Is God above justice?

[Wesrock]

Also, Catholic theology has a Trinitarian teaching on this, as it also teaches that the union of male and female in marriage is also in the image of God. Two people become one, and out of their mutual love (according to what this union is supposed to be) may be born a third person. The couple and the family are (analogously) also in the image of God.

 

[rossum]

The Catechism is stressing that BOTH male and female are in God’s image. This to refute claims that only males are in God’s image.

That was not my point. The excerpt was talking about the uniqueness of the human species, yet, horses and dogs have male and female. Armadillos and kangaroos are the same. Why claim one of the indicators of human uniqueness is a characteristic we share with almost all other vertebrates?

It is like claiming humans are unique because they have two eyes. It puzzles me.

rossum

 

[Wesrock]

That was not my point. The excerpt was talking about the uniqueness of the human species, yet, horses and dogs have male and female. Armadillos and kangaroos are the same. Why claim one of the indicators of human uniqueness is a characteristic we share with almost all other vertebrates?

It is like claiming humans are unique because they have two eyes. It puzzles me.

rossum

My point was that it is not claiming male and female as unique to humans.

Edit: It’s also an affirmation on the Church’s teaching on “gender theory.”

 

[friardchips]

(III) puzzles me. Being male and female is not universal, but it does cover a great many more species that just Homo sapiens. Why claim such an obviously non-unique property as part of the uniqueness of man?

rossum

The distinction between animal and man and again from animal to vegetation is the relational difference of the varying aspects of the soul in relation to one another and God: the vegetative, of which vegetation, animals and humans are comprised; emotional intelligence - the psyche - of which vegetation does not comprise, while animals and human souls do; the intellect, of which, only the human soul is comprised. This was reasoned by St. Thomas Aquinas.

The intellect of the human being is described as thus:

www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a1.htm

‘1705 By virtue of his soul and his spiritual powers of intellect and will, man is endowed with freedom, an "outstanding manifestation of the divine image."8.’

 

[meltzerboy]

The distinction between animal and man and again from animal to vegetation is the relational difference of the varying aspects of the soul in relation to one another and God: the vegetative, of which vegetation, animals and humans are comprised; emotional intelligence - the psyche - of which vegetation does not comprise, while animals and human souls do; the intellect, of which, only the human soul is comprised. This was reasoned by St. Thomas Aquinas.

The intellect of the human being is described as thus:

www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a1.htm

‘1705 By virtue of his soul and his spiritual powers of intellect and will, man is endowed with freedom, an "outstanding manifestation of the divine image."8.’

Although they differed in many ways, Aquinas was influenced by the medieval Jewish philosopher Maimonides in writing about the soul of humans and distinguishing it from that of animals and from vegetation.

 

[MPat]

So what do we call the deaths of the unborn children whose pregnant mothers were drowned in the flood? “Collateral damage”?

We call them deaths.

Seriously, are they that different from other deaths?

God can give life, God can take it away. The means by which He does so are not that important.

One of the reasons why murder is evil is just that: it is an attempt to take life without respecting God’s rights.

As paragraph 2258 of Catechism says (vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Y.HTM): “Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.”.

As a Buddhist, all gods are subject to moral law (karma), including the most powerful gods.

rossum

Then your gods are not similar to God (not that there was any doubt - and “Wesrock” has already told you so). They are more similar to angels.

Perhaps you would find Catholic position easier to understand if you’d try to compare God not to your gods, but to “karma”.

So, would you say that “karma” is subject to itself? Can it violate itself?

And if “karma” results in (causes?) life of hardship or life that is cut short, would you say there is some injustice in that? Would you say that “karma” has committed a murder?

 

[rossum]

We call them deaths.

But are they just deaths or unjust deaths? God is claimed to be just. Where is the justice in deliberately killing an unborn child? A lot of Christians seem to think that is a wrong action, but somehow God seems to get a pass.

Seriously, are they that different from other deaths?

Seriously, are abortions that different from other legally allowed deaths?

God can give life, God can take it away. The means by which He does so are not that important.

So, might makes right. God can do what He likes and His followers will still call Him “just”. They might; I don’t.

Perhaps you would find Catholic position easier to understand if you’d try to compare God not to your gods, but to “karma”.

So, would you say that “karma” is subject to itself? Can it violate itself?

A better analogy to karma would be gravity, not God. If you throw a stone straight up in the air, then whose fault is it when that stone comes down and hits you on the head? Karma is an impersonal force like gravity. It cannot violate itself because it is not a person and does not make decisions.

Gravity does not make laws: “Thou shalt not jump off a tall building without a parachute.” Gravity deals in consequences: “If you jump off a tall building without a parachute, then you will go thud! Very hard.”

Karma is actions and consequences. Actions have consequences. If you don’t want the consequences then don’t do the actions. Since there is no concept of sin, there is no equivalent of the forgiveness of sin either. Once an action is done it cannot be taken back and the consequences are unavoidable. Hence it is necessary to be careful before acting. Thus the Buddhist emphasis on mindfulness before acting.

rossum

 

[Lion_IRC]

Does the act of murder become ok if God says it is.

