|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
Christianity in general? I only mentioned Chesterton's use of Nietzsche and Camus in the sense of The Lord using the devil for his own purposes. You're right about Nietzsche and Camus, I've only read Also Sprach Zarathustra, the Case of Wagner, Beyond Good and Evil, The Geneology of Morals, Birth of a Tragedy, Myth of Sisyphus, The Crisis of Man, The Stranger.... I guess without sparknotes those texts went right over my head.
then why are you even citing them, they've already debunked your Aristotelian argument. i don't even get what your stance is in this discussion and where you're trying to take it.
|
i will cover this later. your actual argument has been debunked by several hundred years of philosophy (morality aligning with nature)
If you read what I wrote, I did not insist in the reality of natural rights. What I do challenge everyone to is to expound a moral system (in reference to one central issue: slavery) which assumes that there are no natural rights.
your actual argument has been debunked by several hundred years of philosophy (morality aligning with nature) which you are uneducated about (you admitted you were unawear of this)
All I can say is a bewildered ?
you're all over the place in your arguments and still only answering fractions of the questions being posed to you.
I don't recall my not having answered an explicit question, and if I am all over the place with my arguments, it's because I'm not working with my arguments, but yours.
then why are you even citing them, they've already debunked your Aristotelian argument.
Tell me, do you live a Nietzschean life? Is it even possible to live on such a basis?
P.S. My "argument" was not aristotilean, but Platonic. It was your rebuttal which was Aristotilean. For the last time.
|
It's impossible to live a Nietzschean life in contemporary society
|
what is your background with religion and philosophy
Well this is a personal question, and personally, unrelated to anything I've ever said on tl.net, I don't have a religion and I don't like philosophy.
It's impossible to live a Nietzschean life in contemporary society
life is pretty boring if you don't have faith in the absurd.
Zulu, you can become sick if you take that diet too fully. Maybe switch to Moliere for a month or two.
|
Well I think that even the people posting here, shown by their derogatory swearing and the way they speak of our arguements etc... (saying "this is bs...." etc..) just kinda shows how deeply the "atheists" of this board are almost religiously entrenched in their own beliefs.
I mean people say Christians are wrong all the time and they're sticking to one particular book and therefore their idiots. Great, but really where did you get your beliefs from? The school system? a particular scientist? Darwin?
You happy to put all these standards on our text e.g. I'll believe in God when "x" happens, but you do not apply the same to what you believe in the slightest. You just assume your argument because its backed up by a particular scientist is true. Which is hypocrisy in the highest degree.
So to put the same standards on atheists, I will believe in your argument when you prove to me there is no God, and I don't mean little circular arguments like "If God was real why would he let babies die" or "why doesnt God heal amputees" which is just stupid because your putting your own idea of what you personally think, God should be like and then using that idea of what your perfect God would be to reject arguments that come against you for Gods existence.
God isn't described in your way in the bible, quran or any other religious document. Therefore if you wanted to disprove the Christian God, you would have to spend a lot of time reading the bible in context, and then pick out something that God said he done or said he was going to do, and didnt do or doesnt do and therefore disproving that branch of theism.
You can't impose your own idea of God and then expect Christians to come up with proof for it because the God your describing simply does not exist in all the main religions.
|
On March 25 2009 05:39 MoltkeWarding wrote:
I haven't made any assertions in general. If you can pin me down to one assertion, it is this: slavery cannot be held to be an evil institution on any basis other than natural law. If there is an alternative explaination of its evil nature, I would be glad to hear it.
Nothing can be attributed inherently evil or good, without referring to the notion of natural law. Therefore I wouldn't call this an assertion because it is a self-evident truth.
|
On March 25 2009 06:31 MoltkeWarding wrote:
What I do challenge everyone to is to expound a moral system (in reference to one central issue: slavery) which assumes that there are no natural rights.
