Understanding God's Love

[o_mlly]

Could a God of love create cancer cells, rattlesnakes, and earthquakes?

Please no simplistic, cookie cutter answers! Think about the depth and degree of God’s love before answering. Don’t demean God’s love.

christiantraditions.webs.com

Love is not an attribute of God as God is simple and has no virtues as attachments. God is Love (“Deus est Caritas”). Divine Providence springs from His very existence. The physical evils you cite have their purpose, presently hidden to many, but nevertheless part of His plan.

Physical evil is, like all evil, a privation – an absence of the complete goodness yet to come into temporal existence. From our Catechism:

310 But why did God not create a world so perfect that no evil could exist in it? With infinite power God could always create something better. 174 But with infinite wisdom and goodness God freely willed to create a world “in a state of journeying” towards its ultimate perfection. In God’s plan this process of becoming involves the appearance of certain beings and the disappearance of others, the existence of the more perfect alongside the less perfect, both constructive and destructive forces of nature. With physical good there exists also physical evil as long as creation has not reached perfection. 175

174 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I, 25, 6.
175 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, SCG III, 71.

Peace,
O’Malley

 

[Areopagite]

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”.

Just for clarification, you are using “positive” to be synonymous with “pleasurable” or “not painful” right?

Also, I maintain that punishing or giving pain to a person can be beneficial … if, of course, it is correctly directed to improving the person.

And once again, if you only raise a child without employing any painful means whatsoever … you will have a very messed up child indeed.

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.

Can you explain what this analogy is analogous to? I don’t know what you’re point is here.

But, more importantly, if every bit of suffering is necessary to fulfill God’s plan for us, then on what grounds do we convict and punish the so-called criminals - who just perform God’s work - by inflicting that necessary suffering on that 6 years old little girl, whom they abducted, raped, tortured and murdered? On what grounds do we call such actions “evil”, if they are part of God’s plan, being necessary for the spritual fulfillment of that little girl, who already loved God - as honestly as just a 6 years old can?

One reason why Christians, despite acknowledging that good can come from evil, still punish evil-doers is because … God said to do that. This makes sense, of course, because even though one can be sanctified and purified by enduring another one’s injustice, the injustice does not sanctify or purify the evil-doer (in fact, it does the opposite). The evil-doer must himself pay for his sins (and that could involve suffering delivered to him not by an evil-doer … but by a just agent).

Evil actions can be said to be evil because they are directed against God’s commandments, but they can, in another way, be said to be good insofar as they can be used to fulfill God’s plan. Hence, an action can be said to be good and evil but in different ways.

No real reason why to continue. The Christian stance is completely irrational.

…um, yeah. If you want to leave, I won’t hold you down. I certainly won’t give up on my stance, though, based on what you’re said so far.

The Catholic Church maintains hospitals to remedy the pain and suffering, thereby attempting to tear down God’s plan for the sufferers.

As I said before, just because pain is good, doesn’t mean healing is bad. You missed that in my last response.

Also the original “blueprint” for the world did not contain suffering. Therefore God did not consider suffering as necessary for the “spiritual fulfillment” of humans. And please don’t argue that God had to change his mind due to the “fall” of humanity. God is immutable, and to assert that God had to re-evaluate the original plan and incorporate suffering into the “brave new world” - is tantamount to sacrilege (and maybe even heresy).

God always had suffering in His original blueprint. He had the redemption all planned out. He never changed his mind.

 

[R_Daneel]

Just for clarification, you are using “positive” to be synonymous with “pleasurable” or “not painful” right?

Also, I maintain that punishing or giving pain to a person can be beneficial … if, of course, it is correctly directed to improving the person.

And once again, if you only raise a child without employing any painful means whatsoever … you will have a very messed up child indeed.

No one disputes this. Why do you bring it up? From the fact that sometimes, under specific circumstances one can apply certain amount of discomfort (or suffering) to bring forth beneficial results it does not follow that any and all suffering can be categorized this way. Just think about it: forcing a child to go to school is not the same as throwing a toddler into a furnace. It is very aggrevating to point out this difference over and over again. Why don’t you argue against what I am actually saying.

Can you explain what this analogy is analogous to? I don’t know what you’re point is here.

