The title says it all, but needs expansion. The natural world runs all by itself because it adheres to God’s will, the natural law. Natural “disasters” (as we see them) are just God’s will in action. As creatures, our job is to respond, not by whingeing at it, but by wholehearted co-operation with it. This does not mean lying down in the path of a tornado, it means seeking sufficient shelter from it.
Sometimes God’s will is exhibited through human activity, especially in matters of justice. Justice must be attended to or injustices will multiply. We must see justice as necessary adjustments to the helm of history.
We live in an age where the will of the individual has been given untold powers. let us pray that Wisdom guides that individual will into concordance with God’s will for them and for us all.
What Satan wants is “every man for himself”. Egoism, in other words.
Catholicism Pure & Simple 
“Natural “disasters” are just God’s will in action. As creatures, our job is to respond, not by whingeing at it” Yes, what a bunch of tiresome whingers those earthquake victims can be BB. Don’t they know it’s just God’s will in action? Dear me!
“This does not mean lying down in the path of a tornado, it means seeking sufficient shelter from it” But maybe God could give just a little warning of impending tsunamis, BB??
LikeLike
Have you been reading Monsignor Pope, Bro. Burro?
http://blog.adw.org/2013/07/losing-life-to-gain-eternal-life-a-short-paradigm-of-life-as-seen-in-an-animated-video/
LikeLike
Wise words from Msgr. Pope in his reflections on kite flying. Another thought that occurred while reading the link is that success is no better than failure – not on the level that really matters, which is the spiritual level. Whatever leads us closer to God is to be welcomed, and often it is our failings that best do so. It’s hard to praise God and give Him thanks when we fail. We don’t have the same problem asking His forgiveness when we fail; but in addition to seeking forgiveness, prayers of prayers and thankfulness are called for when we mess up and recognise that we have done so. ‘Tough love’ I think it’s called.
LikeLike
Actually, I hadn’t seen that article before writing mine. I do think Msgr Pope’s blog is excellent, and I visit his site often.
LikeLike
Hi Adrian/Dan/Hugh/Karlf,
somewhere along the way man lost the ability, still possessed by lesser creatures, of picking up the warning signs of earthquakes, eruptions, storms etc. Man also doesn’t help himself when he buils huge cities at near sea level, or in flood plains etc. Perhaps if mankind could wise up, get more close to his fellow creatures, and learn the simple lessons of history, his lot would be improved.
LikeLike
Adrian, intellectually mature atheists (forgive the oxymoron) don’t say that ‘bad’ things should never happen to ‘good’ people, which makes me wonder why you, an atheist, are bellyaching about tornados and tsunamis? In your universe, s**t just happens; so why are you always shedding crocodile tears about tsunamis, cancer, murder and such? Is it because you think riddles like that are finally going to make us slap ourselves upside the head and say: “OMG! How can He allow such things if He exists?” The conundrum of tragedy is best addressed at the Sunday School level, not left until one is an adult when it’s probably too late to consider with the open-minded innocence that is the hallmark virtue of childhood. The believers here have answered your “anguish” as best as can be, in your present state of faithlessness; and if you still don’t get it, God love you.
LikeLike
And could mankind “…get closer to his fellow creatures and learn the simple lessons of history..” in order to avoid cancer, influenza, or malaria, Burro?
Or are diseases somehow different from earthquakes, landslides and forest fires started by lightning?
Nothing to do with “God’s will in action.” like the “disasters”*, maybe?
And how, in fact, might the inhabitants of Lisbon in 1755 – have learned any “simple lessons of history,” since nothing remotely like it had ever happened in Lisbon before – or has ever happened since, for that matter?
“Man also doesn’t help himself when he builds huge cities at near sea level, or in flood plains etc.”
Can you think of any place on God’s earth where we humans could confidently say, “No ‘natural disaster’ can ever hit me here,” Burro? Because, if you can, I’ll move there tomorrow.
And do you also think “lesser creatures” like dogs, cats, sheep, and cows, are somehow spared from the “natural disasters” that God regularly visits on humans?
They are not.
Or is it that they know what’s coming, but can’t avoid it?
What use is that?
Is a mountain goat likely to say to his family, “There’s an earthquake coming here in Los Angeles, California, so we are moving right now to Toledo, Ohio.” ?
I confess I am a little puzzled to hear you, a doctor, saying things of this nature.
But perhaps I shouldn’t be.