Kant bases his ethics on the notion of 'Vernunftrecht'. One could argue that it is basically natural law, but from Kant's point of view it is not. Using the categorical imperative, purely based on rational law, one would come to the conclusion that slavery is bad. But only beings gifted with reason come to that conclusion. So it is not evil per se, but it is for humans.
Or am I wrong?
|
3 Lions
United States3705 Posts
On March 25 2009 07:11 TechniQ.UK wrote:
Well I think that even the people posting here, shown by their derogatory swearing and the way they speak of our arguements etc... (saying "this is bs...." etc..) just kinda shows how deeply the "atheists" of this board are almost religiously entrenched in their own beliefs.
I mean people say Christians are wrong all the time and they're sticking to one particular book and therefore their idiots. Great, but really where did you get your beliefs from? The school system? a particular scientist? Darwin?
You happy to put all these standards on our text e.g. I'll believe in God when "x" happens, but you do not apply the same to what you believe in the slightest. You just assume your argument because its backed up by a particular scientist is true. Which is hypocrisy in the highest degree.
So to put the same standards on atheists, I will believe in your argument when you prove to me there is no God, and I don't mean little circular arguments like "If God was real why would he let babies die" or "why doesnt God heal amputees" which is just stupid because your putting your own idea of what you personally think, God should be like and then using that idea of what your perfect God would be to reject arguments that come against you for Gods existence.
God isn't described in your way in the bible, quran or any other religious document. Therefore if you wanted to disprove the Christian God, you would have to spend a lot of time reading the bible in context, and then pick out something that God said he done or said he was going to do, and didnt do or doesnt do and therefore disproving that branch of theism.
You can't impose your own idea of God and then expect Christians to come up with proof for it because the God your describing simply does not exist in all the main religions.
+1
I really agree with this post.
I'll admit that I'm a Christian. As a response to "why doesn't God heal amputees?"....
So lets say you get a prayer circle to pray for the amputee. You pray earnestly to God. He hears you. However, God is not to be bossed around. He won't do what you tell him to do. A god in general will not grant every request of yours. He has a purpose for everything that He does, and Christians (for the most part) believe that if something bad happens, its always for a greater good.
Basically, the OP can be summarized into the question "Why doe God allow suffering?"
Ok...here's what Christians believe (Protestant denomination, not Catholic or Orthodox or w/e)
1. Suffering is caused by evil and sin.
2. Man is naturally evil and sinful (again, this is what Protestants believe)
3. Man was separated by God when they chose evil (Adam and Eve and that tree)
Therefore, man is in suffering because we all are sinners. Now, God is omnipotent so he could take away all suffering, but doing that would take away our free choice. Man has two choices (Protestant belief)
1. God
2. Evil, sin, etc.
If God takes away that choice, it would basically render Christianity useless. Christianity is not about and should not be about good deeds, as we are unable to redeem ourselves to be worthy of Heaven. However, God was merciful and sent Jesus to die on the cross to save us from our sins. Now, we have the choice of persuing a relationship with God or just completely ignore or oppose Christianity.
|
United States22883 Posts
Neither of you managed to level even a semi-rational argument. Where the hell has Savio gone? I disagree with him on basically everything, but at least I respect his brain power. I don't believe TechniQ has studied anything besides what his specific church has taught him. Certainly not religious philosophy and I doubt the teachings of any other denomination.
And Lions, the closest you got to giving any explanation in your post was the idea of free will, but there's still plenty of holes in the argument, ignoring the very obvious free will vs. God's omniscience. Why must Christianity necessarily exist? You could just as easily have free will without implanting sin and suffering in everybody. There's nothing contradictory about a creature that exercises free will and doesn't suffer. Platinga's defense of Free Will is at least more stomachable than the definitive claims you just put forth. It's amusing that defenders stick to the belief that God is omnipotent to the point of logical consistency, yet they'll willingly admit an absence of logic for a believe in God.
How can you presume to know that the existence of free will was God's intention for permitting evil? What indication do you have that God is even omnibenevolent? There's at least lack of proof for God's non-existence, but if you open your eyes there's plenty of atrocities in the world that have no explanation, and what about when the suffering occurs to people who never had the opportunity to exercise free will?
