Nature, Reflection of God's Mercy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimR-OCDS
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JimR-OCDS

Guest
Yes, nature is beautiful and reflects God’s greatness.
That is, until you witness a pack of lions attacking a wilder beast, or a baby elephant, and her the pathetic creature cry for its life.

OK, we as humans suffer because original sin separated us from God. But what about the animals?

Jim
 
Yes, nature is beautiful and reflects God’s greatness.
That is, until you witness a pack of lions attacking a wilder beast, or a baby elephant, and her the pathetic creature cry for its life.

OK, we as humans suffer because original sin separated us from God. But what about the animals?

Jim
Yes I believe that they do suffer as a result and the animal world and the entire world is disordered because of man’s sin. That is why I apologised to my animals.

I believe that they still worship and praise God as they are, but they suffer the effects of our sin in their being physically, in their minds and spirit and in the disorder that is in the world and in the brokeness of their relationship with the natural world and with man through no fault of their own.

Man’s stewardship is no small deal!
 
Yes, nature is beautiful and reflects God’s greatness.
That is, until you witness a pack of lions attacking a wilder beast, or a baby elephant, and her the pathetic creature cry for its life.
Watch out, Jim, for Darwin used the very same situation (only involving beetles) to jump start Evolutionism, in contrast to his theory, an ideology to replace the Judeo-Christian worldview.

IMHO, looking at this example in an anthropocentric way is incorrect. Animals have no immortal souls, just what Scholastics called appropriately “animal souls” (accordingly plants would have “vegetative souls”). Therefore, their death is just a little more than the shattering of a rock.

Now, similarly, one could wonder how an abortion reflects God’s greatness and question the relationship of God with His creation and with man and even His existence. But just like man brought sin to the world, of which abortion is the epitome, man’s sin brought disorder to the whole creation, as others have already said. When the man to whom creation was entrusted became corrupt, the foundation of creation was cracked and we now see the cracks, sometimes in the apparent cruelty among animals, but also in storms, hurricanes, earthquakes and other catastrophes which inflict loss of lives, matter animated by God’s will.

So, when you watch such a situation on the Animal Planet channel, beat on you chest saying, “mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.”

:blessyou:
 
Watch out, Jim, for Darwin used the very same situation (only involving beetles) to jump start Evolutionism, in contrast to his theory, an ideology to replace the Judeo-Christian worldview.

IMHO, looking at this example in an anthropocentric way is incorrect. Animals have no immortal souls, just what Scholastics called appropriately “animal souls” (accordingly plants would have “vegetative souls”). Therefore, their death is just a little more than the shattering of a rock.

Now, similarly, one could wonder how an abortion reflects God’s greatness and question the relationship of God with His creation and with man and even His existence. But just like man brought sin to the world, of which abortion is the epitome, man’s sin brought disorder to the whole creation, as others have already said. When the man to whom creation was entrusted became corrupt, the foundation of creation was cracked and we now see the cracks, sometimes in the apparent cruelty among animals, but also in storms, hurricanes, earthquakes and other catastrophes which inflict loss of lives, matter animated by God’s will.

So, when you watch such a situation on the Animal Planet channel, beat on you chest saying, “mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.”

:blessyou:
The Catholic Church has no problem with the theory of evolution, as long as the theory does not replace God as the source of all creation.

Also, from what I’ve learned about Darwin,(watching National Geographic), there is nothing that he wrote about that contradicts church teaching. Most of what we know, comes from his staunch critics within the fundamentalist community and you know how they interpret Catholicism, so you can imagine how they interpret Darwin.

But that’s really another subject, and not what I intended here.

I’m looking at God’s creation in relation to original sin and it’s consequence, and how animals fit in to this so called punishment?

Peace
Jim
 
The Catholic Church has no problem with the theory of evolution, as long as the theory does not replace God as the source of all creation.
It seems to me that you misread my post. One thing is the theory of evolution, quite another is the ideology of Evolutionism (condemned by the Church then and now), put forth firstly by no one other than Darwin himself, starting in his On The Origin of Species and other writings, particularly in newspapers of his time.

:blessyou:
 
The problem of evil and suffering in the natural world is not an easy one to address theologically. Before Darwin, Western Christian thought had a fairly static view of the world and the universe; everything was created by God to occupy a certain heirarchy in the universe and to stay at that level, though while increasing in perfection by participating in God’s goodness.