If something looks like needless suffering, feels like needless suffering, then it is very probably needless suffering. Unless some argument is brought up to contradict it, it will be categorized as needless suffering. That is what I am saying, and that is what you are disputing.

One reason why Christians, despite acknowledging that good can come from evil, still punish evil-doers is because … God said to do that. This makes sense, of course, because even though one can be sanctified and purified by enduring another one’s injustice, the injustice does not sanctify or purify the evil-doer (in fact, it does the opposite). The evil-doer must himself pay for his sins (and that could involve suffering delivered to him not by an evil-doer … but by a just agent).

If the seemingly evil act is merely a tool to bring forth some greater good, then it is improper to call it evil. And it must be only “seemingly” evil, since God allows it to happen. You use the same type of reasoning all over the place. Just because we don’t know what kind of greater good will be achieved by allowing this “seemingly” evil to happen, you have no right to call it evil. Besides, the Catholic teaching explicitly says that “good cannot come from evil”, therefore the “seemingly evil” acts are not “really evil”, they just look like evil - to us, since we are not privy to the information to make an accurate judgment call. (And you should not complain about this type of reasoning, since you use it all the time. How does it feel when the shoe is on the other foot?)

Evil actions can be said to be evil because they are directed against God’s commandments, but they can, in another way, be said to be good insofar as they can be used to fulfill God’s plan. Hence, an action can be said to be good and evil but in different ways.

Hah! So now the difference between “good” and “evil” is washed away. The point is that God’s alleged love does not allow “purely evil” acts to happen, only “seemingly evil” acts.

God always had suffering in His original blueprint. He had the redemption all planned out. He never changed his mind.

There was no suffering in the Garden. God did not deem it necessary for the “spiritual maturity” of humans. According to you it became necessary after the fall. This indicates a change of mind.

R. Daneel Olivaw

 

[Areopagite]

No one disputes this. Why do you bring it up?

Some people do dispute this. I’m glad you don’t.

From the fact that sometimes, under specific circumstances one can apply certain amount of discomfort (or suffering) to bring forth beneficial results it does not follow that any and all suffering can be categorized this way.

I agree it doesn’t follow. Nonetheless, I am glad, though, that you can acknowledge that suffering can produce beneficial results.

Just think about it: forcing a child to go to school is not the same as throwing a toddler into a furnace. It is very aggrevating to point out this difference over and over again. Why don’t you argue against what I am actually saying.

Yes, it’s different. Do you believe, however, that no good can come from throwing a toddler in a furnace?

If something looks like needless suffering, feels like needless suffering, then it is very probably needless suffering.

The teenager could use this very same argument to avoid going to school.

Unless some argument is brought up to contradict it, it will be categorized as needless suffering. That is what I am saying, and that is what you are disputing.

I have already given the explanation for why there is suffering. You did not respond to it.

Once again (and this is another one of my poor phrasings of it): suffering is for the atonement of sins. Christ suffered for them, but we can share in His suffering and hence grow closer to Him in that way.

If the seemingly evil act is merely a tool to bring forth some greater good, then it is improper to call it evil. And it must be only “seemingly” evil, since God allows it to happen.

Well, that’s one view. In Catholic philosophy, the word “evil” has many distinctions. Hence, an act could be morally evil and yet be good insofar as it actually forwards God’s plan in some way. I’m not going to settle for just one definition of “evil.” There is no need to. Obviously, if “evil” was a univocal term, then you would have a point. But it’s not. It can be considered in different ways.

Besides, the Catholic teaching explicitly says that “good cannot come from evil”,

Explicitly, eh? Actually Catholic teaching has never said this. What’s your source on this? You may have been misinformed by a well-meaning Catholic.

therefore the “seemingly evil” acts are not “really evil”, they just look like evil - to us, since we are not privy to the information to make an accurate judgment call.

Once again, an immoral act is evil insofar as it damages the relationship between God and the person committing the act, but it could be good insofar (for example) it could cause provide another person beneficial suffering (as I’ve explained before). Or perhaps it could inspire someone (who sees or even experiences the act) to never commit the act himself, upon seeing how evil it is. And the list could go on.

(And you should not complain about this type of reasoning, since you use it all the time. How does it feel when the shoe is on the other foot?)