I humbly await moderation, as always.
“Perhaps if mankind could wise up, get more close to his fellow creatures, and learn the simple lessons of history, his lot would be improved.”
“Fellow creatures”? only the other day you were telling us that man is not an animal. A “fellow creature” perhaps, but not a comparable “creature”?
Odd. it seems to me.
But what do I know?
(Does your wife ever comment on any of this? Impertinent question, i know. But still.)
* A tornado is not a “natural disaster.” it is a natural event on planet Earth because of how the planet is “organised,” whether by God or not.
It is only a “disaster” to some poor ‘fellow creature,” man or beast, who happens to get in the way.
LikeLike
“In your universe, s**t just happens; so why are you always shedding crocodile tears about tsunamis, cancer, murder and such? “
The question here, which JH is either missing or ignoring – is not why does s**t happen, we all know that – but how do believers reconcile that s**t with the idea of a loving God? (or even a vindictive one.)
The question is, at best, evasively answered. It seems to me.
(Burro, I would be greatly obliged if you would either run my comments or instantly kill them, in which case you might be decent enough to provide a brief reason, as rude as you like. Or you might say; “Toad wrote something and I didn’t like it, so I killed it.” That would do nicely. It is, after all, your train set. Just ignoring them – if that is in fact what you actually are doing – is possibly cowardly, certainly unmannerly. Forgive me if I have merely misread the situation here. Which is entirely possible.)
LikeLike
Steady on John! I’m just trying to see why Brother Burrito holds such strong beliefs in unquestionably problematic and dubious theory, and why, as a Christian, he has such callous regard to so many millions of children who have suffered terribly as a result of natural disasters.
No, I don’t get it, John.
LikeLike
If God knows that man has lost this self warning capability, why does He not warn them himself?
God could have created a world where such natural disasters did not occur.
“Perhaps if mankind could wise up, get more close to his fellow creatures” Is Pope Francis a good example of this?
“Man also doesn’t help himself when he builds huge cities at near sea level” Does the Bible warn us of this? Anyway, the 200,000 killed in the 2004 Asian tsunami were not in huge coastal cities. Nor were the 100,000+ Italian catholics killed by the 1908 Messina earthquake – not to mention the far greater number of survivors who had to endure so much hardship and suffering. Why did He not warn them?
LikeLike
And yet, and yet; there is no satisfactory answer to the question ‘if natural disaster like famine, flood and disease’ are God’s will, then what of the innocents and children who die in these situations? God does not inflict Ebola or TB or drown thousands in floods on a whim? JHs answer of 21.07 does not address the question at all.
I wish it did…I myself cannot answer when grilled by nonbelievers.
LikeLike
Please, McCavity, don’t be distressed because you “cannot answer when grilled by nonbelievers” about the problems of pain and suffering. Far wiser Catholics than you or me have been unable to do so in a completely satisfactory way. It really is no use trying to convince atheists that ours is a God of Love. Only those ready to contemplate pain and suffering – or any of the great theological questions – through the prism of faith can achieve even a glimmer of understanding about why things are as they are. Complete understanding is impossible this side of the grave. We would be annihilated by the glory of it all if God were to reveal everything to us in our present state.
Isaiah 6:5 “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts!”
Exodus 33:20 “…you cannot see my face; for man shall not see me and live.”
LikeLike
McCavity’s distress is all part of the pain and suffering problem, innit?
What interests me is that no matter how awful life is for us humans in this imperfect world, all of us desire to, and think we know how to, improve it, if only for ourselves.
This desire for improvement is goodly in itself, but can be misdirected into unfortunate action.
LikeLike
Innocents and children (often the same people) have nothing to fear in death. They come straight to Heaven. I am reminded of my nineteen month old daughter dying in my arms. There was no guilt or regret in her eyes. She is in the Glory now, and intercedes for her family before God’s throne.
Advice is easy to give and hard to follow, but here is mine: be innocent, be child-like, and the Kingdom of Heaven is yours.
LikeLike
“If God knows that man has lost this self warning capability, why does He not warn them himself?” Ask Him yourself.
“God could have created a world where such natural disasters did not occur.” But he didn’t.
““Perhaps if mankind could wise up, get more close to his fellow creatures” Is Pope Francis a good example of this?” Yes.
