Natural Evil

[tonyrey]

That is the philosophy of animalism … we are just another animal.

“What use is it to us to hear it said of a man that he has thrown off the yoke, that he does not believe there is a God to watch over his actions, that he reckons himself the sole master of his behavior, and that he does not intend to give an account of it to anyone but himself? … Do such men think that they have delighted us by telling us that they hold our souls to be nothing but a little wind and smoke – and by saying it in conceited and complacent tones? Is that a thing to say blithely? Is it not rather a thing to say sadly – as if it were the saddest thing in the world?” Blaise Pascal

It’s soul-destroying in every sense of the term. Nature isn’t evil per se but nature without supernature is definitely meaningless in many respects.

 

[inocente]

Only Fundamentalists interpret every statement on the Old Testament literally.

The Church teaches that “In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current”. That’s how we do it too, and I’ve been citing commentaries from scholars whereas, well, you haven’t. The CCC also refers to the unity of scripture, and to interpreting it in the Spirit as “the living memorial of God’s Word”. Whereas the fundamentalist gives his own interpretation more authority then the authors themselves. In post #213 you actually seemed to write off Isaiah by saying he “was a prophet not a theologian”.

The fundamentalist is a sectarian. In that same post you brought up sola scriptura out of the blue, as if it’s at all relevant and you have authority from the Church for your views. I know you don’t because in #218 Kevin Gore LC says the “Church does not officially adopt any particular philosophy” on this, and “Each answer therefore must stand on its own two legs”. We’re all in the same boat here, to mix metaphors.

The fundamentalist is certain he is right. You’re shown no doubt at all about your opinion, even though other Catholics have expressed a variety of other views, while I’ve said I don’t know the answer and it’s always been a puzzle to me.

The OED says modern Christian fundamentalism is associated with creationism and reaction against liberalism, neither of which apply to me. Indeed in the past some right-wing creationist posters have insinuated I’m really an atheist in drag because I don’t subscribe to Donald Trump or invented religions such as that one called Design with a capital D.

I’m laboring this point not to say you are a fundamentalist, just that it might be better to stick to the subject.

*Everything that happens is the ultimate not the direct will of God - a very significant distinction.

Since we are made in the image of God we participate in His power and are responsible for our choices, decisions and behaviour.

Life without any challenges leaves no room for unselfish love, compassion and self-sacrifice - which would make the teaching of Jesus superfluous.*

On another thread someone tried to argue that evil is necessary for the existence of virtue. But that doesn’t apply in either the Garden or the Kingdom, where we can be virtuous without evil, so imho that logic is also flawed, evil is never a necessity.

Then your life would have been poorer in that respect. It’s easy to be a friend when we are not challenged in any way. Being on earth does have its advantages in spite of its drawbacks. We can’t have everything for nothing… What would we think ofJesus if He had been born in a five-star hotel?

I thought Grace is everything for nothing, the Gift to the undeserving, and you’d have to enlighten me about the advantages which go with the drawback of yet another child dying from diarrhea every minute of every day.

 

[tonyrey]

The Church teaches that “In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current”. That’s how we do it too, and I’ve been citing commentaries from scholars whereas, well, you haven’t.

Scholars are fallible and often have an axe to grind, particularly if they have a reputation to uphold. Appeals to authority are not an adequate substitute for rational argument…

The CCC also refers to the unity of scripture, and to interpreting it in the Spirit as “the living memorial of God’s Word”. Whereas the fundamentalist gives his own interpretation more authority then the authors themselves. In post #213 you actually seemed to write off Isaiah by saying he “was a prophet not a theologian”.

In my view Isaiah was the greatest of the prophets and I would be the last person to write him off. It is not his fault if the statement “God creates woe/disaster” is taken to mean He creates woe and disaster with the express intention of punishing people and animals. He creates everything but natural evil is a side-effect which is not in the same category as happiness and development.

The fundamentalist is a sectarian. In that same post you brought up sola scriptura out of the blue, as if it’s at all relevant and you have authority from the Church for your views. I know you don’t because in #218 Kevin Gore LC says the “Church does not officially adopt any particular philosophy” on this, and “Each answer therefore must stand on its own two legs”. We’re all in the same boat here, to mix metaphors.

The Catechism is quite clear on the subject:

385 God is infinitely good and all his works are good. Yet no one can escape the experience of suffering or the evils in nature which seem to be linked to the limitations proper to creatures: and above all to the question of moral evil.