How can the idea of liberty and original sin even coexist? Do you realize that Mother Teresa, the modern icon for the Catholic church, went insane because she couldn't reconcile the problem of evil with all the suffering she witnessed?
As for the part about evil being for the greater good:
http://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/02-03/01w/readings/madden&hare.html
|
LoL, Jibba. I was gone cause this thread quickly took a turn toward the evangelical and then to the philosophical and I didn't want to completely control the thread, but I did have another thought that might help people understand the answer to the initial point of the article in the OP.
I have argued that all the bad (meaning the physical suffering) that happens in this life is as irrelevant as a half second itch because by an eternal perspective (and we are eternal being who have existed forever and will exist forever), 70 years is much shorter than a half second feels to us. In the long run, EVERYBODY in the world will receive much better things from God than we by ourselves deserve. THIS is the goodness of God. You can't judge his goodness by looking at the bad things that happen here and now. You have to at least attempt to view things from his perspective (that is an eternal perspective), then things that you thought were important are no longer important and other things are.
One way to think of things is to image God as a parent and us as a 2 year old (most deep doctrines about God are to be seen through the use of symbolism, this is why Christ taught in parables). 2 year olds get VERY emotional when another kid takes their toy for example (I have a 2 year old so I see this). When some sad thing happens to him, his face shows shear agony. I am serious, it is AGONY. Remembering back as far as I can, I can vaguely remember very strong feelings of anger and sadness when my brother would steal my toy or knock me down. They were strong and very real emotions.
Now, as parents, we know that it is not a serious problem that his toy is gone and we also know that he will feel better very soon. Sometimes we intervene and give the toy back but sometimes we punish them both for fighting in the first place and sometimes we just ignore them and let the injustice stand. That does not make us bad parents. It is not child abuse, but from the kids perspective, there is real suffering. So could the 2 year old, use the injustice that he sees as proof that his parents don't love him? Is letting an injustice stand show that the parent is unjust?
Actually all it shows is that the kid's perspective is different from the parent. In reality, there is nothing "fair" about what the kid gets from his parents. They give him EVERYTHING he has and do EVERYTHING for him. The kid is getting way more than he earns by whatever little good deed he does.
The same is true of us. We see bad things happen (even lost limbs). God does not intervene but we don't realize that the lost limb is not important because God has already ensured that we will all be resurrected some day and live for eternity with a perfect body. What does it matter that we missed a limb for a few years compared to eons with a perfect body?
The only difference in this analogy is that God temporarily took from us our memory of our life before being born and does not live with us here where we can see him. His purpose in doing this is to help teach us to choose right even when wrong is available and enticing and to do it when we think no one is watching.
Think about it. What would make you happier, if your kid shares their toy with another kid when you are sitting right there ready to intervene, or if you are peeking around the corner and you see your kid sharing and being nice? In the 2nd instance you know that the intentions are pure (and that the lesson was really learned) while in the first it might be affected by your presence.
So if you want to make sense of this world and God, you have to look at it not as someone in this world but as an eternal being looking at it from way out seeing eternity in both the past and the present.
|
You make me want to puke.
|
On March 25 2009 07:11 TechniQ.UK wrote:
Well I think that even the people posting here, shown by their derogatory swearing and the way they speak of our arguements etc... (saying "this is bs...." etc..) just kinda shows how deeply the "atheists" of this board are almost religiously entrenched in their own beliefs.
I mean people say Christians are wrong all the time and they're sticking to one particular book and therefore their idiots. Great, but really where did you get your beliefs from? The school system? a particular scientist? Darwin?
You happy to put all these standards on our text e.g. I'll believe in God when "x" happens, but you do not apply the same to what you believe in the slightest. You just assume your argument because its backed up by a particular scientist is true. Which is hypocrisy in the highest degree.
