Well, many ways to answer this of course.
Let’s take this as a working hypothesis, and see where it leads.
Sorry, what these ancient people said is not relevant. What would be the best for humans is to be with God. Anything and everything that helps that would be a sign of love. Anything and everything that prevents that is the sign of indifference (or worse).
How is it down to us?Are you saying that cancer is the fault of the victim?
I’m not quite sure why you dismissed “what these ancient people said” as irrelevant.
I’m not entirely sure what you’re saying here. What do you mean by “not respecting the other person’s incomplete knowledge.” Does that mean “not take another person’s incomplete knowledge into account when doing something?” And what do you mean by “overriding incorrect actions?” I would agree with you perhaps depending on what you mean.
So … God should prevent humans from exercising their free will? Is this what you’re implying?
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It depends. Sometimes they learn a lot from those bad things happening to them.
Not a hard fast rule, once again. Sometimes the suffering Christian is told why he is suffering … other times, the explanation is postponed … perhaps sometimes until after his death. God certainly tells everyone what they need to know in order to bear it though (and sometimes it’s not really an explanation … but it suffices). Oftentimes however, such required knowledge is missed because the person refuses to listen to it.
That’s good. However, what do you mean by “facts.” Usually, a fact is defined as “something that is indisputably the case.” However, depending on who you poll, this differs from group to group. In court case, certain statements are considered facts. In other places, those statements may not be considered facts. What do you consider as facts?
And it is not proven that alleviating the suffering would lead to a better spiritual situation in the world. Maybe that’s why God allows the suffering. It is better that we suffer, then live cozy, complacent lives. You do admit that this is a possibility, no?
It’s a fact that most people sin too. It’s a fact that most people aren’t perfect. It’s a fact that most people aren’t Christian (and thus have perhaps not even heard the Christian message that "suffering helps them to get closer to God). So, what are you trying to say?
Giving a baby some wretched medicine may not seem like a sign of love to the baby. The baby isn’t given an explanation either. He matures later and then acquires the ability to understand. And in fact, everything WILL BE explained. But just because some bad things are not explained now, doesn’t imply any lack of love on God’s part. The baby medicine example certainly proves that. Do you disagree?
No natural evils are created by God. They are the result of physical causes which are foreseen and permitted because they are the inevitable consequences of the interplay of natural laws and the evolutionary development of immensely complex organisms pursuing many different purposes. The onus is on the critic to give a detailed description of a world in which there is only co-operation and harmony without any conflict, competition, failure or frustration…
This is an absolutely true statement.
Because the Catholic doctrine says that “to be with God in all happiness” is the best thing that can happen to a human. Not self-actualization, not acquiring wisdom. “The wisdom of the world is folly with God” - remember? “One must be like a child…” - remember?
Humans have incomplete knowledge. Therefore God should override if humans act upon that knowledge and doing so they put their salvation into jeopardy. That is what “acting in someone’s best interest” means.
Absolutely - if that free will would put the human soul into mortal danger. Free will (and the ability to act on it) is a dreadful idea - if it can jeopardise the salvation.
According to the doctrine only a few will be saved, the majority will perish. “The road to heaven is narrow, the road to hell is wide”. It is this doctrine which say that God does not intervene.
Allowing the child to experiment is only wise if that experimentation leads to valuable lessons - and does not lead to truly unacceptable consequences. No “loving” parent would put a loaded gun into the child’s hand and allow the child to “experiment” with it.
It very much depends. Allowing a child to push two wires into a live socket is not something a loving parent would allow or encourage.
There are no explanations. Not in this life anyway. And according to another doctrine, once the life is over, there is no more “let me repent”. The book is closed, the deed is done.
Is it not a fact that untold number of humans perish in natural disasters? That untold number perish in curable ailments? That untol number of them perish in senseless violent acts?
No, I don’t.
I don’t think so. If that would be case, there would be no suicides.
That for those people there is no explanation. For those people it sounds like a patronizing and condescending cop-out. Those people should be given an explicit explanation and they don’t get any.
This is the important part. You can’t have it both ways.
I’m sure you know exactly the context of my comment!
Doesn’t being with God involve acquiring wisdom? I don’t see how what Plato and Aristotle said conflicts with the Christian view of ultimate happiness. The Catholic view is that heaven … the beatific vision … is primarily an intellectual knowledge of God’s essence. That’s the Catholic view, at least.
I still don’t know what you mean by “override.” Depending on what this means, I might agree with you.
But it must be proven that all danger to one’s salvation should be destroyed by God. Ultimately, it’s a person choice and responsibility to go to hell … it’s not ever an accident.
This still does not follow. You assume that God didn’t intervene every second of their lives, giving every soul every opportunity to repent.
It depends what you mean by this. Oftentimes fathers take their kids hunting, and the kids “experiment with the gun.” And once again, damnation will not come to anyone by accident, which makes this gun analogy not apply very well in the first place.
It depends. Perhaps the voltage is extremely low, but enough to teach the kid never to touch the live socket again.
I’m not sure how you know this. It would require omniscience to claim this with certainty. I oftentimes hear of people receiving revelations about why they are suffering.
… well, yes. You can choose to reject truth. It would be your fault though. But don’t worry, God will judge justly.
