problem with the starvation of others.

google.com/search?q=famine+in+africa&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwjrrP2zoK7UAhUSySYKHcjtDBoQ_AUIBigB&biw=1536&bih=783
theonion.com/article/poverty-stricken-africans-receive-desperately-need-1915

 

[Vonsalza]

So you admit that the catechim contradicts itself.

Of course not. Man is bound, God is not. I genuinely don’t see the contradiction unless you assume that both God and man are bound by the same rule set. But this is obviously a presumption most theists will not hold.

However, as someone who has always enjoyed the technical aspects of syllogisms, if you would like to structure the argument as such and actually show me where the operatic contradiction occurs within the argument, I promise that I’ll read it. Use Boolean operators if you like (if this forum technically supports them).

 

[Vonsalza]

Whereas right here on Catholic Answers there’s an article on how Aquinas would not be a design fan…

Perhaps not a fan of “design” in a specific context. However:

“Any error about creation also leads to an error about God.” - St. Thomas Aquinas

 

[Aloysium]

Oh, the incredible arrogance and hypocrisy of those who are always willing to “endure” the suffering of others! Maybe it would be uncharitable to wish upon them the suffering of those whose pain and suffering they like to “downplay” - as if it did not “really” matter… after all it will be compensated in the afterlife. I wonder what their reaction would be if they would be exposed to the fate of those whose suffering they make light of in such a casual and dismissive manner. It is always the well-fed that have no problem with the starvation of others. . .

I get the emotion, but you can’t seriously consider this even close to a valid response to the assertion that “suffering is never wasted.”

We are eternal beings who transform ourselves into love through our actions. We become Christ-like in the giving of ourselves. Being like the Son, we enter into the Triune Godhead, who is Love, who brings all into existence, within the infinite ocean that is His compassion. In and through Christ our suffering becomes part of the process by which we are reborn into the spirit.

I should qualify Tony’s quote that you highlighted in red by adding that suffering that stems from sin and does not lead to repentence is more than wasted.

As to your assumptions, I would agree that we are all sinners, but as Christians we remind ourselves of Jesus’ words:

Matthew 25:31–46:

"But when the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. Before him all the nations will be gathered, and he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then the King will tell those on his right hand, ‘Come, blessed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry, and you gave me food to eat. I was thirsty, and you gave me drink. I was a stranger, and you took me in. I was naked, and you clothed me. I was sick, and you visited me. I was in prison, and you came to me.’

“Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry, and feed you; or thirsty, and give you a drink? When did we see you as a stranger, and take you in; or naked, and clothe you? When did we see you sick, or in prison, and come to you?’

“The King will answer them, ‘Most certainly I tell you, because you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’ Then he will say also to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry, and you didn’t give me food to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me no drink; I was a stranger, and you didn’t take me in; naked, and you didn’t clothe me; sick, and in prison, and you didn’t visit me.’

“Then they will also answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and didn’t help you?’

“Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Most certainly I tell you, because you didn’t do it to one of the least of these, you didn’t do it to me.’ These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Of course not. Man is bound, God is not.

Let’s see.

Catechism says (not verbatim): “anyone who commits a mortal sin, and does NOT repent WILL go to hell”.

Vonsalza says: “You cannot take the catechism seriously. God is not bound by the same rules. If he so chooses, he can pardon the mortal sins of unrepented sinners.”

Conclusion: “Why should we care what the catechism says? If it is wrong in the most fundamental question (who will be saved), then nothing it says can be taken seriously”.

Evaluation: “Cool hand, Luke. Out goes the whole church, the magisterium and catholicism”. Well done Vons Let’s go and commit all sorts of wonderful and yummy sins!

 

[Vonsalza]

Let’s see.

Catechism says (not verbatim): “anyone who commits a mortal sin, and does NOT repent WILL go to hell”.

Please don’t summarize the catechism. Refer to a specific passage or don’t. Generalizations aren’t useful in rhetoric.

Vonsalza says: “You cannot take the catechism seriously…”

No, that is not what I said. If I felt that way, I would not have also referenced the catechism.

Conclusion: "Why should we care what the catechism says?