What type of reasoning are you talking about? I’ve noticed you’ve equivocated the term “evil” … is that what you’re talking about? Because I don’t think I’ve done that. I maintained distinctions with that word. So I have yet to feel the shoe upon the other foot.

Hah! So now the difference between “good” and “evil” is washed away. The point is that God’s alleged love does not allow “purely evil” acts to happen, only “seemingly evil” acts.

Once again, you have baselessly disregarded the distinctions of evil that I still maintain. Equivocation, my friend. It’s a fallacy.

There was no suffering in the Garden. God did not deem it necessary for the “spiritual maturity” of humans. According to you it became necessary after the fall. This indicates a change of mind.

Nope, God knew they would fall and thus had the salvific plan the whole time. He never changed his mind. He knew everything that was going to happen ahead of time.

 

[R_Daneel]

Yes, it’s different. Do you believe, however, that no good can come from throwing a toddler in a furnace?

For whom? Not for the toddler. Even if the toddler would be “rewarded” by going into heaven, that does not mean that the ways and means will be justified. You know: “the end does not jutifies the means”. For someone else? It would mean that God uses the toddler as a tool, which is impossible. Love does not “use” toddlers as tools. Love is defined as: “to act in the best interest of the loved one”.

Once again (and this is another one of my poor phrasings of it): suffering is for the atonement of sins. Christ suffered for them, but we can share in His suffering and hence grow closer to Him in that way.

Oh, but that is not the same. If a suffering is not the logical prerequisite of the greater good, rather the result of some prior act (especially the act of someone else) than it not necessary for some future result - so you are attepmting to change the playing field.

Well, that’s one view. In Catholic philosophy, the word “evil” has many distinctions. Hence, an act could be morally evil and yet be good insofar as it actually forwards God’s plan in some way. I’m not going to settle for just one definition of “evil.” There is no need to. Obviously, if “evil” was a univocal term, then you would have a point. But it’s not. It can be considered in different ways.

The Catholic definition of “evil” is the privation of good.

 

[Areopagite]

For whom? Not for the toddler. Even if the toddler would be “rewarded” by going into heaven, that does not mean that the ways and means will be justified. You know: “the end does not jutifies the means”. For someone else? It would mean that God uses the toddler as a tool, which is impossible. Love does not “use” toddlers as tools. Love is defined as: “to act in the best interest of the loved one”.

These are very admirable objections, I will say.

I will agree that the ends do not justify the means. I will also agree that “love is to act in the best interest of the loved one” (though … perhaps that needs some qualification … but we’ll run with that for now).

Now, why do we say that love does not “use” people (and any moral theologians can jump in if I say something inaccurate)? I think the meaning of “use” in that context implies “to employ a person for the fulfillment of one’s own pleasure to the disregard of what is good for the other person.” Perhaps you will disagree.

But God does not “use” the toddler in that sense. He wants what is best for the toddler (and in this case, indeed, the toddler would perhaps go to heaven … which is definitely what is best for him/her).

Now, would God be using unjust means to get to this end? I would say this: the reason why we can’t choose to end a person’s life whenever we want is that we do not have the right to do so. God, on the other hand, since He was the one to give life to everything, can take life away whenever He so chooses. It is therefore just that God can take away life whenever He sees fit, since He is the author of all life. Therefore, this is not a case of the ends justifying the means, because means, to begin with, are not unjust.

Perhaps you may not think this as convincing. And perhaps I have misrepresented the Church’s view on this. But I don’t think I have (I’m quite sure I heard all of this before from orthodox sources). I hope this helps.

Oh, but that is not the same. If a suffering is not the logical prerequisite of the greater good, rather the result of some prior act (especially the act of someone else) than it not necessary for some future result - so you are attepmting to change the playing field.

Not entirely sure what you’re saying here.

I am saying that suffering is a prerequisite of a great good based on the prior act of Adam’s rebellion against God (and all other human rebellion against God). I’m not certain how I’m contradicting myself here.

The Catholic definition of “evil” is the privation of good.

And there are many different kinds of “good.” In fact, the distinctions between the different kinds of “good” results in the distinctions between the different kinds of “evil.”

