Why would God include carnivory, parasitism, and disease in creation?

[Gaber]

Well, yes and no.

As Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft says, “Some people scorn apologetic reasoning [because] they decide with their hearts much more than with their heads whether to believe or not. The heart is our center, not the head. But apologetics gets at the heart through the head. The head is important precisely because it is a gate to the heart.” (bold mine).

As with most Catholic answers, it’s not either/or but rather the grand both/and.

I don’t scorn “apologetic reasoning” or any other kind. But all reasoning is from a premise. I only wish to point out that the reasoning in much of apologetics is based on premises that are not considered either valid or true by many, including many of what could be called theists, and even by, as far as I can see, a competent reading of many doctors and contemplatives of the church itself. And the vast amount of it is done on the basis of faith, as distinct from mystical/.contemplative experience that has reached the end of its intention.

 

[Gaber]

I defy you to have been one of the pagans watching the 26 martyrs of Japan die horrific deaths with the joy of Christ on their lips and not convert.

I don’t know. Were you there? Did everyone witnessing it convert? Why? because it was horrific, unjust, biggoted, etc? However sincere they were, and however horrific it was, would you have converted in the same scenario if those poor folks were pasta or rasta -farians? Or Baptists? Or Shinto? Or Christadelphians? Or Buddhists?

Similar horrific massacres and murders have taken place against many religious groups, including ours, and for my part I do not see mass or sudden migrations, say, to Islam, because someone was martyr enough to kill themselves and take others with them to Allah. So how does someone being a Christian martyr distinguish from being any other kind other than that in your inculcations they were on your team?

 

[PRmerger]

Even more primitive than sacrifice of domestic animals is sacrifice of fellow humans. Is this indicative of a greater awareness of the nature of the divine and of the value of human life? I hear these concepts bandied about in association with Christianity…

Sacrifice as a form of worship is indeed indicative of a greater awareness of the nature of the divine.

And we can see the progression from the barbarism of those to whom God had not revealed himself to the primitive forms of worship of ancient Judaism to the glorious sacrifice of Christ as proclaimed in the Divine Liturgy.

 

[PRmerger]

The resort to extreme measures such as sacrifice of children to pacify the gods speaks of extreme fear and extreme ignorance on the part of our distant ancestors.

Indeed.

Yet with the advancement of knowledge has come a vast reduction in the notion of the need for propitiatory sacrifice.

Well, with the advancement of knowledge via Christianity has come the understanding that there was only One propitiatory sacrifice.

The Old Testament speaks of a god who enjoys the aroma of burning flesh. Is this something that has been - or should be - universally appreciated?

It should be appreciated in light of the entire Good News of salvation.

Undoubtedly it often takes effort and sacrifice and personal hardship to genuinely help someone - those who, for example, travel from affluent nations to developing nations to lend their expertise and/or their labour for various projects are most certainly putting in the hard yards for a good cause.

Indeed.

But assuming that the mere act of giving up one’s life for no apparent benefit is somehow “noble” or “heroic” seems like nothing more than an exercise in glorifying futility.

To be sure.

But are you under the misapprehension that anyone here is advocating “giving up one’s life for no apparent benefit”?

Wasted because we don’t believe in divine redemption?

Indeed.

If there is indeed any value to be found in martyrdom for a cause, it is through temporal consciousness-raising.

Well, that’s the question, isn’t it.

If you were the family member of the person that St. Maximilian Kolbe died in place of you wouldn’t raise questions about the “value to be found in martyrdom”.

The only problem with self-conscious martyrdom is that it’s rather easy to see through. Those who genuinely work for a cause and happen to lose their lives in the process, at the hands of those they are fighting, really do deserve our respect.

No doubt.

Just to name a couple of recent examples - Theo van Gogh, murdered by Muslim extremists for making a short film exposing the plight of women in Islamic societies; Ayaan Hirsi Ali, one of the most outspoken critics of the treatment of women under religious (especially Muslim) oppression, who, although still alive, leads the life of a fugitive, moving from safe house to safe house lest she be assassinated by the religious fanatics who have vowed to destroy her.

Yes, heroes like these deserve our respect, to be sure, and our prayers even more.

