Who says that an “interference” is needed? The old proverb: “an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure” is still valid and wise. There is no need to interfere at all, as long as God uses his “omniscience” and simply does not create those who would do “evil”. (Of course it is a different problem to decide what is “evil”).
Good people can be allowed to behave as freely as they wish. Only “bad” people need to be filtered out. Soooo very simple.
Through my intellect, Tyrion.
Clearly you did miss it.
Is this something from the annals of what may be heard in a pediatrician’s office after a bratty 5 year old gets his shots and screams, “I hate you!” to his daddy?
God is Love. That is the only adequate definition that has ever been advanced. Some, at this point, wave their hands away and exit the discussion. I see that as unspeakably sad, unless they already know God as Love.
You seem to be both advocating and rejecting God’s arrangement in Genesis, in the same breath. You say, “the amount of freedom must be very seriously curtailed, to allow learning, but no irreversible harm.” God placed the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the center of the Garden and commanded, “do not touch it.” That was a very serious curtailing of Adam and Eve’s freedom, allowing learning but no irreversible harm. Your analogy to the snake and the five year old kid lacks. I know you think it is clever, but it is designed to fail in the specific ways in which it is unlike God’s original arrangement.
I have encountered a similar argument elsewhere. Which of the following two alternatives would you suggest?
? Have you never heard that there is a Judgment to come?
Well, it is God doing the deciding, right? And God is infinitely holy. Therefore any wrongdoing at all is “evil,” and in strict Judgment, has got to go.
Funny. So “rape, torture, mutilation” happens to the victim for their own good?
Kicking them out of the Garden, and condemning their descendants to suffering was very much irreversible harm.
Except that injustice happens to just people.
No, but neither is the pain suffered by the child getting a needle for their own good. It is an unintended and undesirable consequence of the vaccination. The good is the health of the child who will not be susceptible to getting the full fledged disease as a result of the painful vaccine.
Actually, the irreversible harm occurred prior to expulsion from the garden. The story of Eden, if anything, implies that evil exists as the result of willed intent. The willful act precedes and creates the consequences. The irreversible harm was done by and to Adam and Eve’s wills by their choice. Expulsion was not the harm but the result of it.
That is not “common” sense. What you say is that God is a lousy teacher, who could not explain such a simple thing as “cause and effect”. Besides he could simply fill us up with the proper knowledge.
Along with everyone else.Clearly you did miss it.
The fact that you keep equating an immunization with being raped, tortured and slaughtered only shows that you are unable or unwilling to face reality, and cling to you blind faith.
I most certainly do NOT. First, that “daddy” failed the child with a simple explanation (fit to the age of the kid). He acts as an uncaring person. Second, the method of immunization does not have to be even mildly painful. Third, an immunization shot is NOT the same as rape, torture and murder… not even analogically. Though there is something positive to be said about that dad. At the very least he is THERE, hopefully comforting that child. God fails to do even that…
Exactly as the “LD” commanded: “do not touch the snakes”.
Clearly, not enough. If the “LD” does not really care if the child will obey or not, then he is not a “loving” parent. Let’s use a real life scenario, not just an analogy. A really loving parent does not leave pieces of wire around, and does not simply command: “do not stick those wires into a live jacket”… he makes those jackets totally and completely inaccessible to the child.
That so-called “spiritual death” (whatever it may be) looks like an irreversible harm.
Where does it lack? Criticism is fine, but let’s see the deatils.
Heard, yes. Accept it, no. And an ounce of prevention is STILL better than a pound of cure…
According to my - very high - standards, yes. I never hurt anyone knowingly, I always helped those I could. As a matter of fact many times I was “mistaken” for a christian, based upon my behavior, and when I revealed that I am NOT, people were seriously surprised. Obviously I did things that “SOME catholics” consider “evil”, but since “catholicism” is not an authority for me, my conscience is clear.
Then I would not know about, would I?
Nope. “Evil” is intentionally causing unnecessary harm to a being with a nervous system. That is the definition of “evil”, not a capricious decision of someone, whose attitude is “might makes right!”
If you are going to debate in a Catholic forum, then I would suggest conforming to the definitions of the Catholic Church. Evil is the “deprivation of good.” What you are describing is unnecessary suffering.
Why? It is exactly the basic definitions that I disagree with.
Let’s use the same principle as it is being used in court. If one can decide beyond any reasonable doubt that a certain instance of suffering is unnecessary - then it IS unnecessary. Is it possible that we err in that judgment? Yes, and in that case one must have the intellectual honesty to admit the error. As soon as God comes and explains, or a very smart and knowledgable apologist can point out the error, I am ready to “eat crow”. But until that… nope!
I like the charming image of the chick which chooses to be stay in its own stench!An assertion based on the false assumption that it is never necessary to choose the lesser of two evils: in this case persons **capable **of love rather than zombies **incapable **of love…