 

[R_Daneel]

I will agree that the ends do not justify the means. I will also agree that “love is to act in the best interest of the loved one” (though … perhaps that needs some qualification … but we’ll run with that for now).

It is a good start, we can refine it later if necessary.

Now, why do we say that love does not “use” people (and any moral theologians can jump in if I say something inaccurate)? I think the meaning of “use” in that context implies “to employ a person for the fulfillment of one’s own pleasure to the disregard of what is good for the other person.” Perhaps you will disagree.

This needs to be amended. An example: Person A is in dire need of a kidney transplant, to save his life. Person B would be a suitable donor, but he is afraid that the surgery might go wrong, and does not want to donate his kidney. It would be “using” person B to forcefully take his kidney. That is the meaning of “use” I have in mind. The doctors would not gain any personal advantage from the forced operation. Yet, we would consider such a forceful intrusion unacceptable.

But God does not “use” the toddler in that sense. He wants what is best for the toddler (and in this case, indeed, the toddler would perhaps go to heaven … which is definitely what is best for him/her).

Why not? The toddler does not gain anything because of being thrown into the furnace. The possible reward of being brought into heaven is not a logical corollary of being burned to death. More on this later.

Now, would God be using unjust means to get to this end? I would say this: the reason why we can’t choose to end a person’s life whenever we want is that we do not have the right to do so. God, on the other hand, since He was the one to give life to everything, can take life away whenever He so chooses. It is therefore just that God can take away life whenever He sees fit, since He is the author of all life. Therefore, this is not a case of the ends justifying the means, because means, to begin with, are not unjust.

No. This is the old adage in new clothes, namely the old Roman principle, which says: “Quod lice Iovi, non licet bovi”. I reject this principle. Justitia is depicted with her scale and sword and blindfolded. This means that justice must be blind to the person who is being judged, only the act matters. If a human does something and it is deemed immoral, then God cannot do the same thing and hope to be judged moral.

Not entirely sure what you’re saying here.

And this is the crux of the matter. So I will go into details. Let’s play on with the previous example of the kidney donation. Person B does not want the suffering of the kidney transplant. Nevertheless, he is forced to accept the process. As a later reward someone gives him a dream-car to “compensate” for the distress and suffering. Since the donation of the car could have happened without the forced operation, it cannot be justified as a compensation. The donation of the car is not the logical corollary of the operation.

Quite contrary to this, the child is forced to go to school, which he resents. The reward (better education) is the logical corollary of the “suffering” he was forced to accept. The education (reward) could not have been achieved without going to school (suffering).

R. Daneel Olivaw

 

[Areopagite]

This needs to be amended. An example: Person A is in dire need of a kidney transplant, to save his life. Person B would be a suitable donor, but he is afraid that the surgery might go wrong, and does not want to donate his kidney. It would be “using” person B to forcefully take his kidney. That is the meaning of “use” I have in mind. The doctors would not gain any personal advantage from the forced operation. Yet, we would consider such a forceful intrusion unacceptable.

We must examine why such a forceful intrusion is unacceptable. What would be your reason?

I would answer (without thinking too precisely about it) that the doctors do not have the right to take things from a human body that does not belong to them (or something like that). However, everything, including all bodies, were created by God, and hence everything belongs to God. He has a right to do with them as He wills. Why would He not?

No. This is the old adage in new clothes, namely the old Roman principle, which says: “Quod lice Iovi, non licet bovi”. I reject this principle. Justitia is depicted with her scale and sword and blindfolded. This means that justice must be blind to the person who is being judged, only the act matters. If a human does something and it is deemed immoral, then God cannot do the same thing and hope to be judged moral.

The phrase “Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi” could be correct, depending on how you interpret it. For example, you would agree that a person who owns chair has the right to burn it. However, a person who does not own that chair, does not have the right to burn it. But, one may object saying, “Justice is blind! They must both have the right or neither of them should have the right!” But the fact of the matter is that this is operating on the principle “If you own a chair, you have the right to burn it.” It just so happens one owns the chair, and the other does not. Justice is thus not contradicted. Likewise, God has complete domain over all creation, while humans do not. Hence, God has the right to do what He wills with creatures, but creatures do not. And this does not contradict justice.

