Why won't God heal amputees - Page 16

On March 26 2009 00:55 MoltkeWarding wrote:
I have no idea where Savio is coming from, perhaps Mormon? There are certain rhetorical similarities between his writing and the mormon missionaries who indoctrinate me every now and then.

The Catholic approach to the problem of evil eschews the manichean opposition of good and evil, and rejects the notion that good and evil are mutually exclusive in a single phenomenon. In the Tomist-Aristotilean tradition, evil is broken down into various categories, as defined by their metaphysical and ethical properties. However treating the existence of evil as a whole, the Church maintains God's omnipotence and free will by invoking the necessity of evil in a perfectly ordained world. God is the creator of evil in the sense that evil, if one liberates oneself from a purely metaphysical conception of it, is also the source of Good, and that the latter cannot exist without the former, in the same sense that love cannot exist without loss, sympathy cannot exist without pain, wisdom cannot exist without failure. Nor would any of those elevations of man be rightfully Good absent of free will.

This is fairly reflective of the paradoxes of human existance. No one wants to die, but no one wants to be immortal. No one wants to be powerless, but no one wants to be omnipotent. No one wants to be rejected by a girl, but no one wants a girl who is too easily won, etc. This phenomenon isn't only described by Christian philosophy, it's also recognized by German pessimists such as Spengler, who, however, has no transcedental solution to offer.

Following is the question of the Purpose of Creation, and here, Aquinas says:

God, while being omniscient, is also an actor of supreme freedom. Obviously, being omniscient has a paradoxial effect upon freedom of action. Hence God's will is immutable, and completely free, it cannot be determined by the future actions of his creations, which would invert the cosmic order of being. Secondly, the creation of man was independent in purpose from their particular destinations, it was simply a manifestation of God's nature, and his goodness. God's purposes in the act of creation are his own and not those of man.

Edit:



Original sin in its theological interpretation is not a limitation of human freedom, but an expansion of it, by describing the broadness of the scope of human action. Yet in modern society, it IS liberalism which has destroyed the public consciousness of sin or, if you want to put it in secular terms, of our capacities for shame, guilt and remorse.

On March 26 2009 00:55 MoltkeWarding wrote:
I have no idea where Savio is coming from, perhaps Mormon? There are certain rhetorical similarities between his writing and the mormon missionaries who indoctrinate me every now and then.

The Catholic approach to the problem of evil eschews the manichean opposition of good and evil, and rejects the notion that good and evil are mutually exclusive in a single phenomenon. In the Tomist-Aristotilean tradition, evil is broken down into various categories, as defined by their metaphysical and ethical properties. However treating the existence of evil as a whole, the Church maintains God's omnipotence and free will by invoking the necessity of evil in a perfectly ordained world. God is the creator of evil in the sense that evil, if one liberates oneself from a purely metaphysical conception of it, is also the source of Good, and that the latter cannot exist without the former, in the same sense that love cannot exist without loss, sympathy cannot exist without pain, wisdom cannot exist without failure. Nor would any of those elevations of man be rightfully Good absent of free will.

This is fairly reflective of the paradoxes of human existence. No one wants to die, but no one wants to be immortal. No one wants to be powerless, but no one wants to be omnipotent. No one wants to be rejected by a girl, but no one wants a girl who is too easily won, etc. This phenomenon isn't only described by Christian philosophy, it's also recognized by German pessimists such as Spengler, who, however, has no transcedental solution to offer.

Following is the question of the Purpose of Creation, and here, Aquinas says:

God, while being omniscient, is also an actor of supreme freedom. Obviously, being omniscient has a paradoxial effect upon freedom of action. Hence God's will is immutable, and completely free, it cannot be determined by the future actions of his creations, which would invert the cosmic order of being. Secondly, the creation of man was independent in purpose from their particular destinations, it was simply a manifestation of God's nature, and his goodness. God's purposes in the act of creation are his own and not those of man.

Edit:



Original sin in its theological interpretation is not a limitation of human freedom, but an expansion of it, by describing the broadness of the scope of human action. Yet in modern society, it IS liberalism which has destroyed the public consciousness of sin or, if you want to put it in secular terms, of our capacities for shame, guilt and remorse.