So to put the same standards on atheists, I will believe in your argument when you prove to me there is no God, and I don't mean little circular arguments like "If God was real why would he let babies die" or "why doesnt God heal amputees" which is just stupid because your putting your own idea of what you personally think, God should be like and then using that idea of what your perfect God would be to reject arguments that come against you for Gods existence.
God isn't described in your way in the bible, quran or any other religious document. Therefore if you wanted to disprove the Christian God, you would have to spend a lot of time reading the bible in context, and then pick out something that God said he done or said he was going to do, and didnt do or doesnt do and therefore disproving that branch of theism.
You can't impose your own idea of God and then expect Christians to come up with proof for it because the God your describing simply does not exist in all the main religions.
loool.
Yes you cannot disprove a god. Great. You also can't disprove, like, leprechauns.
Most atheist (or even agnostic) arguments are not for disproving the existence of a god. They are for (hopefully) showing that under the assumption that no god exists, nothing in your life changes, i.e. that god is doing so precious little that it totally doesn't matter if he exists or not. And what god does, it's never directly provable that what he did was actually god's doing. And that he's - for some strange reason - never doing anything which could directly prove him. Why would a benevolent omnipotent being hide itself for all eternity? Which is also why Savio's parent-child analogy has its weaknesses -- when comparing god to being the parent, we're talking about a parent who's never there for his child, always "watches it from afar, never influences it". Which means the child is basically raised without his parent, and the child will never meet its parent.
You know what we would call such a child? A poor soul who has no parent (and who can't live on its own and needs help). Because that's *effectively* what it is.
So let's assume god exists. But even then, effectively he doesn't exist. Concerning your life, he doesn't exist. You only assume he exists, hope that he does something to help you in life, but if not, you'll say that it's all for the greater good, and you hope that after your death everything will be different if you just follow your religion's rules.
So, again, effectively god doesn't exist. I don't even need to disprove god.
And as for your comparison with religion and science... holy shit, I really do not like people who think that way. So yes I've never seen e.g. bacteria with my own eyes. That's because it's not possible. But I've seen them through a microscope. And everything I know about them, including that some of them cause diseases (and how), is "belief" on my part, yes, because I've never proven it for myself. However, the big thing you're ignoring in your argument and the reason for why your argument is goddamn retarded (even dangerous thinking) is that everything connected to bacteria can EASILY be proven by whatever guy has enough knowledge about them and the tools to make them visible (and someone else can of course explain how these tools work, and everything will make 100% sense for you, the "theory" will not falter in face of even the most critical and difficult questions).
YOUR arguments for a god can NEVER be proven and they NEVER stand a chance against thorough critical questions. And when the shit hits the fan, like in this thread, religious people use one of their "great" standard excuses like Savio did in his last post above mine... namely that god is forever hiding, forever invisible, only accessible via belief, and if bad things happen it's all "for the greater good" and that you'll ONLY TRULY BE REWARDED AFTER YOUR DEATH, live a perfect life, yadda yadda. Basically, he made god completely irrelevant for our life on Earth, and instead basically advertised that we should live our life by god's rules (although completely irrelevant for our life because god doesn't care if shit happens or not) and then be rewarded after our death. Which of course cannot ever be proven and might as well be called complete and utter bullshit.
And because of that, god cannot be proven. But everything in science can. That's the whole point of science anyway - to try to UNDERSTAND things, to make sense of them, and to find a rational explanation for things which are "so" true that they will stand even in face of the most critical questions. Oh, and it will even stand true when you repeat testing the "theory", of course.
No doctor will ever say to you "oh yeah I don't know what this insulin does or how it works but if you just believe in it it will help you manage this disease I don't know what it is either but it will definitely do something! And if it doesn't, it's all for the greater good anyway, and you'll surely be 100% cured after your death. So if you die, don't sue me, but be glad instead! Look forward to it! Glad to have helped you, bye.". Unless the thing you're talking about is still just a theory, but then it is LABELED a theory, not a fact, and you know that it's just that - a theory. And god is always a theory, never a fact, or even remotely a fact. Unfortunately it's one of those theories that makes precious little sense.