““Man also doesn’t help himself when he builds huge cities at near sea level” Does the Bible warn us of this? Anyway, the 200,000 killed in the 2004 Asian tsunami were not in huge coastal cities. Nor were the 100,000+ Italian catholics killed by the 1908 Messina earthquake – not to mention the far greater number of survivors who had to endure so much hardship and suffering. Why did He not warn them?” I dunno, perhaps he did, but was ignored.
LikeLike
“This desire for improvement is goodly in itself, but can be misdirected into unfortunate action.”
Did you have anything specific in mind when writing this, Burro?
(Communism, say?)
LikeLike
When we get on to these sorts of questions, the assured knowledge of God’s will appears to dissipate.
“Ask Him yourself.” I have, but He doesn’t say anything. Please could you ask Him for me, BB?
““God could have created a world where such natural disasters did not occur.”But he didn’t.” Why not?
“”Is Pope Francis a good example of this?” Yes.” In what way is Pope Francis a good example of someone getting close to his fellow creatures?
“ “Why did He not warn them?” I dunno, perhaps he did, but was ignored.” If that was the case, He knew the warning was ineffective and would not help.
LikeLike
Yawn
LikeLike
Natural disasters are a necessary corollary to a planet with seismic activity, a tidal system and an atmosphere; all of those elements are considered essential for life to evolve.
Unless, of course you want your Christian interlocutors to be creationists, in which case you shouldn’t be talking to Catholics.
Mankind was offered the chance to live in a state of natural justice with God, but preferred the flux and change of the world.
You ask why God doesn’t warn us of catastrophes; read Dives and Lazarus again and think on this: we know it’s risky to live under an active volcano, but Naples; we know it’s risky to live in a seismically active area, but San Francisco; we know it’s risky to live in houses built of plaster-board and deal, but tornado alley; we know its risky to live next to the sea in a seismically active region, but Fukushima.
Besides which, it betokens a powerful materialism that you are fixated on death as a bad thing.
LikeLike
“…unquestionably problematic…”
Adrian, is that one of those “oxymoronic” thingamagigs you hate so much? How can something be unquestionably problematic? No, I don’t get it, Adrian.
LikeLike
Look, Adrian, if it’s “problematic” it must be questionable, but perhaps the word I was looking for was not oxymoronic, but redundant? But soft! You said “unquestionably problematic”? Definitely an oxymoron – viz: a problem not to be questioned. Have you got Fowler’s Modern English Usage at hand? First edition?
Your move.
LikeLike
“…why, as a Christian, he has such callous regard to so many millions of children…”
You say that, Adrian. You imply that you care deeply about “so many millions of children” but he does not. That is your implication, no? In my experience, people who talk about caring deeply for “millions of children” don’t actually do diddly squat for children, which is why they inflate their level of love and talk about millions. Tell us about the “millions of children” you have actually done something for, Adrain? Now me, I still have letters received from the two or three Third World children I supported, in a modest way, as a foster parent when I as a teenager. Not millions of children – just two or three. Have you got any? Maybe you and I can share our letters with our friends here?
LikeLike
Adrian (@08:42 on 09 July) … getting back to the discussion about all the “millions of children” you care about, thanks so much for giving me the opportunity to pull out the letters I received from Sun Jui-Kan (Taiwan), John Micubu (Kenya), Felix (Kenya – no last name) and Jane Muringo (Kenya) back when, as a callow fellow, I sponsored them through the Christian Children’s Fund. I find all your talk about “millions of children” off putting in the extreme. You have no right to come and accuse people here of “callous disregard” for millions of children when you know nothing of what they do outside the confines of this blog.
LikeLike
The fact that the theory is problematic is unquestionable. Think about it.
LikeLike
I was referring to BB’s comment: “Natural “disasters” (as we see them) are just God’s will in action. As creatures, our job is to respond, not by whingeing at it but by wholehearted co-operation with it”
‘Whinging’ is a very callous way to represent the immense suffering of millions.
LikeLike
The Raven (@22:45 on 10 July), so, to explain the terrible suffering caused by natural disasters we must first deem God incapable of creating an environment, conducive to evolution, that is not affected by such things. Correct?
LikeLike
Fantastic response BB, but it takes great faith and trust in God to see this. You are blessed to possess this grace – God Love you. But some people just don’t seem to have it, or even care to seek these fundamental virtues. Sad!
(Your mention of your little Gracie Bear sends instant tears to my eyes!)
LikeLike
“…we must first deem God incapable of creating an environment, conducive to evolution, that is not affected by such things…
You will find there are those, Adrian, who deem that is exactly what God originally created.