On March 26 2009 02:18 MoltkeWarding wrote:


I believe it was Jimminy Cricket in Pinocchio who, when trying to explain the concept of right and wrong to Pinocchio, said that wrong is what only seems right at the moment.

I referred briefly before to the Catholic categories of evil, among them, physical evil and moral evil. Physical evil concerns of course, deprivations of a corporeal character i.e. famine, war, physical injury, whereas moral evil concerns matters of the soul such as malevolence, deceit, treachery. Moral evil must be self-conscious deviance from conscience, and does not encompass all acts made in ignorance. From the immediate psychological perspective, and from the examples given in this thread, physical evil attains primacy. However physical evil is a finite and isolated phenomenon, whereas moral evils are eternal, if one endorses the juxaposition between the mortal body and the immortal soul.

For instance, a murderer may have killed your wife, and at that particular instant, the death of your wife appears to be the overburdening evil. However, if for the rest of your life you are consumed by hatred and bitterness and cynicism due to this event, the evil is transfigured into something far greater and more damaging than its original cause.

Therefore in the long run, moral evil has the greater importance, and it has always been the emphasis of the Church to address the moral evils of the world above those evils with physical causes, and prescribe moral remedies such as love and compassion as the primary means of transcending all evil.

On March 26 2009 02:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:

rofl

Reading someone writing in such good english, which such amazing knowledge of his subject and on a perfectly courteous tone in this utterly retarded thread where basically not a single answer hasn't clearly been the product of complete ignorance and indoctrination is the most funny thing I have seen on TeamLiquid.

I love Germans. Seriously.

On March 26 2009 10:44 CTStalker wrote:

he's not german

On March 27 2009 18:20 MamiyaOtaru wrote:


Rationalization 3 was a little lolwut.

"In general, God seems to have no problem doing things that are obvious. Think about the Bible. Writing the Bible and having billions of copies published all over the world is obvious."

The Bible is apparently not very obvious, as you don't believe it to be the word of god.

"In the same way, any medical miracle that God performs today is obvious. The removal of a cancerous tumor is obvious because it is measurable. One month the tumor is visible to everyone on the X-ray, and the next month it is not. If God eliminated the tumor, then it is openly obvious to everyone who sees the X-ray. There is nothing "hidden" about removing a tumor."

And yet you don't believe them to be supernatural miracles. So they are also *not obvious*.

"So, why not regenerate a leg in an equally open way?"

Because that might be the obvious miracle that might push you over the edge into believing something supernatural had occurred, removing faith from the equation? Doubtful of course, you'd come up with something. But it's not that weird to see people with a vested belief draw a line there. I don't think the skewering of rationalization 3 was quite up to par with the rest.

Also: congrats to the western world in general and BackHo in particular for courage in working to eradicate the low hanging fruit of modern Christianity. Perhaps next you'll follow Christopher Hitchens' example and turn your efforts towards Islam or something else that is actually growing, and hence an actual threat to your desire for logic to rule worldwide. I don't find this sort of thread to be very necessary, helpful, or ballsy. You're just piling on a bandwagon headed downhill. You don't even have to push. So hooray for you.

On March 19 2009 18:10 IdrA wrote:
well its not really the problem of evil and the normal responses to the problem of evil cant address it because of the claims that miracles cure other diseases like cancer and stuff, either god hates amputees or the other medical 'miracles' arent really miracles.

On March 28 2009 03:28 GoSuPlAyEr wrote:
This is all I'm going to say on that matter and really won't read anymore so there is really not point to even responding.

Christians believe their is sin in the world, this article paints a picture of God like he is some kind of magician and whatever you ask for you will get no matter who you are or what you've done which simply is not true. It completely ignores books like Job where God allows Job to suffer through tons of hardship and never really even gives a reason for it other than He is God we aren't, which I know people hate, but if this article is going to use a few other verses misinterpreted in their meaning than I figure I'll use the Bible as well, Job even goes as far as saying "Though He slay me yet will I trust in Him". Why is it such a stretch to say amputees, that obviously have no chance of getting their limbs back, are also facing the same test Job did? Christians also believe there are consequences of sin (the ultimate consequence for all of us being death). From what I understand of amputees although there whole body isnt dead, that limb is dead, and once something dies we can all agree no matter how much you pray it isnt coming back, this is a consequence of sin.