And this is the crux of the matter. So I will go into details. Let’s play on with the previous example of the kidney donation. Person B does not want the suffering of the kidney transplant. Nevertheless, he is forced to accept the process. As a later reward someone gives him a dream-car to “compensate” for the distress and suffering. Since the donation of the car could have happened without the forced operation, it cannot be justified as a compensation. The donation of the car is not the logical corollary of the operation.

Quite contrary to this, the child is forced to go to school, which he resents. The reward (better education) is the logical corollary of the “suffering” he was forced to accept. The education (reward) could not have been achieved without going to school (suffering).

Once again, the forced operation was evil if it was forced by humans, who do not have the right over other people’s bodies in that way.

And once again, understanding the sacrificial love of God is the logical corollary of suffering. Now, it’s true that suffering can be forced on one, but if one accepts it (rather than willfully refuse to acknowledge its value) then it has mystical benefits for both oneself and others throughout the world. Even unaccepted forced suffering can improve one’s character, detaching a person from the need for constant comfort. And also, seeing or even hearing about a person’s suffering can move one to hate evil more than before. So, there are your logical corollaries (and I think there are many others).

 

[R_Daneel]

We must examine why such a forceful intrusion is unacceptable. What would be your reason?

Everyone has sole and complete dominion over his body. This is a basic principle.

I would answer (without thinking too precisely about it) that the doctors do not have the right to take things from a human body that does not belong to them (or something like that). However, everything, including all bodies, were created by God, and hence everything belongs to God. He has a right to do with them as He wills. Why would He not?

Because it is the nature of a gift, that once given, the dominion over it is relinquished by the giver, and assumed by the recipient. The recipient has dominion over it, and can do with it as he pleases. The giver has no right any more to make complaints, that his gift was “abused”. This is such a simple concept. If you deny it in the case of God, you are again using two measuring sticks.

The phrase “Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi” could be correct, depending on how you interpret it. For example, you would agree that a person who owns chair has the right to burn it. However, a person who does not own that chair, does not have the right to burn it. But, one may object saying, “Justice is blind! They must both have the right or neither of them should have the right!” But the fact of the matter is that this is operating on the principle “If you own a chair, you have the right to burn it.” It just so happens one owns the chair, and the other does not. Justice is thus not contradicted. Likewise, God has complete domain over all creation, while humans do not. Hence, God has the right to do what He wills with creatures, but creatures do not. And this does not contradict justice.

Same as above. You try to have your cake and eat it, too. On one hand you assert that there is one morality. On the other hand you assert that God must be measured differently. Contradiction!

And once again, understanding the sacrificial love of God is the logical corollary of suffering. Now, it’s true that suffering can be forced on one, but if one accepts it (rather than willfully refuse to acknowledge its value) then it has mystical benefits for both oneself and others throughout the world. Even unaccepted forced suffering can improve one’s character, detaching a person from the need for constant comfort.

Who says that it is “worth it”? Not every sufferer can make the decision to “offer” their suffering. Small children and animals are unable to do so. If they die in the process, their character will not improve. There is nothing for them to gain.

And also, seeing or even hearing about a person’s suffering can move one to hate evil more than before. So, there are your logical corollaries (and I think there are many others).

We already went through this. You commit the same error as you did before. The suffering of “A” cannot benefit “B” and call the process acceptable, loving and just.

I hate to repeat myself over and over again. Love is to act in someone’s best interest. Love does not allow to abuse “A” so that “B” will gain some benefit. So far I have not seen any good argument. Not in this thread nor in any other ones. The same old, tired and invalid arguments are being brought up. Anyhow, I will be away for two weeks. See you later.

R. Daneel Olivaw

 

[Areopagite]

Because it is the nature of a gift, that once given, the dominion over it is relinquished by the giver, and assumed by the recipient. The recipient has dominion over it, and can do with it as he pleases. The giver has no right any more to make complaints, that his gift was “abused”. This is such a simple concept. If you deny it in the case of God, you are again using two measuring sticks.

Not a bad objection. God, however, does not give gifts in such a way that He ceases to own what He has given. We act more as stewards of God’s creation. God is the master of his people and everything that the gives them. I hope that makes sense. This is what Scripture says anyway.