Don’t make the mistake of supposing that there are no atheists who die for their beliefs - whether these beliefs are in a political or humanitarian cause, or whether they are among the thousands of ‘infidel’ murdered in modern Muslim theocracies, just because they don’t conform to the “true faith”.

Oh, I am certain that there are many atheist heroes.

But I am also certain that there are no atheists who have given their lives in the same way that Maximilian Kolbe did, offering to suffer a horrific death in the place of a complete stranger, out of love.

That requires a Christian.

If anything, they are making a greater sacrifice than religious believers - the latter consider themselves to be going on to paradise in the afterlife; the former are giving up everything they have. The other key difference is that no atheist rejoices in the fact that we live in a world where this kind of martyrdom is still possible.

Perhaps it is “greater” (although who could really quantify that??). But it is, sadly, useless as it applies to our discussion.

 

[PRmerger]

If such direct and immediate experience of the suffering of others is required to induce compassion, that is a failure of empathy or of upbringing.

Nope. Not “required”.

Not sure where that concept came from–did I use that word?

I would be very surprised if what she rejoices in is actually the suffering of her child, as well as her own; what would be cause for rejoicing is if her child is still able to enjoy life and accomplish goals despite his disability.

No, she does not rejoice in the sufferings of her child, but does rejoice in her own sufferings. And she does rejoice in his Down Syndrome–she wouldn’t have him any other way.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t know. Were you there?

Is that a rhetorical question?

Did everyone witnessing it convert?

I’m sure that I wouldn’t be marked wrong on the test if I answered “No, not everyone witnessing it did convert.”

“All of the above” as an answer is, given the laws of probability, usually not the answer.

Why? because it was horrific, unjust, biggoted, etc?

Why? Because it was a witness to the Gospel!

However sincere they were, and however horrific it was, would you have converted in the same scenario if those poor folks were pasta or rasta -farians?

Huh? Pasta?

Or Baptists? Or Shinto? Or Christadelphians? Or Buddhists?

If they were proclaiming the dogma of the redemptive nature of suffering and of the Good News of salvation, Gaber, then they would have been Christians, not Buddhists or Christadelphians. Baptists? Maybe.

And it is only, to bring it back full circle, when we attach our suffering to that of Christ’s that we see its value.

So, no, I wouldn’t have converted seeing the horrific torture of sincere Buddhists et al.

Similar horrific massacres and murders have taken place against many religious groups, including ours, and for my part I do not see mass or sudden migrations, say, to Islam, because someone was martyr enough to kill themselves and take others with them to Allah. So how does someone being a Christian martyr distinguish from being any other kind other than that in your inculcations they were on your team?

See above.

 

[tonyrey]

Indeed.

Well, with the advancement of knowledge via Christianity has come the understanding that there was only One propitiatory sacrifice.

It should be appreciated in light of the entire Good News of salvation.

Indeed.

To be sure.

But are you under the misapprehension that anyone here is advocating “giving up one’s life for no apparent benefit”?

Indeed.

Well, that’s the question, isn’t it.

If you were the family member of the person that St. Maximilian Kolbe died in place of you wouldn’t raise questions about the “value to be found in martyrdom”.

No doubt.

Yes, heroes like these deserve our respect, to be sure, and our prayers even more.

Oh, I am certain that there are many atheist heroes.

But I am also certain that there are no atheists who have given their lives in the same way that Maximilian Kolbe did, offering to suffer a horrific death in the place of a complete stranger, out of love.

That requires a Christian.

Perhaps it is “greater” (although who could really quantify that??). But it is, sadly, useless as it applies to our discussion.

A most formidable post! I would hate to have to make a riposte …

 

[PRmerger]

A most formidable post! I would hate to have to make a riposte …

Aw, shucks! shaw:

 

[Gaber]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaber
I don’t know. Were you there?

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, in this case the one you subscribe to. What is they died for an equally strong faith in another Bible?

Firstly, Gaber, would you mind not nesting your responses in my post? It makes it difficult to respond to.

Check out the threads that tell you how to quote. You’re a newbie so I’m cutting you some slack.

Anyway, it’s not only how strong their faith was that would be powerful, but their witness to the truth.

And, of course, a faith in another gospel is a false faith.

