O
o_mlly
Guest
Really? Repeating emotive language in an effort to support a wrongheaded idea about lion kills and animal suffering just will not do. Lions suffocate large and small prey prior to feeding.
- Status
G
goout
Guest
Then why is it an issue?goout:
As to the question, that’s something you’ll need to take up with Onesheep. He says there are net positives.Freddy:
Why would being torn apart for food cause long term benefits?OneSheep:
Glad we agree on that. Now maybe you can give us the long term benefits of being torn apart for food.
Evil does not cause good.
As to the statement, lions killing antelopes isn’t evil. There needs to be ‘evil intent’. That is, the lion must want the antelope to suffer. It obviously could care less.
Why are you disputing a non-issue?
F
Freddy
Guest
There is no dispute. The requirement is for an explanation.Freddy:
Then why is it an issue?goout:
As to the question, that’s something you’ll need to take up with Onesheep. He says there are net positives.Freddy:
Why would being torn apart for food cause long term benefits?OneSheep:
Glad we agree on that. Now maybe you can give us the long term benefits of being torn apart for food.
Evil does not cause good.
As to the statement, lions killing antelopes isn’t evil. There needs to be ‘evil intent’. That is, the lion must want the antelope to suffer. It obviously could care less.
Why are you disputing a non-issue?
O
o_mlly
Guest
Histrionics? The procedure does tear the living child to pieces. Fred’s lion does not tear the living animal to pieces.
In your imaginary world you will do whatever limits your pain and maximizes your pleasure even to the point of killing your own children. Of course, those who have the morals of a rodent will not be taken seriously in this forum.
O
OneSheep
Guest
I’m not sure what more there is to explain from what I said already. From our spiritual lives we can come to know a God who loves completely and unconditionally. That said, violence happens; both between people and in nature as a whole. If one believes in a beneficent God, then one is aware that there are some contradictions, but those contradictions have to do with my own limited point of view. As it stands, there is beauty and goodness to be seen in all of it, even though some occurrences are gut-wrenchingly awful to observe.
So, let’s look at premise 2 listed in the OP:
Evil does occur, but it does not exist. What does exist is that lions and humans have the innate capacity to do harm to others (as do bacteria, and arguably most, if not all, species on earth). I think a great question to ask is, “Am I part of the reduction of violence in the world, the violence that I can effect, in order to create a place of greater peace and harmony?” For a person of faith, one has to be patient with the fact that such harmony happens very slowly, and often looks like things are going backward, but there is a net-positive in growth toward the “Kingdom” we talk about.
Can you accept your own capacity for violence? Note: you are not required to answer that question.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Those who are insulted by what I posted, should be. See John 18:23.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Probably shouldn’t; some are not ready for Christ, yet.
What you should consider is not hijacking the thread to abortion. Or butt in on post’s about Fred’s misdirected animal sympathies.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Beg harder.
N
Neithan
Guest
Does God have to love everyone and everything equally or in the same way?
N
Neithan
Guest
So then as noted earlier it looks like there is a problem with Assumption 1c.
It’s clear that not everything God creates is perfect; so likewise “perfectly loving” looks suspect. Not everything is perfectly lovable; actually, only God is.
It’s clear that not everything God creates is perfect; so likewise “perfectly loving” looks suspect. Not everything is perfectly lovable; actually, only God is.
Last edited:
V
Vico
Guest
A person can choose not to be saved, even though the Holy Trinity grants grace for conversion.Vico:
But this argument is contrary to Christianity, which maintains that God has intervened in human affairs throughout history (the most obvious being sending Jesus).
You cannot claim God allows evil so that we have free will if God intervenes at times He wants to.
That is the essence of the problem. You can say God allows evil so that we have free will.
But then he gets involved anyway. If he is willing to get involved sometimes, why not all the time?
That implies God is not all-loving, as he decides who and when to help.
In fact it is Catholic dogma that the Holy Trinity permits evil and also desires the salvation of all.