Same as above. You try to have your cake and eat it, too. On one hand you assert that there is one morality. On the other hand you assert that God must be measured differently. Contradiction!

So, how do you explain the example I gave: the owner of a chair can justly burn his chair, but someone who doesn’t own it cannot justly burn it. Does this imply there is more than one morality? No of course not. You would be misinterpreting the moral principles and the conditions of how they apply to individual cases. You are making such misinterpretations by your objections here. I think I explained it very clearly why God is allowed to do with creation as He wills (because He has complete dominion over it, while humans do not).

Who says that it is “worth it”? Not every sufferer can make the decision to “offer” their suffering. Small children and animals are unable to do so. If they die in the process, their character will not improve. There is nothing for them to gain.

I agree that animals have nothing to gain by suffering (unless I’m uninformed about something).

In any case, their suffering can be looked on by others and improve the people who see it (as explained before … many times). So, that is a benefit which can be gained by their suffering. Even if the suffering does not benefit the children (or animals), it can cause a beneficial effect on others. That is a reason why it happens.

We already went through this. You commit the same error as you did before. The suffering of “A” cannot benefit “B” and call the process acceptable, loving and just.

I hate to repeat myself over and over again. Love is to act in someone’s best interest. Love does not allow to abuse “A” so that “B” will gain some benefit. So far I have not seen any good argument. Not in this thread nor in any other ones. The same old, tired and invalid arguments are being brought up.

I apologize if I have failed to express anything well or worthwhile. I shall try again.

When a child who is brutally murdered gains salvation afterwards, I believe the child shall be more glorified in heaven for having undergone that tribulation. In heaven, the child shall be able to look at that event in his/her life with a greater happiness, seeing that he/her was employed for the furtherance of God’s plan in a larger way than many others in life are employed. They would be happy to see that this is what they were meant for in life and they would see in complete detail the good it did in everyone’s lives.

Perhaps this sorely did not answer your question still. And I apologize if so.

Anyhow, I will be away for two weeks. See you later.

See ya.

 

[R_Daneel]

Not a bad objection. God, however, does not give gifts in such a way that He ceases to own what He has given. We act more as stewards of God’s creation. God is the master of his people and everything that the gives them. I hope that makes sense. This is what Scripture says anyway.

Except that in such a case it should not be called a “gift”. Gifts are given unconditionally. The recipient is not a “steward”, he has full control over the received “stuff”. It is fine if you would say that this does not apply to God, he retains full ownership, but then the usage of the word “gift” is not appropriate.

So, how do you explain the example I gave: the owner of a chair can justly burn his chair, but someone who doesn’t own it cannot justly burn it. Does this imply there is more than one morality? No of course not. You would be misinterpreting the moral principles and the conditions of how they apply to individual cases. You are making such misinterpretations by your objections here. I think I explained it very clearly why God is allowed to do with creation as He wills (because He has complete dominion over it, while humans do not).

Sorry, your example does not appy. If you say that God is the full owner, and he can do as he pleases, that is fine again. But just because someone can do whatever he wants to do, it is not called “proper” or “just”. If someone would own the Mona Lisa, and would decide to burn it, that act would not be called proper, would it?

Again, your ideas simply translate into “might makes right” - and most people would disagree with this concept.

I agree that animals have nothing to gain by suffering (unless I’m uninformed about something).

Agreed! And that agreement should lead us to another agreement: namely that God allows needless suffering, which in turn should lead to another agreement - that God is not “good” - in the sense that we mean when we use the adjective: “good”. A good person would not allow needless suffering.

In any case, their suffering can be looked on by others and improve the people who see it (as explained before … many times). So, that is a benefit which can be gained by their suffering. Even if the suffering does not benefit the children (or animals), it can cause a beneficial effect on others. That is a reason why it happens.

No, it was never “explained”, only stated. And that statement leads to all sorts of problems. You cannot inflict (or allow) suffering on entity “A”, just so entity “B” would gain some benefit from it. We cannot speak of a hypothetical benefit for “someone”. Think about it. Suppose a person would benefit from a kidney transplant. The possible donor does not want to endure the process, and refuses to give up his kidney. A doctor could forcefully cut the kidney out, and make the transplant. There would be a benefit for the recipient. Still this does not justify the procedure, does it?