After Darwin, and also because of other findings in science, nature instead has turned out to be far more dynamic and process driven. Because of this philosophers and theologians are becoming aware of the importance of change as a classical problem and are re-thinking traditional ideas about the universe, nature, and God.

To a Christian however, it is unacceptable to claim the created cosmos is evil. This is heretical from the viewpoint of Orthodoxy. So, Asiatic religions or philosophies which pick up on the truth of the fundamental nature of change in the created universe (such as Buddhism) but then conclude it is a rather bleak and negative place to be escaped, is not necessarily a solution the Christian can accept.

Another viewpoint is to see the difference between the uncreated and the created, or between the creator and the creature. Only God is uncreated, and in this sense, only God’s nature or Being does not change in the sense it is temporal or increases or decreases in time, or distintegrates into parts. This is because one of the properties of God’s nature is that it does not admit of change as physical beings in the world change. However, whatever is created is subject to time and hence to change, and what can change (as Gregory of Nyssa perhaps first clearly explained) can decay.

Now science seems to suggest that change and decay are built into the fabric of the universe by certain laws. I think it is acceptable from a Christian viewpoint to view this kind of change as positive and a part of God’s overall good creation, which when considered in its wholeness, is beautiful and good. However, Christianity also strongly affirms there is something wrong with creation in the sense humans were created to have a certain role in creation and also have a certain relationship with the creator, which has been broken and distorted badly by sin. St Maximus Confessor believed the original aim of God in creating mankind was to make a high priest who sums up the entire cosmos (as humans are made of the cosmic elements and subject to its laws but can also be in communion with their creator by means of the created image) but the fall ruptured this because man turned his back on God and on what the creator intended, and the effects of sin damaged not just mankind but also the Earth. Sin made us greedy and selfish and cut off from God whereas in the beginning, humans had been made to instead be focused on God and not on themselves and also to use the Earth’s resources responsibly.

Christ in the incarnation comes to restore mankind’s original state by removing sin and by sanctifying fallen humanity through redeeming grace. While human beings do not have all the negative effects of sin removed from creation, those in Christ do get back what Adam lost through sin, and once more man is in harmony with the universe, and with God, though individually creatures will still suffer. However, each creature is in some way a mirror of the divine wisdom or logos which is always creating and sustaining the universe and even in its suffering, each creature fulfils its role in the cosmos as ordained by God, and overall it is still beautiful and a revelation of God’s beauty and majesty, and as such, very good.

In the eyes of faith then, the cosmos becomes a very beautiful symphony of God’s creativity and grace, even though from some parts it may seem to be flawed. But the flaws are not in creation itself, which was made good, but whatever evil exists comes from human sin and its distorting perversion of the relationships between human beings and creatures and between human beings and God as the creator orginally intended.
 
One thing is the theory of evolution, quite another is the ideology of Evolutionism (condemned by the Church then and now), put forth firstly by no one other than Darwin himself
Could you explain what you mean by the term Evolutionism?

As for Jim’s first question, no I don’t think Nature is a reflection of God’s mercy - at least not always. Nature is something we have to rise above. It has good mixed with not-good.

As for the suffering of animals, perhaps it is meant as a reminder of what we are to rise above. This means caring for one another, especially in times of suffering.
 
Could you explain what you mean by the term Evolutionism?
Note that I used the terms “ideology of Evolutionism”, which I could try to describe as a materialistic view of the world which excludes God. As an illustration, let me quote Darwin from memory: “How can anyone say that there’s a God when we observe a wasp laying eggs on a spider that will be devoured later by the larvae?” His answer was that there’s indeed no God, that we are mere animals, not different from the wasp or form the spider, and that therefore there’s no reason for to think of ourselves anymore than that.

It’s easy to understand then where PETA is coming from with its advocacy for human rights to animals or Dawkins’ latest diatribes .

The theory of evolution along with genetic mutations is a pretty good explanation for the variation and sometimes specialization of certain species to their environment. However, the limits of a theory are reckoned in the real world by the confirmation of its predictions. Well, the theory of evolution predicts that one species can evolve into another, but this has not been proven so. In fact, the evidence points otherwise, but it’s either ignored by scientists or dishonestly covered up.

:blessyou:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top