Yes, but, once again, this doesn’t prove or disprove anything about God’s love. I made the claim that suffering can refine one’s soul. Even horrible suffering. That is why suffering is there.
Suicide is either caused by uncontrollable emotional anguish (where one does not willfully choose to kill oneself) or by willful choice (in which case, it would be a rejection of God and all creation). The latter could be mixed with the former a bit, but it would primarily be considered the latter. The former would not be sinful (and the person would possibly go to heaven) whereas the other one is very sinful indeed.
They can be given an explicit explanation, but it goes over most people’s heads. They have spiritually matured to understand it, just like most people don’t understand advanced physics. They can be given an explanation, but that doesn’t mean they’ll understand it. They must learn … and that sometimes can take time.
In fact, the Church teaches that children under the age of reason do not have the power to exercise their free will … thus they cannot sin. Thus, a baptized person under the age of reason that dies automatically goes to heaven (there is a debate what happens to unbaptized people of this age … and Catholic theologians agree that they don’t go to hell, but either go to “Limbo” or … heaven, if God so chooses)
Once again, God may be giving people an explanation (that they need), but they may have grown deaf to Him. This also relates to the advanced physics example. It may take time to come to an understanding about something.
The “negative reinforcements” are probably infinitely smaller than they could be. Any amount of suffering can cause the idea that “All life is misery.” Some “negative reinforcement” is necessary … and God gives us the right amount (despite how it may seem … because any amount of pain is unwanted and can be blown out of proportion).
God didn’t create the world as a vale of tears. It became a vale of tears because of human sin. Also, humans cannot be created in heaven with the beatific vision. This is because the Beatific Vision is an intellectual perception of God. Only intellectual/rational creatures are capable of receiving and appreciating it. However, with rationality comes volition. One must chose to see God … or reject Him. The angels were given an instantaneous choice. Humans are allotted an extended period of choice. This is the teaching anyway. For us to truly love and thus accept the vision of God … we must have the choice to love Him.
Override: step in, prevent, interfere.
Not vague, generic. People respond to good treatment in kind, to bad treatment with resentment. What is vague about that? Treat someone well, and they will respond with love. Mistreat someone and they will respond accordingly. Psychology 101. And you think that God does not know that? The Christian idea that one should “love” those who mistreat them is not just impractical, but outright nonsense.
“Making them comfortable every second of their life” as you said is a far cry from allowing them to suffer needlessly.
Now “spiritual formation” is very vague, but I let that pass. Love does not allow needless suffering. If you would advocate is that God’s love** would never allow needless suffering**, then it would be your responsibility to show that every piece of suffering (no matter how horrendous it might be) will inevitably lead people to “love” God. And that is simply naive.
Who is to decide what suffering is good and what is not? I find it very ironic that people are very fast to “endure” someone else’s suffering, and write it off as “good for you”. When it comes to their own suffering, they seek treatment very, very quickly. The word “hypocrisy” comes to mind. A perfect example was Mother Theresa who created those die-away establishments (not hospitals!), but when she had a heart attack, she was carried to a real hospital (by plane) where she actually received real treatment.
If what I presented is not proof for you, then there is no need to go on.
This is not always true. I’ve done kind things to people, and they have disrespected me the second later. Your view is a bit naive, and I don’t believe you actually believe it. I wish it were that simple. Also, I didn’t want to go to school, but my parents forced me, and I resented it. But looking back, I’m very thankful for it. The struggles I went through because of it, even though I couldn’t see the value of them at the time, proved to be very beneficial to my character growth.
If you define “mistreat” them as “cause needless suffering” then I would say God does not mistreat people.
Once again, the claim that “God allows needless suffering” is not proven. The Catholic faith believes that no suffering is needless. You are welcome to try and disprove this. It’s a matter of faith either way.
Well, the Christian explanation for why there is suffering can be given. But that doesn’t mean it will be understood. You could explain why a kid should attend school, but that doesn’t mean it will be accepted or understood (and hence, won’t even be considered an explanation).
God.
Yeah, that Mother Theresa, what a snob. Why couldn’t she set up state-of-the-art hospitals? Or at least provide plane transportation to real hospitals for anyone who needed it? How inconsiderate. She obviously could have done more. I mean, come on, how hard is it to set up hospitals in India? Especially the poorest parts of India? Wow, she was so lazy and inconsiderate. I mean Mother Theresa took an oath of poverty, but that shouldn’t have slowed her down. No excuse. It’s pathetic. Anyone could have done better. And even though the plane lifts she was given was donated to her, it’s still no excuse. She is pure evil. Disgusting. Wretched person.
Well, if you want to walk away from this discussion, you are free to do so. If you change your mind, I’ll still be here.
Just because **some **people react in an irrational fashion to benevolent actions (and children are notoriously irrational) is not a good reason to doubt that **most **people will react positively when one acts on their behalf and that **most **people will not accept mistreament as a sign of “love”.
I rely on the duck principle: “if it looks loke a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, tastes like a duck… it is very probably a duck” - and there is no reason to believe that it is really an elephant, and we don’t need “faith” that it is a duck.
No real reason why to continue. The Christian stance is completely irrational.