This is also an excellent argument about why your religious views cannot be true no matter what you think:
http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/01/20/why-is-your-religion-more-valid-than-another/
Be sure to read it! (If you're Christian, because it's written from that point of view)
And about the improbability of an existing god:
http://unreasonablefaith.com/2008/09/16/the-futility-of-invoking-a-designer/
|
This sounds really interesting, so I'll have to read through the entire thing later...though not now. I skipped through the first part, as it just seemed to be explaining prayer and its place in the many Christian faiths and doctrines.
Anyway...I thought I'd do a quick reply to some of your rationalizations. Take my replies with a grain of salt, as, I admit, I haven't read everything previous, but I hope something thoughtful comes out of it.
Your rationalizations 1 and 2 are pretty much the same...it's pointing out the rather circular logic that's entailed with any kind of an empirically unverifiable belief, in this case religious faith. Nothing really to criticize, but I just thought I'd point that out...haha.
The reply a Christian might give to your response to rationalization 3 would go something like this: The biggest problem with your response (not that the original rationalization is very strong to begin with) is that you're comparing a book that is supposedly of a history written mostly more than two thousand years ago, before the common era. You can ask the further question as to why there are no longer prophets, no longer great miracles and, in fact, why no additions are being made to things like the bible in the first place.
There is no general consensus, but I think the one that makes the most sense is the claim that with the resurrection of Christ and the foundation laid by his immediate followers, the era changed in God's "plan". It became a new one where prophets were no longer necessary...and if you think about it, they're not. Christianity is one of the world's five major religions, and the Roman Catholic Church reported more than a billion Catholics in their number a while back I believe.
In any case, the rationalization you address in the first place is a fairly childish rationalization to begin with, in my opinion. Risking an ad hominem, I would first question the degree to which the person who says such a thing is educated in his or her very own faith... -____-;;
The fourth rationalization is also effectively identical to the first two. BTW, just to point out...you misuse the word "logic" a fair bit...there is no logic involved where you use it in this one. In addition, your use of the word in rationalization 6 is rather shaky...
Rationalization 7 calls upon the same things that 1, 2 and 4 do...just pointing that out, as you seem to have missed that. Again, effectively, they are the same. What they mean by "do not test the lord" is to not question him. There are no mechanics to prayer...it is about as abstract a thing as they come. No one is testing God by praying for the regeneration of a lost limb, but one tests him by questioning why he does not regenerate that lost limb.
Rationalization 8 is also effectively identical to 1, 2, 4 and 7.
I think your response to rationalization 10 is the most interesting, as no two Christian denominations will agree on both this rationalization, nor your response to it. Many of the relatively hardcore more right wing fundamentalist denominations call for a very strict and literal interpretation of the bible. However, groups such as the Roman Catholic Church allow for an amount of interpretation. There is no consensus on this.
Rationalization 11 is effectively the same as 1, 2, 4, 7 and 8.
Anyway, I just ran quickly through those. I will read the rest of your massive post later.
Oh, in case this changes anything, I'm actually not a Christian...I grew up a Roman Catholic, but am actually recently apostatized...
|
On March 25 2009 07:55 snowbird wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2009 06:31 MoltkeWarding wrote:
What I do challenge everyone to is to expound a moral system (in reference to one central issue: slavery) which assumes that there are no natural rights.
Kant bases his ethics on the notion of 'Vernunftrecht'. One could argue that it is basically natural law, but from Kant's point of view it is not. Using the categorical imperative, purely based on rational law, one would come to the conclusion that slavery is bad. But only beings gifted with reason come to that conclusion. So it is not evil per se, but it is for humans. Or am I wrong?
Kant's logic, in the end, is Aristotelian...it's a harrowing thought to still consider anything based on the old logic still relevant.
|
On March 25 2009 07:11 TechniQ.UK wrote:
Well I think that even the people posting here, shown by their derogatory swearing and the way they speak of our arguements etc... (saying "this is bs...." etc..) just kinda shows how deeply the "atheists" of this board are almost religiously entrenched in their own beliefs.