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott:
- Despite men’s sins God truly and earnestly desires the salvation of all man. (sent. fidei proxima.) page 239
- God gives all the just sufficient grace (gratia proxime vel remote sufliciens) for tile observation of the Divine Commandments. (De fide.) page 240
- God gives all innocent unbelievers (infideles negativi) sufficient grace to achieve eternal salvation. (sent. certa.) page 241
- God, by an Eternal Resolve of His will, predestines certain men, on account of their foreseen sins, to eternal rejection. (De fide.) page 245
- The Human Will remains free under the influence of efficacious grace, which is not irresistible. (De fide.) page 246
V
Vico
Guest
Desire and will are different, so since there is the desire the Holy Trinity gives the help of graces through will, however a human could not be given the Beatific Vision since charity cannot be forced – it must be free, so it remains a desire only, for the Holy Trinity. The free will of creatures, in moral matters, allows for the expression of charity or malice. Though the expression of charity comes
How?: through willful cooperation with that grace so that there is a state of friendship with the Holy Trinity at the moment of the end of one’s life.
Last edited:
M
MPat
Guest
Well, are you going to say that looting would not be ended if there were no one left to loot, and also nothing to loot? Or that police brutality would not be ended, if all policemen and all suspects would be dead?
Yes, it is hard to deny that a nuclear strike would “solve” those problems. Yet it is pretty clear that it would be a very bad idea (to put it mildly).
The argument cited in the original post does not seem to mention the word “proportionate” or anything like it.
If you want to justify your chosen pseudonym by constructing a new and better argument, feel free to do that yourself.
It is not our job to make arguments for you.
Um, as a precaution, have you made sure you would not be classified among those evil-doers yourself…? For you do not say so explicitly…
What else is going to be in that list of evil deeds? Let’s investigate!
You know, by an interesting coincidence user “Abrosz” happened to express similar thoughts in this thread…
So, that gives me a pretext to ask: would you say that insults also belong to that list of evil deeds? Would you still say that “overwhelming majority does not want” to do anything on the list…?
And, since that user referred to rules of the forum, how about other violations of those rules? For example, what about being disrespectful to Catholic faith? Or use of multiple accounts?
Once we list the rest of evil deeds, are you sure “overwhelming majority” would be found completely innocent? Not even tempted to perform them…?
For that matter, have you considered offering some evidence to support your view about that “overwhelming majority”…?
Last edited:
V
Vico
Guest
A guided tour on heaven and hell would not be possible, for they are states which are permanent. If one were created in a so called heaven without election of it, then it would not be a state with the Beatific Vision, therefore the Holy Trinity would not be able to share the divine nature through adoption.Vico:
I doubt this, but let it be your way. I would not mind to have been created directly into heaven and bypass this vale of tears. However, a guided tour on heaven and hell would only give pertinent information, which one would choose.
This is not informative. How does that willful cooperation manifest itself for an explicit atheist, who has heard the teaching, but does not accept it, because he finds it incoherent?
Conversion is through actual grace.
The Nature of Actual Grace (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, page 225)
- Actual Grace internally and directly enlightens the understanding and strengthens the will. (Sent. certa.)
- There is a supernatural intervention of God in the faculties of the soul, which precedes the free act of the will. (De fide.)
- There is a supernatural influence of God in the faculties of the soul which coincides in time with man’s free act of will. (De fide.)
Last edited:
M
Magnanimity
Guest
These are great replies, Freddy. I enjoyed reading them. What I was trying to suggest to you earlier when I claimed that evil is a problem for you, as it is for everyone is that some years ago I realized that “good and evil” themselves both transcend and cross many boundaries of disciplines. Of course, most folks naturally see tie-in’s with good and evil and theology and ethics. But, it seems we could hardly stop there. As Wesrock shows within this thread, it bleeds over into metaphysics. But, is that the end of it? How about politics, jurisprudence, economics? And the social sciences? Do psychology and sociology have nothing to contribute to these discussions? It seems they invariably do. Whatever your interests and background, whatever are your religious leanings, good and evil are a problem for you–not to be waved away due to your lack of religious commitments, since the concepts transcend the merely religious.
As I’ve noted within these recent threads on the problem of evil, the Boxing Day tsunami reportedly killed 227,898 people. None of us escapes our rather natural repulsion at such events by renaming them “natural disasters” as opposed to “acts of God.” That renaming only refers to the perspective of the writer, not the event itself. And, more to the point, what I’m after in all of this, and why I’m convinced that good and evil are problems for theists, atheists, pantheists and everything besides is that our existential reaction to these events is the problem. Whenever we perceive such events, such “natural evils” of enormous magnitude, we cannot escape the “why?” and “how could this happen?” questions. No one teaches us to ask these questions, just as no one teaches us to be compelled by the beautiful sunset. Our phenomenological/existential reactions to both good and evil (or beauty and ugliness) are innate to the human community, so far as anyone can tell.
