Is it sinful to hate the material and natural worlds?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Sock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Robert_Sock said:
What about things like earthquakes, tornadoes and hurricanes; are these things ‘good’ too. They are a part of God’s creation too, but few of us would call them ‘good.’ So, it would seem plausible that a person could easily hate at least some of the natural world. But why stop there, and recognize that all of the natural world is ‘evil.’
Click to expand...
Forgive me, as I may not find the right words to articulate this properly. I would argue that to acknowledge the suffering we experience in the natural world is very different than simply hating the natural world entirely.

The leap you take in your argument essentially says that you love the Father, you love the Spirit, but you reject the Son. He is the physical embodiment of the Father’s natural creation.
 
Ophelia23 said:
Forgive me, as I may not find the right words to articulate this properly. I would argue that to acknowledge the suffering we experience in the natural world is very different than simply hating the natural world entirely.

The leap you take in your argument essentially says that you love the Father, you love the Spirit, but you reject the Son. He is the physical embodiment of the Father’s natural creation.
Click to expand...
Who says Christ is the physical embodiment of the Father as He is seated in Heaven?
 
An earthquake is not a “thing”, it is a happenstance, an occurence.
Natural disasters, as we call them, may be inconvenient, destructive or whatever, but in and of themselves are not “evil”. Evil is a moral state not capable of an inanimate object or a phenomenon.

When I walk through the forest and see the trees and the birds, I know that they are good, I love the forest for it’s beauty and serenity. The forest is God’s creation, and it is good.
When I see the fox catch the rabbit, it is neither good nor evil, but necessary for things to function. It may be unfortunate for that particular rabbit but is particularly necessary for the fox.
 
Hate does not originate from God. We can hate evil as long as we realize that hate itself is evil too if left unchecked.
 
Glomung said:
An earthquake is not a “thing”, it is a happenstance, an occurence.
Natural disasters, as we call them, may be inconvenient, destructive or whatever, but in and of themselves are not “evil”. Evil is a moral state not capable of an inanimate object or a phenomenon.

When I walk through the forest and see the trees and the birds, I know that they are good, I love the forest for it’s beauty and serenity. The forest is God’s creation, and it is good.
When I see the fox catch the rabbit, it is neither good nor evil, but necessary for things to function. It may be unfortunate for that particular rabbit but is particularly necessary for the fox.
Click to expand...
Maybe it’s just me, but in reading your response I hate the physical world all the more.

Where in th bible does it say that we are to ‘like’ the natural world?
 
Robert_Sock said:
Who says Christ is the physical embodiment of the Father as He is seated in Heaven?
Click to expand...
Robert, he was assumed into Heaven in full body. Part of our very creed is that we believe in the resurrection of the body!
 
Ophelia23 said:
Robert, he was assumed into Heaven in full body. Part of our very creed is that we believe in the resurrection of the body!
Click to expand...
He had a glorified body that was able to walk through locked doors. Does that sound natural?
 
Robert_Sock said:
He had a glorified body that was able to walk through locked doors. Does that sound natural?
Click to expand...
Wait, are you now also arguing against the resurrection of the body as well? I am sorry, but your theology is not in accordance with the Catholic Church. Are you more wise, more insightful on the true nature of things than the most holy Church?
 
Ophelia23 said:
Wait, are you now also arguing against the resurrection of the body as well? I am sorry, but your theology is not in accordance with the Catholic Church. Are you more wise, more insightful on the true nature of things than the most holy Church?
Click to expand...
Are you denying that with Christ’s glorified body He was able to walk through closed doors? Please answer.

Also, with the glorified body, was the total lack of sickness, which is found in the natural world. In short, Christ’s glorified was anything but natural as we know it in this world.
 
Robert_Sock said:
Are you denying that with Christ’s glorified body He was able to walk through closed doors? Please answer.

Also, with the glorified body, was the total lack of sickness, which is found in the natural world. In short, Christ’s glorified was anything but natural as we know it in this world.
Click to expand...
Exactly, anything but natural as we know in this world. You are trying to separate the natural from the supernatural in a way God did not intend. He combined the two together. I am not removing the supernatural from Christ, because it is an irremovable aspect of Him. He is both man (natural) and Divine (supernatural). You can not love one without the other.

Surely I am not disagreeing that Christ was able to walk through locked doors. I am also not going to place him into this tiny compartmentalized box that says He is either all natural or all supernatural, when the very mystery of Christ’s divinity is the combination of man and divine.
 
Robert_Sock said:
Are you denying that with Christ’s glorified body He was able to walk through closed doors? Please answer.

Also, with the glorified body, was the total lack of sickness, which is found in the natural world. In short, Christ’s glorified was anything but natural as we know it in this world.
Click to expand...
OP, this is from the Catechism
God creates an ordered and good world

299 Because God creates through wisdom, his creation is ordered: "You have arranged all things by measure and number and weight."151 The universe, created in and by the eternal Word, the “image of the invisible God”, is destined for and addressed to man, himself created in the “image of God” and called to a personal relationship with God.152 Our human understanding, which shares in the light of the divine intellect, can understand what God tells us by means of his creation, though not without great effort and only in a spirit of humility and respect before the Creator and his work.153 Because creation comes forth from God’s goodness, it shares in that goodness - "and God saw that it was good. . . very good"154- for God willed creation as a gift addressed to man, an inheritance destined for and entrusted to him. On many occasions the Church has had to defend the goodness of creation, including that of the physical world.155
Click to expand...
Catholicism teaches that the created physical world is good. This is not negotiable.

ETA: Here is the link, in case you want to check for yourself:

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P19.HTM
 
thewanderer said:
OP, this is from the Catechism

Catholicism teaches that the created physical world is good. This is not negotiable.
Click to expand...
Again, I refer to my reference (response #3) from the Jewish encyclopedia to argue that the term ‘very good’ is qualitatively different from ‘good.’ Who says that it’s non-negotiable just because it’s in the CCC?
 
Robert_Sock said:
Again, I refer to my reference (response #3) from the Jewish encyclopedia to argue that the term ‘very good’ is qualitatively different from ‘good.’ Who says that it’s non-negotiable just because it’s in the CCC?
Click to expand...
So you think that we should ignore the Catholic Church’s official teaching and instead follow a Jewish teaching? How does that make any sense??

The people who wrote the Catechism are expert theologians, I find it hard to believe that they are unaware of this Jewish interpretation, but they have explicitly rejected it. Like I said, this is a non-negotiable for a Catholic. 🤷
 
Robert_Sock said:
Again, I refer to my reference (response #3) from the Jewish encyclopedia to argue that the term ‘very good’ is qualitatively different from ‘good.’ Who says that it’s non-negotiable just because it’s in the CCC?
Click to expand...
…Robert, the CCC is the official doctrinal teaching of the Catholic Church. Perhaps you are not understanding that?
 
thewanderer said:
The CCC is the official compilation of Catholic teaching. There is nothing more official or non-negotiable than the Catechism. :cool:
Click to expand...
You’re not answering my question, namely, where does it state that the CCC is non-negotiable? You would think that something so important would be openly stated if true.
 
Robert_Sock said:
You’re not answering my question, namely, where does it state that the CCC is non-negotiable? You would think that something so important would be openly stated if true.
Click to expand...
First tell me what sort of source would be sufficient to convince you? ie, what sort of source do you consider non-negotiable?
 
thewanderer said:
First tell me what sort of source would be sufficient to convince you? ie, what sort of source do you consider non-negotiable?
Click to expand...
Papal infallibility that results in Church teachings. The CCC was never meant to be infallible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top