If the sufferer and the beneficiary are not the same, and the sufferer does not agree to the process, then he is simply being used as a means to an end. And last time I checked, the Catholic Church denies that the end justifies the means.

When a child who is brutally murdered gains salvation afterwards, I believe the child shall be more glorified in heaven for having undergone that tribulation. In heaven, the child shall be able to look at that event in his/her life with a greater happiness, seeing that he/her was employed for the furtherance of God’s plan in a larger way than many others in life are employed. They would be happy to see that this is what they were meant for in life and they would see in complete detail the good it did in everyone’s lives.

Problem again. That suffering is not necessary for the child. He could gain acceptance into heaven without the suffering. And the possible “side effect” you speak of leads again to use the child as a “teaching tool”.

You see, the argument I am presenting is simple.

1. Love is meant as acting in the best interest of the loved one.
2. Love does not allow needless suffering - since it is not in the best interest of the loved one.
3. If the afflicted person (or animal) does not benefit from the suffering, then it is not necessary for him.
4. The possible reward for a child (which is not applicable for the animals) does not retroactively justify the prior suffering - if that suffering is not logically necessary for the reward.
5. A possible benefit for someone else cannot justify the inflicted suffering.

R. Daneel Olivaw

 

[donsnow]

Could a God of love create cancer cells, rattlesnakes, and earthquakes?

Please no simplistic, cookie cutter answers! Think about the depth and degree of God’s love before answering. Don’t demean God’s love.

christiantraditions.webs.com

Hi, regreib -

I’d like to try to answer your question, beginning with a simple, but not simplistic statement. Since this a Catholic forum, don’t some of you be shocked to see more mention of God in my answer.

God created rattlesnakes, which will leave you alone if you leave them alone and don’t step on them; sometimes tectonics causes earthquakes and sometimes sin causes earthquakes; sometimes mutations cause cancerous cells and sometime sin causes cancer; because the wages of sin are death. Before I extropolate from this simple statement, let me give a brief preface.

Now, I do believe, that people who go by Political Correctness (PC) and Postmodern cultural opinion (PCO and I won’t grace that mode of thought with any other phrase) go into hysterics when people look to the Bible for answers. Well, I’m not a politician so I got no need for PC. I figure Postmodern thought as a temporary fad, and I prefer an enduring mode of thought, so I don’t go by that. Please, don’t expect me to conform to them nor try to make me do so. Frankly, I think both those processes of thought disable any meaningful conversation. So, let’s put those aside. Thank you.

Now, that being said, I think there are times when God deliberately chastise us with disasters and catastrophes, but He usually sends a prophet ahead of them, so people will know why. Hopefully, PC nor PCO proponents have not drowned out any modern prophet (if God sent one, some PC or PCO establishment would contradict him and/or put him in a mental hospital). That’s my surmise as to why we don’t have any known prophets. (God goes by, “Don’t sow your pearls before swine, lest they turn and rend you.”)

Now, to this premise, I can see two other causes of earthquakes and other disasters. The second cause is the sins of people pollute the earth, waters and skies. (While discussing the exile to Babylon for 70 years, a prophet quoted God as explaining so that there would be a sabbath for the land, from His people’s sins. So, that’s the second cause of disasters and catastrophes, our sins degrade the land (and animals on it). Now, this implies that we can suffer because of other peoples sins and I accept that inference. As long as we tolerate, instead of correct, sinful citizens, then we not only will but also we deserve to, suffer the same consequences for their sins that they do. It may not be fair, but it is just. So, I believe that my sins could cause your cancer and that your sins could cause my tuberculosis. As well as my sins causing my arthritis and your sins causing your gout.

The third cause of disasters and catastrophes, imho, would be natural geological and meteorological causes. Without a prophet being heard if he were sent, we are left to sift with our intellects and hearts for ourselves, the causes of disasters, disease and catastrophes. And to seek to apply which of the three causes that may prevail for each disease, disaster and catastrophe. Do refuse to do this seems a spiritual neglect of our society and all in it, both people and their property (including animals).

I’ll leave it at that; and if you think the above explanation is simplistic, then I dread to see what you think is complicated or complex.