Coming from an effective agnostic, I can say that it doesn't matter where you stand. There are perfectly respectable Christians and other religious believers, perfectly respectable agnostics, and perfectly respectable atheists.
The ones that are to be ignored and looked down upon are the loudmouthed and closed-minded idiots who can't take a contrary argument without considering some part of it to be personal and insulting.
Those kinds of people exist in all three categories. You can't not expect those types to appear when a topic like this is discussed.
Religion is a touchy subject. Personally, I consider atheism and agnosticism to both be belief systems just as any religion is.
Differences in beliefs on this account have potentially devastating effects on one's life in many different areas...
I'm personally surprised at how many dumb people there are in this thread as well...lol. I thought a place that's generally as well-managed as TL would be a bit more civil, but I mean...wow.
|
On March 25 2009 15:11 0xDEADBEEF wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2009 07:11 TechniQ.UK wrote:
Well I think that even the people posting here, shown by their derogatory swearing and the way they speak of our arguements etc... (saying "this is bs...." etc..) just kinda shows how deeply the "atheists" of this board are almost religiously entrenched in their own beliefs.
I mean people say Christians are wrong all the time and they're sticking to one particular book and therefore their idiots. Great, but really where did you get your beliefs from? The school system? a particular scientist? Darwin?
You happy to put all these standards on our text e.g. I'll believe in God when "x" happens, but you do not apply the same to what you believe in the slightest. You just assume your argument because its backed up by a particular scientist is true. Which is hypocrisy in the highest degree.
So to put the same standards on atheists, I will believe in your argument when you prove to me there is no God, and I don't mean little circular arguments like "If God was real why would he let babies die" or "why doesnt God heal amputees" which is just stupid because your putting your own idea of what you personally think, God should be like and then using that idea of what your perfect God would be to reject arguments that come against you for Gods existence.
God isn't described in your way in the bible, quran or any other religious document. Therefore if you wanted to disprove the Christian God, you would have to spend a lot of time reading the bible in context, and then pick out something that God said he done or said he was going to do, and didnt do or doesnt do and therefore disproving that branch of theism.
You can't impose your own idea of God and then expect Christians to come up with proof for it because the God your describing simply does not exist in all the main religions.
loool. Why would a benevolent omnipotent being hide itself for all eternity? Which is also why Savio's parent-child analogy has its weaknesses -- when comparing god to being the parent, we're talking about a parent who's never there for his child, always "watches it from afar, never influences it". Which means the child is basically raised without his parent, and the child will never meet its parent. You know what we would call such a child? A poor soul who has no parent (and who can't live on its own and needs help). Because that's *effectively* what it is.
You can't really say that God left us here all alone. While he is not physically here with us, he usually uses the Holy Ghost to communicate with his children. The Holy Ghost is described as a comforter, a teacher, a testifier. This is how Christians know the truth when they hear it or when they read it. This is what God blessed the people with on the Day of Pentecost. Also, he calls prophets and apostles to lead us as well. And of course we have the writings of the prophets/apostles in the Bible. And God DOES interevene sometimes. Just like a parent sometimes does intervene but the child.
|
Agnostics FTW no one should pretend to understand either way, shit like this is above us for all we know we could be in the matrix and god of no god could be being spoonfed to us by robots (not saying this is true) its impossible to know, look at things scientifically, but at the same time part of science is to keep your eyes open to all possibilities, atheists are just as bad as Christian zealots. Think Of Einstien to Isaac Newton, common belief of truth was proven wrong same shit with god
|
He doesnt heal because there is no god. Wow, there, i said it.
|
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:
How can the idea of liberty and original sin even coexist?
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.
|
I have argued that all the bad (meaning the physical suffering) that happens in this life is as irrelevant as a half second itch because by an eternal perspective (and we are eternal being who have existed forever and will exist forever), 70 years is much shorter than a half second feels to us. In the long run, EVERYBODY in the world will receive
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