Precisely. Very well put and right on point. I would only urge you to resist perceiving the Christian theist in a facile way. For all you know, she reads the early chapters of Genesis as deep insights into the entire nature of reality, the whole cosmos, obviously focusing on god(s) and humanity but putting unique emphasis on the human relation to animals–insight into the human condition. For all you know, the Christian theist is well aware that the opening chapters of Genesis is not some just-so, history of how the snake lost its feet. And, this of course has nothing to do with Modernity. Allegorical, spiritual readings of sacred writings are the most ancient within Christendom. After all, Origen (c. 184 – c. 253) the father of all eastern church fathers, acknowledged that anyone attempting to read the early chapters of Genesis as if they are actual history is a fool.
Last edited:
V
Vico
Guest
Yes, powerless to allow a “sneak preview” of the Beatific Vision – a logical impossibility.
Those crimes of the heart, the innermost being. A conversion is needed (at least baptism of desire).
Catechism of the Catholic Church
Last edited:
M
Magnanimity
Guest
I assume that you accept the common theistic distinction between “moral evil” and “natural evil,” although you tend to resist calling the latter category “evils.” Just so you know, I tend to downplay the former category and see the latter as truly the problem for all folks. Why? Well, what explains Hitler and Mother Teresa, as in, what accounts for their coming to be the way that they are? Someone inclined to place enormous emphasis on moral goodness tends to look no further than the individuals themselves for the explanation of the vicious villain and the virtuous hero. But, in the life of every person that I have gotten to know deeply and intimately, I have always come to see that what helped to make them who they all are goes far beyond the individuals themselves. In some sense, they’re all products of their respective communities, innate drives, etc.
That’s not to say that I deny free-will altogether, it’s only to say that I want to put it in its proper (extremely limited) place. Which pretty much just leaves us with nature. But, we react to nature–that’s the bizarre puzzle. We are repulsed by Hitler and drawn to heroic virtue (Mother Teresa). Why would that be? Why doesn’t Hitler become for us no more than the greatest Lion on the safari devouring all the little antelopes? Isn’t Hitler part of the “natural process?” He’s not a greek god transcending and outside of nature, he’s a part of nature. Right? Goodness compels us and evil repulses us (yes, even the various “natural evils” like ones you’ve pointed out here–an animal being eaten alive). We are repulsed, disgusted. Something about the event strikes us as less-than-the-best. I’m just trying to key in on our common reactions and see where that might lead us. So, I completely sympathize with:
I’m just not sure you’re ready to acknowledge that all these issues are a problem for us all, all humanity, irrespective of your religious beliefs. In a way, your existential reaction to watching the antelope get torn into is akin to the opening chapters of Genesis. The fundamental truth expressed in both is that there seems to be something seriously wrong with this world. It’s just bad enough to make us shake our heads at it, though just good enough for us to stick around and try to make it better. In this way, I think the theist and atheist can come to a common jumping off point. After all, if we’re not looking for some areas of agreement here, what are we really doing?
His profundity is deep! I’m glad you found that bit to be insightful.
H
Hume
Guest
Then you need to seriously work on how to shorten it for forum purposes.
No one, often not even the guy you’re replying to, reads super-duper mega power-posts. They get scrolled right over. Use the TL;DR format.
“But my concept requires oceans of text to explain!”
No it doesn’t. Typically, the more words someone needs to describe something, the less they themselves know about it.
H
Hume
Guest
Well, Vico’s done it. Found a rock too heavy for God to lift.
H
Hume
Guest
I think the vast majority of things “wrong with the world” are attributable to people.
The lion eating the antelope is simply nature running its course. You see, the lion is a predator by design. It hungers and suffers if it doesn’t find something to kill and eat.
If lions weren’t originally “designed” by God to do that, why on earth do they have the teeth and claws perfect for the job?
“There’s something seriously wrong with this world.” This is just another case of seeing what you want to see.
- Status