J
JMMJ
Guest
Snark, friend.I literally quoted the Church’s teaching, and it’s not what you claim it is. But hey, maybe psychology has taught you differently
Snark, friend.I literally quoted the Church’s teaching, and it’s not what you claim it is. But hey, maybe psychology has taught you differently
One paragraph doesn’t portray what the Church teaches, as much as you would like that to be the case.Ahh, but if you only would accurately represent what Catholic theology teaches, you’d be so further ahead in the game!
Thank you very much for making it clear to me!!!Actually, that would be the creation narratives (Genesis 1 and 2), not the “Fall of Man” narrative (Genesis 3).
My conclusion is that you’re overly sensitive to the teaching. To-may-to, to-mah-to.If you don’t understand, then you have been sheltered. At least that is the conclusion I am coming to.
Pretty much the same thing. I get it that it makes you unhappy, though.In the link, in the first paragraph, original sin is referred to as a “hereditary stain”. Not exactly the same as saying we aren’t born perfect.
So God made them to suffer, in their billions of billions, for no reason?Probably, animals were not condemned by God and they don’t suffer as a result of original sin
Well here is what I can tell you. The Church’s stance is that we come into this world needing to be “fixed”, via baptism.Pretty much the same thing. I get it that it makes you unhappy, though.
No, the Church does not teach that, and I have never said it does. This is my personal interpretation of the teachings of the Church and I think that such interpretation is perfectly compatible with the teachings of the Church.Mmarco:![]()
I don’t think the Church teaches this.In fact, every time a child disoebeys his parents, he is unconsciously rebelling against God.
I totally disagree with your statements above; childhood rebellion against parents is by no means necessary. Of course, when we grow up, we may disagree with our parents and have arguments with them. But I referred to small children who disobey their parents, for example, when they teach them not to do something because it is dangerous and they do it the same. Actually, this happened to me when I was a child; I climbed on a rock even if I was told many times not to do it, I fell and broke my head. I think that experience taught me a lot about the original sin.It is a harmful concept. Childhood rebellion against parents is a natural and necessary part of human development so we can grow into self-sufficient adults who can think for themselves.
The consequences of the first mortal sins of Adam and Eve (called the fall) means that the descendants were deprived at conception of what would have been passed on to their children:FiveLinden:![]()
I don’t think was God who determined the consequences of Original Sin. At least, this is the first time I see someone suggesting it.But how could an all-loving God do this, since he determined the consequences of original sin?
I think the most that God did was to tolerate the inherent consequences of the Original Sin, when he could have prevented those consequences. Sometimes, divine intervention is not good because greater goods will be lost, so God does nothing.
See Catholic Encyclopedia on evil:Wow. So how does his explain the suffering of a mouse caught by a cat?
The point is that you are simply anthropomorphizing the mouse and attributing to it psychical experience (such as pain) similar to ours. You cannot prove that animals really feels something similar to our sensations, nor that they have any kind of consciousness. You are asking an explanation for something you cannot prove that it really exists.Wow. So how does his explain the suffering of a mouse caught by a cat?
The is a substantial literature on the suffering of non-human animals. You can Google it. There is no doubt that they experience pain and suffering.The point is that you are simply anthropomorphizing the mouse and attributing to it psychical experience (such as pain) similar to ours. You cannot prove that animals really feels something similar to our sensations, nor that they have any kind of consciousness. You are asking an explanation for something you cannot prove that it really exists.
There is literature written by people who assume that animals feel suffering. You must learn the difference between an assuption and a proved fact.Mmarco:![]()
The is a substantial literature on the suffering of non-human animals. You can Google it. There is no doubt that they experience pain and suffering.The point is that you are simply anthropomorphizing the mouse and attributing to it psychical experience (such as pain) similar to ours. You cannot prove that animals really feels something similar to our sensations, nor that they have any kind of consciousness. You are asking an explanation for something you cannot prove that it really exists.
Push that logic far enough and you end up at solipsism.You cannot prove that animals really feels something similar to our sensations, nor that they have any kind of consciousness. You are asking an explanation for something you cannot prove that it really exists.
All that you’re really doing by asserting that animals don’t suffer is making the opposite assumption than the researchers made. That doesn’t seem logical nor compassionate. So rather than assuming that animals don’t suffer, why don’t we do the compassionate thing and assume that they do?There is literature written by people who assume that animals feel suffering. You must learn the difference between an assuption and a proved fact.
Ahh, but baptism doesn’t “fix” you, as such – you’re confusing Catholic theology with Protestant “once saved, always saved” theology.The Church’s stance is that we come into this world needing to be “fixed”, via baptism.
My gut feel is that you’re projecting your own feelings on others. Just a guess, though.It is a teaching that causes a lot of harm to many.
If a Catholic is talking about religious beliefs, then the default understanding is “as a Catholic, I believe” (until it’s evident that they’re asserting their own faith and not Catholic faith. So, I’m not seeing where that preface is necessary.It is about being truthful, in my opinion.
The truth is… we’re not perfect. We tend to be short-sighted, irrational, and we get sick and will die. That’s truth, and “you’re perfect and don’t you worry about a thing” isn’t.It is about being truthful, in my opinion.
But was that God’s original intent…that we be perfect from the outset? Isn’t it Catholic teaching that we’re on a journey to perfection, or some such thing. In which case, isn’t this exactly what God intended. And if it’s exactly what God intended, then isn’t it perfect…suffering, death and all?The truth is… we’re not perfect. We tend to be short-sighted, irrational, and we get sick and will die. That’s truth , and “you’re perfect and don’t you worry about a thing” isn’t.
I think this might come close to judging G-d.For the animals as well, or only for us humans? If only the latter, this seems to me so selfish.
Compassion has nothing to do with the present issue; according to your logics, the assumtion that rocks don’t suffer would not be compassionate.Mmarco:![]()
All that you’re really doing by asserting that animals don’t suffer is making the opposite assumption than the researchers made. That doesn’t seem logical nor compassionate.There is literature written by people who assume that animals feel suffering. You must learn the difference between an assuption and a proved fact.