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

[Gaber]

Sarcasm is the protest of the weak, Gaber. :sad_yes:

Great. What is condesention?

And yet you didn’t recognize a fundamental doctrine of our faith.

I didn’t not recognize it, it is irrelevant to me that it is a doctrine, because meaning is not derived from doctrine, but from experience, observation, and reflection. That is where the ability write down such things comes from. That is why it is said “Do first, then understand.” And while it may be formulated as you quoted in our literature, the principle pointed to by the words is larger than the scope of Catholicism, our faith’s accretion of formulas being of considerably younger than human nature as such.

Actually, yes you did. Right here (bold mine):

Originally Posted by Gaber
Call it what you will,** what I said was not from doctrine**

but from observation and experience.
You made a comment about truth being independent of religious affiliation. I commented that this is a very Catholic concept. And you denied it being Catholic doctrine–only “catholic” in a generic sense.

Now, you can say that you made that comment based on your “experience”, and not based on your catechesis, but that only serves to affirm my point: you were not well catechized.

Please excuse me for not being more precise. What is meant by that is that my understanding is not dependent on the accident that there is that bit of statement in our catechesis, because even having it on a bit of paper and carrying it around, I would still have to have relevant experience to make it meaningful. And for my part, I had made the distinction before attending catechism classes. Are you claiming that codifying a dynamic is what gives it reality or meaning???

Was that your first time reading that passage from the Catechism?

Wow. Your expectations of my record keeping outstrip my actions. I have to say that since my last formal religion class was some fifty years ago, I don’t have an accurate recollection of when I read that, or even if I took serious note of it, or whether it might have been in the catechism of my time.

Again, whether it is doctrine or not, so what? How is it lived? What does it ultimately mean?

It only serves to show that you were not familiar with that aspect of Catholicism. That’s all I was trying to do

So are you predicating my competence at that time. or now, as being capable in religious thought on remembering a single passage of the catechism?

But then, despite your opinion about my level of book learning, happily, I’m proficient at what I am.

Your lack of familiarity with this particular doctrine belies this.

Should have said “at being me.” And belies what, exactly? That I didn’t remember a precise passage?

I have shown you that you were misinformed, that the truth you proclaimed is indeed part of Catholicism.

I never said it wasn’t. I only said that its meaning for me came independently of the codification.

 

[PRmerger]

Great. What is condesention?

Well,* this *would be condescension, were I to use it: “If you’re going to accuse someone of condescension, it would behoove you to spell it correctly. That way you don’t give someone ample opportunity to demonstrate it.”

I didn’t not recognize it,

'zactly.

It’s an example of your poor catechesis.

The fact that you said this because of your “experience” is irrelevant to my point, which was that you *claim *to be proficient in Catholicism, yet did not “recognize” a basic tenet of our faith.

 

[tonyrey]

Which brings about the question of why God would create some people to have defective genes…

God works through the laws of nature which cannot guarantee perfect results for every individual because there are countless living organisms in an immense variety of circumstances in an extremely complex environment which is constantly changing and producing “the thousand natural shocks which flesh is heir to”.

 

[PRmerger]

That I didn’t remember a precise passage?

That you didn’t know that Catholicism proclaims that truth and goodness can be found outside of religious affiliation.

I never said it wasn’t.

Oh, but you did, Gaber.

When I specifically stated that you were proclaiming doctrine…

No, Gaber. In the doctrinal sense.

You responded…

Call it what you will,

Which, of course, means that you didn’t recognize it as such.

If i say, “It’s a turnip” and you say, “Call it what you will” would an objective observer be right in concluding that you do* not* believe it’s a turnip? :yup:

Or would an objective observer think, “Oh, this guy now realizes that it is a turnip!” :nope:

And here is where you said, verbatim, that it was “not from doctrine.” (bold mine)

what I said** was not from doctrine** but from observation and experience.

Now, I get that you were saying that your motivation for saying that particular truth comes from your own belief and that Catholicism proclaims it is irrelevant in this context…

but it does indicate that you were unaware that this is part of the truths of your Catholic faith.

And you state as much above when you maintain that you, indeed, did not remember it. (See the quote at the top of this post.)

 

[Gaber]

That you didn’t know that Catholicism proclaims that truth and goodness can be found outside of religious affiliation.

You are kidding, right?

Oh, but you did, Gaber.

When I specifically stated that you were proclaiming doctrine…

according to your interpretation of what I said, as whaterver it was that you thought I was doing I was statiing my expeirience irrelevant of doctirne or no. How is it that what I concluded is congruent with doctrine equal to me proclaiming it as doctrine???
You responded…
Which, of course, means that you didn’t recognize it as such. In your interpretation, for God’s sake. Your imagination is not my reality, thank the God!!! it doesn’t mean that at all, but that I was deriving meaning from other than ink and paper or the pulpit.

If i say, “It’s a turnip” and you say, “Call it what you will” would an objective observer be right in concluding that you do* not* believe it’s a turnip? :yup:

Nope, only that I might call it navet, el nabo, or in my native language, talrorepa.