 

[PRmerger]

Uh… never heard of pastafarianism, eh?

Nope. Never heard of it. I thought it was a typo. Or you were making some obscure reference that needed explication. Or that you had started early again on your Happy Hour.

 

[PRmerger]

Assuming, of course, that you would have been there with exactly the same mental state you are now in, bearing the religious inculcation that you now subscribe to.

Rather, the assumption is that the gospel was either proclaimed prior to the witness of this horrific martyrdom, or that, subsequent to this the good news was spread by those who remained.

No one is presupposing that the blood of martyrs alone produced mass conversions, in the absence of Christian evangelists prior to or subsequent to the torture.

 

[PRmerger]

So what you mean is that you feel that if I had exactly your mind I would have converted, already being a Catholic, because they priced their belief in my version of God’s word as greater than their lives, and others, not of my mind should have converted because I thought they would be convinced of my faith by their suffering, but if someone else died for their equally strong beliefs in something else, it would not be other than just a horrific event with no intrinsic spiritual value? is that it?

How about your re-phrase this so it’s not a convoluted run-on sentence? (I say this with all respect. ) And I think I get what you’re trying to say, but I don’t want to try too hard to decipher your meaning.

 

[tonyrey]

A most formidable post! I would hate to have to make a riposte …

You’ve had one but in retrospect I’m sure you didn’t find it a forbidding prospect!

 

[PRmerger]

You’ve had one but in retrospect I’m sure you didn’t find it a forbidding prospect!

'Tis true, this.

I always love to ask in the atheist threads, “Where’s the atheistic equivalent of Maximilian Kolbe?” and no one–not a single one–has been able respond with anything more than, “Well, I’m sure there’s an atheist soldier somewhere who has jumped on a grenade or something to save someone’s life.”

 

[tonyrey]

'Tis true, this.

I always love to ask in the atheist threads, “Where’s the atheistic equivalent of Maximilian Kolbe?” and no one–not a single one–has been able respond with anything more than, “Well, I’m sure there’s an atheist soldier somewhere who has jumped on a grenade or something to save someone’s life.”

A valid point. To take a more extreme example. It’s a vastly different proposition from choosing to die for people you have never even heard of until you know their life depends on your death…

 

[BobCatholic]

Just curious–how do you pay for internet?

Savings. For the time being. When they run out, I don’t know what I’ll do.

 

[Sair]

Well, with the advancement of knowledge via Christianity has come the understanding that there was only One propitiatory sacrifice.

But there is still no explanation of why such propitiation was required by a perfect, loving, merciful god…

It should be appreciated in light of the entire Good News of salvation.

That God changed his tastes from enjoying the aroma of burning flesh to watching his own offspring suffer one of the most horrific deaths ever devised by human cruelty? I’m not sure that’s an advancement, to be honest.

But are you under the misapprehension that anyone here is advocating “giving up one’s life for no apparent benefit”?

I should point out that any claimed “spiritual” benefits to be gained from martyrdom are not what I would call apparent…

If you were the family member of the person that St. Maximilian Kolbe died in place of you wouldn’t raise questions about the “value to be found in martyrdom”.

I can’t even imagine the complexity of emotions that would result from being in such a position, as the life that was saved by someone literally allowing themselves to be killed in your place.

Oh, I am certain that there are many atheist heroes.

But I am also certain that there are no atheists who have given their lives in the same way that Maximilian Kolbe did, offering to suffer a horrific death in the place of a complete stranger, out of love.

That requires a Christian.

What I would say - and this is in no way intended to denigrate Kolbe, as he was obviously a man of great courage and humanitarian compassion - that under such circumstances, the ability to offer any significant help to a fellow being must stand as its own motivation. There are plenty of Christian believers who have not, and would not do such a thing, so I don’t think it’s legitimate to say this kind of sacrifice “requires” Christianity - it requires a strong sense of fellow-feeling that is quite independent of religious belief. I am not so certain that there are no atheists who would give up their lives to help another in dire need - there is just no atheist “church” organisation to elevate such people to sainthood. Several people have been challenged in public debate to come up with moral actions that could be done by religious believers, but not by non-believers, and it seems there are none.