Not all killing is murder. (EG. killing in self-defense, accidental manslaughter, obeying the President of The United States and dropping an atomic bomb.)

God would never say murder is OK

 

[seagal]

Karma is actions and consequences. Actions have consequences. If you don’t want the consequences then don’t do the actions. Since there is no concept of sin, there is no equivalent of the forgiveness of sin either. Once an action is done it cannot be taken back and the consequences are unavoidable. Hence it is necessary to be careful before acting. Thus the Buddhist emphasis on mindfulness before acting.

rossum

If karma has no equivalent to forgiveness then it does not contain the concept of mercy either. God is both perfectly just and perfectly merciful. He set out the boundaries and he deals justice to those who cross them. But he extends mercy to those who sincerely repent and welcomes them back.

 

[rossum]

If karma has no equivalent to forgiveness then it does not contain the concept of mercy either.

No more than gravity contains the concept of mercy. Mercy is an action by humans, gods etc. It is not for gravity of karma. It is an error to personalise karma, it is not a person, god, demigod etc. It is an impersonal constituent force of the (spiritual) universe just as gravity is an impersonal constituent force of the material universe.

rossum

 

[seagal]

No more than gravity contains the concept of mercy. Mercy is an action by humans, gods etc. It is not for gravity of karma. It is an error to personalise karma, it is not a person, god, demigod etc. It is an impersonal constituent force of the (spiritual) universe just as gravity is an impersonal constituent force of the material universe.

rossum

Thanks for the clarification. I’d rather believe in a personal God

 

[MPat]

But are they just deaths or unjust deaths? God is claimed to be just. Where is the justice in deliberately killing an unborn child? A lot of Christians seem to think that is a wrong action, but somehow God seems to get a pass.

So, might makes right. God can do what He likes and His followers will still call Him “just”. They might; I don’t.

OK, do you want to learn what is the reasoning behind that, or do you only want to praise yourself for your justice or something?

It is OK for apple’s owner to eat it. It is not OK for a someone else to eat it without owner’s permission. Likewise, it is OK for God to terminate our life. It is not OK for anyone else to do so without His permission.

As you can see, our position is not “might makes right”. If you thought it was, maybe you should study it a bit more closely…

A better analogy to karma would be gravity, not God.

But this analogy, however good it is otherwise, won’t help you to learn anything about Catholicism, will it?

If you throw a stone straight up in the air, then whose fault is it when that stone comes down and hits you on the head? Karma is an impersonal force like gravity. It cannot violate itself because it is not a person and does not make decisions.

Yes, that is one of the reasons.

Yet let’s look at the questions you didn’t cite: “And if “karma” results in (causes?) life of hardship or life that is cut short, would you say there is some injustice in that? Would you say that “karma” has committed a murder?”. Why don’t you try to answer them as well?

I’m pretty sure you will find out that saying that moral law has caused something immoral makes no sense.

Gravity does not make laws: “Thou shalt not jump off a tall building without a parachute.” Gravity deals in consequences: “If you jump off a tall building without a parachute, then you will go thud! Very hard.”

Karma is actions and consequences. Actions have consequences. If you don’t want the consequences then don’t do the actions. Since there is no concept of sin, there is no equivalent of the forgiveness of sin either. Once an action is done it cannot be taken back and the consequences are unavoidable. Hence it is necessary to be careful before acting. Thus the Buddhist emphasis on mindfulness before acting.

Looking at en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karma_in_Buddhism&oldid=783748884 I get an impression that you have severely simplified the Buddhist position… But, I guess, this is your position, and, um… It is nice to know that?

 

[rossum]

Likewise, it is OK for God to terminate our life. It is not OK for anyone else to do so without His permission.

That is not the moral law I want to live by: “avoid injury to living things.”

Yet let’s look at the questions you didn’t cite: “And if “karma” results in (causes?) life of hardship or life that is cut short, would you say there is some injustice in that? Would you say that “karma” has committed a murder?”. Why don’t you try to answer them as well?

Someone jumps off a tall building. Is gravity guilty of causing their death? Has gravity committed a murder?

Looking at en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karma_in_Buddhism&oldid=783748884 I get an impression that you have severely simplified the Buddhist position… But, I guess, this is your position, and, um… It is nice to know that?

Yes, I have simplified it. There is a size limit on posts here, and the topic of this thread is not Buddhist karma.

rossum

 

[MPat]

That is not the moral law I want to live by: “avoid injury to living things.”

Precisely!

That is a very good way to express your objection.

Catholic position is not self-contradicting. It is not “Might makes right.”. But it is not convenient. It is not what you would choose all by yourself.

But then, we do not claim it is convenient. We claim it is true.

And, to reuse your analogy, gravity also would be more convenient if it would weaken when we’re falling. But it doesn’t. And believing that it does, while pleasant (for a while), doesn’t lead to anything good. In fact, it doesn’t lead to much comfort either, in a long run.

In fact, don’t you think that the inconvenience itself weakly points towards Catholicism not being man-made?

Yes, I have simplified it. There is a size limit on posts here, and the topic of this thread is not Buddhist karma.

Yes, that’s OK - as long, as we know that.