The fundamentalist is certain he is right. You’re shown no doubt at all about your opinion, even though other Catholics have expressed a variety of other views, while I’ve said I don’t know the answer and it’s always been a puzzle to me.

I have no doubt because:

1. Only God is perfect in every respect
2. No one has ever explained how a physical world could be a Utopia
3. That is the view of the Catechism

The OED says modern Christian fundamentalism is associated with creationism and reaction against liberalism, neither of which apply to me. Indeed in the past some right-wing creationist posters have insinuated I’m really an atheist in drag because I don’t subscribe to Donald Trump or invented religions such as that one called Design with a capital D.

I’m laboring this point not to say you are a fundamentalist, just that it might be better to stick to the subject.

Fundamentalists interpret every statement in the Old Testament literally - such as “God creates woe/disaster” which are natural evils and therefore not irrelevant.

On another thread someone tried to argue that evil is necessary for the existence of virtue. But that doesn’t apply in either the Garden or the Kingdom, where we can be virtuous without evil, so imho that logic is also flawed, evil is never a necessity.

Evil is certainly not necessary for all virtues but it is for compassion, courage, patience, fortitude, love (in this life) and self-sacrifice. Jesus told us that “There is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.”

I thought Grace is everything for nothing, the Gift to the undeserving, and you’d have to enlighten me about the advantages which go with the drawback of yet another child dying from diarrhea every minute of every day.

It is unreasonable to expect to have a physical world with no disadvantages. To assert that it is possible amounts to condemning God for permitting it without explaining how **all **disadvantages could be prevented. The onus is on the sceptic to do so…

 

[inocente]

Scholars are fallible and often have an axe to grind, particularly if they have a reputation to uphold. Appeals to authority are not an adequate substitute for rational argument.

Earlier you dismissed Isaiah as “a prophet not a theologian” and now you ignore theologians from different periods in history who all come to conclusions other than yours. You ignore what the CCC says about discovering “the sacred authors’ intention” but when the CCC appears to agree with you, you appeal to it as an authority.

In my view Isaiah was the greatest of the prophets and I would be the last person to write him off. It is not his fault if the statement “God creates woe/disaster” is taken to mean He creates woe and disaster with the express intention of punishing people and animals. He creates everything but natural evil is a side-effect which is not in the same category as happiness and development.

Yes, you keep saying that God is unable to overcome the “side effect”, in other words you keep confirming your opinion that God is not omnipotent.

The Catechism is quite clear on the subject:

As you yourself just said “Appeals to authority are not an adequate substitute for rational argument”.

*I have no doubt because:

1. Only God is perfect in every respect
2. No one has ever explained how a physical world could be a Utopia
3. That is the view of the Catechism *

1. It’s you who keeps saying God is not omnipotent.
2. Irrelevant, the discussion is not about absence of all suffering but about undeserved unjust suffering such as yet another small child dying every minute of every day from diarrhea.
3. Irrelevant - using your own criterion that it’s an appeal to authority.

Fundamentalists interpret every statement in the Old Testament literally - such as “God creates woe/disaster” which are natural evils and therefore not irrelevant.

Don’t know what you mean by “not irrelevant”. Reading what’s written isn’t fundamentalism. Look at the original Hebrew, then at translations of וּבוֹרֵ֣א. A modern Hebrew dictionary renders it as not just to create but also the Creator.

Doing our homework and being scholarly so as to find the the sacred authors’ intention, as the CCC, puts it, is not fundamentalism. If you think Isaiah is the greatest of the prophets then you could at least try to understand his intention instead of substituting your own.

Evil is certainly not necessary for all virtues but it is for compassion, courage, patience, fortitude, love (in this life) and self-sacrifice. Jesus told us that "There is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for one’s friends."

According to your strange logic it would seem it’s immoral to stop small children dying from diarrhea every minute of every day, since that would mean you could no longer feel compassion.

It is unreasonable to expect to have a physical world with no disadvantages. To assert that it is possible amounts to condemning God for permitting it without explaining how **all **disadvantages could be prevented. The onus is on the sceptic to do so.

It’s fairly easy to explain how we can prevent small children dying from diarrhea, and Christians traditionally do our best to remove all unnecessary suffering. Call us skeptics if you must, but I suspect we’ll continue to prevent as many “disadvantages” as we can.

And a happy New Year .