Perhaps it is “greater” (although who could really quantify that??). But it is, sadly, useless as it applies to our discussion.

Something to think about, though, when claiming Christianity as a motivation for profound sacrifice - maybe the primary motivation is the conviction, offered by belief in souls and an afterlife, that giving up one’s life is not, in fact, the ultimate sacrifice - are there any circumstances in which a Christian would imperil their “immortal soul” for the sake of benefit to another person, or for a cause? Certainly, though, this point is rather irrelevant in terms of the subject of the thread.

 

[PRmerger]

But there is still no explanation of why such propitiation was required by a perfect, loving, merciful god…

The explanation, Sair, comes from an understanding of the extremely grave offense sin offers to God. Sacrifice was man’s attempt at making propitiation, but our efforts are inadequate to atone for our sin. It’s too grave an offense to the immeasurable goodness of Love.

Not to mention, without it we cannot understand why our suffering may be redemptive.

And we see what great love God has for us. That could never have been accomplished if God had simply declared us to be righteous without the Passion, Death and Resurrection of His Only Son.

That God changed his tastes from enjoying the aroma of burning flesh to watching his own offspring suffer one of the most horrific deaths ever devised by human cruelty? I’m not sure that’s an advancement, to be honest.

Well, that’s because you’re only focused on 2 events in the Bible.

I said we need to understand it in light of the entire Good News of salvation.

I should point out that any claimed “spiritual” benefits to be gained from martyrdom are not what I would call apparent…

Perhaps not apparent to you, but to the converted the benefits are manifest.

I can’t even imagine the complexity of emotions that would result from being in such a position, as the life that was saved by someone literally allowing themselves to be killed in your place

.
I see your point. But if you were his wife or child you might be able to approach the act of sacrificial love with great reverence and thanksgiving, no?

 

[PRmerger]

What I would say - and this is in no way intended to denigrate Kolbe, as he was obviously a man of great courage and humanitarian compassion - that under such circumstances, the ability to offer any significant help to a fellow being must stand as its own motivation.

Well, Sair, that’s begging the question, isn’t it?

There are plenty of Christian believers who have not, and would not do such a thing, so I don’t think it’s legitimate to say this kind of sacrifice “requires” Christianity

'Tis true that there are plenty of Christians who would not do such a thing.

However, it does not follow that it’s false to say that this kind of sacrifice requires Christianity.

That’s like saying because lots of Olympic swimmer hopefuls practice vigorously and rigorously every day but don’t make it to the Olympics we can assume that winning a gold medal doesn’t require vigorous and rigorous practice every day.

• it requires a strong sense of fellow-feeling that is quite independent of religious belief.

And yet there are no atheistic equivalents of Maximilian Kolbe.

And even if you *could *provide one (and I’ve been asking ad nauseum on this forum for atheists to provide one, and no one can get closer than, “Maybe an atheist jumped on a grenade sometime?”, which completely and inadequately compares to the profound act of love which Kolbe proffered), this hypothetical heroic atheist would only have been able to do such a profound act of love because he said yes to God’s grace acting in him.

I am not so certain that there are no atheists who would give up their lives to help another in dire need -

Oh, Sair, please don’t misunderstand. I will loudly and proudly proclaim that there are indeed atheistic heroes.

I am simply saying that no one can hold a candle to the profound acts of sacrificial love done by Kolbe, et al.

there is just no atheist “church” organisation to elevate such people to sainthood.

Well, I would argue that the media is your organization. And if such a man/woman existed your media would run with it and make of him a saint before we could say, “Canonized!”

Several people have been challenged in public debate to come up with moral actions that could be done by religious believers, but not by non-believers, and it seems there are none.

Heh.

How about give your lives, ala Kolbe, as an act of sacrificial love for a complete stranger, knowing you’re going to die a horrific, slow, death?

No non-believer has done that.

That takes a Christian.

Something to think about, though, when claiming Christianity as a motivation for profound sacrifice - maybe the primary motivation is the conviction, offered by belief in souls and an afterlife, that giving up one’s life is not, in fact, the ultimate sacrifice

Perhaps.

Regardless of the alleged motivation (and how could we prove* that*?), it takes a Christian to do that profound act of sacrificial love. Not an atheist.