Or would an objective observer think, “Oh, this guy now realizes that it is a turnip!” :nope:

Nope, I already knew it by another name, prhaps more than one.

And here is where you said, verbatim, that it was “not from doctrine.” (bold mine)

Yes, meaning that while such a doctrine exists, my understanding of that dynmamic came from experience and observattion as distinct from reading that bit you offered and saying :“Oh! Look! This is new, I never knew that na would never have thought of it!” How does congruency attribute origin?

Now, I get that you were saying that your motivation for saying that particular truth comes from your own belief and that Catholicism proclaims it is irrelevant in this context…

but it does indicate that you were unaware that this is part of the truths of your Catholic faith.

And you state as much above when you maintain that you, indeed, did not remember it. (See the quote at the top of this post.)

Yes, I asked in the context of whether my remembering a prticular passage as you qouted it represented my entire body of knowledge and experience, because it appears that you are taking a microbe for mountain. Perhaps you know of the lady in the story about refusing to learn a new language because “God writ the Bible in English, and that’s good enough for me?” I’m honored to meet you! Or you are like WJ Bryan who said in the movie about the Scopes trial “I don’t think about the things I don’t think about!” To which the the reply was “Do you think about the things you do think about?” Given your exceptionally adamant and litteral narrow takes on my statements, I have to wonder if that is a question I now need to be asking.

I’m sure you are a wonderful and loving mother, and clearly you are a sincere and devoted Catholic, which is great if its working for you, but perhaps a good book on critical thinking might be a useful addition to your library. You have a sharp mind, but be careful you don’t cut yourself with it!

 

[PRmerger]

How is it that what I concluded is congruent with doctrine equal to me proclaiming it as doctrine???

That’s just it, Gaber. You proclaimed it, but did not know it was Catholic doctrine.

In fact, you acknowledged this when you said you didn’t remember it.

That I didn’t remember a precise passage?

Nope, only that I might call it navet, el nabo, or in my native language, talrorepa.

Calling something a turnip in another language is quite different, Gaber, than saying, “You can call it what you want.”

What you meant was, “I didn’t know that it was Catholic teaching, and you can call it that if you want, but I proclaimed it because I believe it of my own accord.”

That’s fine that you proclaim it because of your own motivations, rather than the fact that it’s part of Catholic theology.

All I’m saying is that your not “remembering” it is testament to your lack of proficiency in the Catholic faith.

Yes, meaning that while such a doctrine exists, my understanding of that dynmamic came from experience and observattion

But not from a proficiency in Catholic teaching.

That’s all I’m saying.

 

[Gaber]

That’s just it,…

It is not that I don’t or didn’t know that to be doctrine, which I did. But I’ve been trying to demonstrate something to you here, PR, but it appears that what you require is a date stamped memory of a single item of doctrine as proof of competency as representative of the whole of things. I am sure, given that requirement, you can come up with all of your own letter perfect recollections of all doctrine and dogma, perhaps including encyclicals, bulls, etc. and exactly when you acquired them, perhaps by means of a diarized catechism.

But if ink on paper is your form and necessity of knowing, adoration, devotion, and practice, I feel for you. And perhaps it might benefit us both if the next time we chat you put someone on the line who has a better semantic grasp of English. I do however, appreciate and admire the amountt of energy you can call up to strain at gnats, taking, unfortunately, mine with it.

 

[PRmerger]

It is not that I don’t or didn’t know that to be doctrine, which I did.

Well, Gaber, it might clear things up if you would explain, then, exactly what you meant after I said that you were proclaiming Catholic doctrine and you responded with this:

in the original sense of the word, perhaps

Why did you say that in response to my comment, “That is very Catholic of you to say!”

 

[Gaber]

Well, Gaber, it might clear things up if you would explain, then, exactly what you meant after I said that you were proclaiming Catholic doctrine and you responded with this:

Originally Posted by Gaber
in the original sense of the word, perhaps

Because it is very Catholic, and very catholic. It is a universal truth caught in one instance by a paradigm called Catholicism. It is like Vogue or Cosmo touting some virtue as being strictly a concern of young hormonized women, when in fact it is a concern of every living being. So, to quote someone whose mental acuity I admire, it is both/and.

After decades of study in comparative religion, albeit on a somewhat esoteric ground rather than the precisions of particular dogmas, it is clear to me that it is less than useful to claim as proprietary many things that are much more widely accepted and known than only one person’s faith of choice or default. Even much of what Jesus said is from the OT, and we have precious little, shockingly little of what He said and did. What is not shocking, unless one never thought about it, is that not only is nearly all of what Jesus said and described extant elsewhere, in other religions and philosophies, but in one way of reading the Gospels, His intent might be seen as something rather different and of a far more fundamental Universal portent than the founding of a Church. It seems, though, that that happened as well.

