The great hallucination

[ffg]

Hi Picky,

Hope things are well.

So our next step with a Giving God is to figure out if he gives like a sibling, you know the ‘you can have my toy, until I snatch it back’. Or if the giving in creation is no strings attached.

You mentioned earlier with the subject of pain (and potentially getting to an understanding of it) that the discussions don’t really bear fruit. I think I’m seeing a possibility for one reason as to ‘why’, in evaluating our back and forth here. It kind of goes back to those apples.

When our analysis on one apple is to point out a second exists, we aren’t really digging into any fruit.

If there is a God, obviously he would be God of all creation, but his relationship with the cheetah might be different than his relationship with me.

If this would be the case, it could be a very important point.

Now obviously the Church teaches there is a difference, with this from the CCC -

‘2415 The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity.195 Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man’s dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.196 (226, 358, 373, 378)’

source: usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm

But, I think we could example to our hearts content differences without theology having to tell us humans use or tame plant and animal creation.

So though we have identified the two apples, if we are to dig into the value of suffering, I think we evaluate the human and God relationship before any other creation and God relationship. So that, when we get to the ‘other creation’ apple, we have a foundation from which to work.

So it’s a challenge to us to first stay on the human apple to the core.

Take care,

Mike

 

[Picky_Picky]

Hi Mike, good to hear from you.

First I should put down this marker: we seem to have gone from a position where I accept that to create something is somehow to give it, to a position where God (if he existed) would be a “Giving God”. Not so. If I created a wonderful thing, a poem, say, that would be, we agreed, in some sense a gift. That would not make me a Giving Person: I might well be the most tightfisted mean selfish person on the planet. (Some wonderful writers have been the most appalling people.) So I don’t accept that we have a reached a point where this putative God is a Giving God.

Second, your quote from the Catechism represents something I profoundly disagree with. The attitude that the world and its contents have been put there for our benefit offends me: it is the thinking that has got the planet in the state it is in.

A sensible way to proceed, I think, would be to deal with the problem of suffering the way I suggested, that is to see what way Christian thinking could account for the pain which is fundamental and innate to the life of all sentient creatures. Then, if you wish, to see whether there might be special features within this which apply only to humans. I detect that you are unwilling to approach it that way, presumably because you have mentally mapped a way in which somehow isolating human suffering from the rest of suffering creation avails Christians of a powerful argument. Well, if you must go that way, I shall listen.

 

[ffg]

Thanks Picky, great stuff.

I agree, a poem from you, would be a gift.

Far from a powerful argument, I care much more about hunting what is true. I don’t think math equations have a monopoly on truth.

One thing is for sure, that truth isn’t always pretty or comfortable. I’m not always going to like it, or understand it.

I’m quite confused as to how you came to your conclusion on the CCC statement. I don’t think there is a shortage of terminology in the CCC text that puts humans in their place to respect the world.

I would say it is the opposite or misuse of the CCC statement that has the world in it’s current state.

If we had respect for the integrity of creation and moral imperatives, it doesn’t seem logical to conclude chaos, selfishness, and destruction to creation.

With regard to our differences in starting points to understand suffering, if there are ‘special features (value?)’ in pain which apply to humans, we are not going to find those special features without the analysis of the relationship of God-Humans.

However much verbiage we lay down on ‘pain in all sentient creatures’, we’ll have to circle back around for understanding.

Thus the foundation mentioned previously. But of course any bit of analysis is a good thing.

Take care,

Mike

 

[Picky_Picky]

As to the CCC statement, it’s that there is a world (ha!) of difference between saying:

(a) the world is there for us to use, although of course we must use it responsibly

and saying

(b) the world does not belong to us, but to everything in it.

You are right in saying that (a) does not automatically lead to destruction. It has, though.

Never mind: off you go with your first apple.

 

[ffg]

As to the CCC statement, it’s that there is a world (ha!) of difference between saying:

(a) the world is there for us to use, although of course we must use it responsibly

and saying

(b) the world does not belong to us, but to everything in it.

You are right in saying that (a) does not automatically lead to destruction. It has, though.

Never mind: off you go with your first apple.

Ah!

Of course (a) is not the cause, but the lack of part 2 of (a).

Thus (a) would be a good, if done as (a) suggests, but humans are too eager to not abide by part 2.

Which makes reality: (c) the world is there for us to use, and is quite abused by us.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Well, (a) including part 2 is better than (a) excluding part 2. The problem is that the belief that the world is ours for our benefit is what leads people to ease off the accelerator as far as part 2 is concerned.

Anyway, (a) is just plain wrong. Take my word for it. (All right, I know).

Come on, Mike, them apples is getting overripe.