As both your premises contain critical errors pertaining to soundness and validity, any conclusion drawn from them inherit the same critical errors. :sad_yes:

Evaluation: “Cool hand, Luke. Out goes the whole church, the magisterium and catholicism”. Well done Vons Let’s go and commit all sorts of wonderful and yummy sins!

While Luther may have advised us to “sin boldly”, Christ did not.

Like Mr. Bradski, you need to internalize that God isn’t bound in the same way we are. While the Church may provide the magisterial standard, He is the Judge. The ultimate say on who-goes-where is His alone.

But I’ll happily concede this, those who consistently behave in an evil or selfish manner should not expect to open their eyes in paradise after they close them in death.

But that ultimate decision is not mine, nor anyone else’s. It’s God’s alone.

 

[Bradski]

But I’ll happily concede this, those who consistently behave in an evil or selfish manner should not expect to open their eyes in paradise after they close them in death.

If you don’t repent it’s the wrong tense. It’s not ‘should not’ but ‘will not’. According to the catechism.

But you can be the most evil sob on the planet and if you DO repent, you may get out of jail.

I keep saying this and nobody has said anything whatsoever to contradict it: it’s a weird system that no sane person could support.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . He is the Judge. The ultimate say on who-goes-where is His alone. . .

I agree and would add that the judgement is not an opinion about reality, but constitutes the true nature of who the person is, a person loved by God, but who may choose not to return His love. His “say” would be the truth of who we decide to become in life and for eternity.

Having done evil, given the opportunity to see what we have done, the impact of our actions within the context of our internal and external circumstances, our past experiences and our intents for the future, in that moment, if we deny love, we take a step closer to perdition.

The truth of our existence is with God, who is closer to us than we ourselves. We only see things darkly. barely knowing ourselves. We cannot condemn ourselves any more than we can another. That said, we can understand the moral environment in which behaviour occurs and understand the goodness or evil of a particular act.

Everything we do and experience exists within God’s compassion. We connect with reality when we love.

 

[Vonsalza]

But you can be the most evil sob on the planet and if you DO repent, you may get out of jail.

No sir, you don’t. Purgatory is a jail.

I agree and would add that the judgement is not an opinion about reality, but constitutes the true nature of who the person is, a person loved by God, but who may choose not to return His love. His “say” would be the truth of who we decide to become in life and for eternity.

Having done evil, given the opportunity to see what we have done, the impact of our actions within the context of our internal and external circumstances, our past experiences and our intents for the future, in that moment, if we deny love, we take a step closer to perdition.

The truth of our existence is with God, who is closer to us than we ourselves. We only see things darkly. barely knowing ourselves. We cannot condemn ourselves any more than we can another. That said, we can understand the moral environment in which behaviour occurs and understand the goodness or evil of a particular act.

Everything we do and experience exists within God’s compassion. We connect with reality when we love.

Excellent post, per your usual.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Please don’t summarize the catechism.

Ah, so you are one of those Pharisees. Good to know.

 

[o_mlly]

No sir, you don’t. Purgatory is a jail…

As Catholics we are obliged to think the best possible of our fellow man. So we should think the atheists who post here intend merely to shorten our time in purgatory with their (sometimes) inane posts reminiscent of the college kid who having just read one book is now an expert on the topic.

 

[Vonsalza]

Ah, so you are one of those Pharisees. Good to know.

Generalizations have no place in good rhetoric, sir. Name-calling won’t change that, nor will it excuse your penchant for using them.

Please cite a specific section if you’d like to refer to the catechism (or any authoritative document, for that matter) for an analysis of content.

 

[Dcn_Terry]

If you don’t repent it’s the wrong tense. It’s not ‘should not’ but ‘will not’. According to the catechism.

But you can be the most evil sob on the planet and if you DO repent, you may get out of jail.

I keep saying this and nobody has said anything whatsoever to contradict it: it’s a weird system that no sane person could support.

Actually, it is a perfectly logical system that any sane person can understand and support. All you need to do is factor in the unconditional love of God. If a person cannot grasp the concept of unconditional love, then there is no way they will understand God’s mercy on repentant sinners.