I wonder what He would think of it now. Imhop, if He came today without trumpets and angels on a cloud, he would get the same treatment as before, and from Catholics. The Prophet is not known in his own land; why would He be known in His own Church? I wonder. There would be so many people stuck in dogma, Magesterium, and letters on a page that they couldn’t see past their catechism to see that He was here!

Think I’m kidding? I worked years for a man that even the likes of Mother Teresa went to and spent time in his home as guests. He was despised by many Christians and Catholics, even to the point of murderous intent. Why? Because he saw through sham, told the truth, and talked his walk, which was Love. And many were staggeringly jealous that someone could be loved as he was. I saw it.

Back full circle, “maru:” Truth and Goodness have only an incidental congruencey with religion, though religions might codify tenets concerning those. But the Goodness and Truth are not in the tenets except perhaps as pointers. They, Truth and Goodness, cannot be constrained by a mere faith, writings, and canons. So while religions might be about God, God is what God IS, without attribute, qualification, or description. That’s all

 

[PRmerger]

Because it is very Catholic, and very catholic.

Excellent.

We are good to go, then.

And now that I understand that English is not your first language I will be more lenient towards your articulations.

 

[Gaber]

Excellent.

We are good to go, then.

And now that I understand that English is not your first language I will be more lenient towards your articulations.

You made my day!

 

[tonyrey]

I’m delighted no one has refuted the points made in post 531!

Silence implies assent - or inability to give a reason for dissent…

 

[Gaber]

I’m delighted no one has refuted the points made in post 531!

Silence implies assent - or inability to give a reason for dissent…

I think, Tonyrey, it is more like boredom with beating a dead horse. You’ve been thoroughly spanked on here, along with your designakins, and I think we are just kind of tired of the whole thing.

 

[PRmerger]

I think, Tonyrey, it is more like boredom with beating a dead horse. You’ve been thoroughly spanked on here, along with your designakins, and I think we are just kind of tired of the whole thing.

This is rude, Gaber, and not becoming of you.

Since you are a newbie I will cut you some slack, but you need to turn on the charity a bit.

 

[Gaber]

This is rude, Gaber, and not becoming of you.

Since you are a newbie I will cut you some slack, but you need to turn on the charity a bit.

Thanks, I will emulate your kindness.

 

[Gaber]

I think, Tonyrey, it is more like boredom with beating a dead horse. You’ve been thoroughly spanked on here, along with your designakins, and I think we are just kind of tired of the whole thing.

Sorry Tonyrey, too harsh.

 

[PRmerger]

Thanks, I will emulate your kindness.

How 'bout you just “emulate” the kindness you have inside you by virtue of your baptism.

(That’s Catholic doctrine, BTW , in case you didn’t know. You receive the grace of God at your baptism and thus are infused with charity and kindness and all sorts of other good things, courtesy of the sacrament. You just have to cooperate with it)

 

[PRmerger]

Sorry Tonyrey, too harsh.

 

[tonyrey]

I think, Tonyrey, it is more like boredom with beating a dead horse. You’ve been thoroughly spanked on here, along with your designakins, and I think we are just kind of tired of the whole thing.

Such gratuitous assertions are a futile (but presumably purposeful - although that is by no means certain) attempt to deter another person from exposing the inadequacy of attempts to undermine powerful evidence for Design, attempts that are weakened still further by the use of a feeble neologism, an argumentum ad hominem and a regal “we” which presumptuously claims to represent the views of other members of this forum.

It raises the question of why the writer participates on this thread - or on indeed on this forum at all - given his denigration of rational, philosophical discourse.

I append the points once again as a suitable target for one who boasts that they have been refuted:

1. God did not design carnivory, parasitism, and disease any more than He designed lechery, nepotism or child abuse.
2. Conflict and interference are inevitable in a physical system where** billions** of creatures are pursuing different goals.
3. The number of microbes that cause disease is a minute proportion of those that exist.
4. Viruses are usually more harmful but even they perform **useful **functions.
5. Since malfunctions presuppose functions purpose is more basic than the absence of purpose.
6. 90% of mutations are disadvantageous but they have promoted rather than prevented the successful development of life.
7. Predation is swifter and more efficient than a system in which animals suffer a lingering death from injury or disease.
8. All living organisms are** interdependent** and cannot exist as isolated individuals.
9. The development of parasites presupposes the development of successful organisms.
10. The occurrence of abnormality is inevitable in a **physical **system.
11. The laws of nature do not take into account **individual **needs.
12. The** immense value** of life far outweighs its drawbacks.

It would be fascinating to see how the spanker answers these questions - if at all:

Do you agree with Schopenhauer that it would be better if life had never existed on this planet?

Do you regret having been born?

Do you wish your family and friends had never been born (and would you tell them that’s what you think!) ?

 

[Poseidon]

I’m delighted no one has refuted the points made in post 531!

Silence implies assent - or inability to give a reason for dissent…

I’d assert that silence indicates more that people have lost interest in the thread, not that they agree with you. I’ve argued a lot of these points with you but you simply don’t agree with what I say (while I am clearly right and you are clearly wring from my POV).