But we humans introduced extra ingredients, such as Hepatitis, Herpes, Hurricanes, Hailstones, Hydrophobia, Hysteria and Mel Gibson movies – “Natural Disasters,” in fact – into the evolutionary bouillabaisse by committing Original Sin.
I think I’ve got that right.
If not, I shall swiftly be told.
…Roger will know,
LikeLike
Read and digest the rest of my comment, Adrian.
LikeLike
The fact that the theory is problematic is unquestionable.
No, Adrian, that’s not how you phrased it originally, although even that construction is awkward. I don’t wish to make a mountain out of a molehill, but I still consider your use of “unquestionably problematic” to be unquestionably questionable, as well as evidencing a callous disregard for millions of adults who appreciate well-written English.
LikeLike
“You will find there are those, Adrian, who deem that is exactly what God originally created” The Raven tells us that this was not possible, though I’d be interested to hear what others believe about this.
LikeLike
“that’s not how you phrased it originally”
I know John, I was trying to explain it to you what it means. To say something is “unquestionably problematic” is perfectly good English. Maybe you’d like to discuss something else?
LikeLike
If you would like Toad’s two cent’s worth (well, you’re going to get it, anyway) the question of why God appears to permit needless suffering to happen is, as we all seem to agree, deeply problematic. Unquestionably so, suggests Toad.
” Natural disasters are a necessary corollary to a planet with seismic activity, a tidal system and an atmosphere; all of those elements are considered essential for life to evolve.”.
The weasel word here is “considered.” thinks Toad, because God could have made any world, any way He wanted, we must suppose.
And if He didn’t want to make a fragile, dangerous, unstable, disease-ridden planet because it would make most people who on it unhappy, he simply wouldn’t have done so.
(That can’t possibly be a correct analysis, can it Raven? Where has Toad gone wrong?)
LikeLike
Unfortunately, I think johnhenrycn has provided a very good example of what happens when egoism gets the better of us.
LikeLike
OTOH, Uncle, I might just be pulling Adrian’s leg. Yes, that must be it. It’s indubitably indubitable that I’m doing so. But thank you for your interest.
LikeLike
Wrong.
LikeLike
Toad,
I rather doubt that people who believe that the world was originally created free of the capacity for natural catastrophes include evolution in their list of beliefs.
Were we made for this world?
LikeLike
That’s a poor response, McCavity: Belsen and Biafra were works of the human will by men against their fellow men; they happened because people have free will to make them happen.
The argument is well dealt with here: http://www.strangenotions.com/turning-problem-evil/
St Bernard’s point was something different altogether: he was talking about an utter rejection of the world, he would have welcomed a martyr’s palm; the only genuine harm to him would have been a spiritual injury – of necessity something self-inflicted.
These Orthodox chaps explain the position: http://deathtotheworld.com/articles/death-to-the-world-issue-1/
The argument that Adrian is trying to make is that natural disasters are, in some form, an evil and therefore incompatible with the existence of a loving God. I think his argument fails because I do not accept that these things are an evil.
LikeLike
Discussion in these matters is a vanity and a chasing after wind. You either have the lumen fidei, or you don’t. If you lack it, you either want it or you don’t.
If you don’t and you don’t, it might be best for you to crawl back under a stone and enjoy your slug’s life.
Now there is something to put on the side of a bus: “Atheism is a slug’s life, without the joy”!
LikeLike
Dismantled by what?
I haven’t yet seen a decent or convincing atheist treatment of the phenomenon of evil.
LikeLike
“And so – there is no adequate Catholic answer here as to why there is suffering. sayeth McCavity.
But there is. One that Catholics and other Christians accept as adequate for the time being. Yes, it involves an element of faith, as several here have tried to tell you. That you and the atheists reject faith is your problem. In much the same way as mathematicians are always telling us that a circle has a certain fixed area, but are unable to tell us exactly what it is (because π (pi), like God, is transcendental), some things just have to be accepted on faith for now:
It’s in the Bible. Look it up.
So, when you atheists and extheists can solve the riddle of squaring the circle, which btw, modern mathematics states is an impossibility, by then we should be able to tell you why there is suffering in the world. Until then, we non-mathematicians accept on faith that circles do indeed have precise areas. Go thou and do likewise.
LikeLike
“Then I could take up my bed etc…”
That’s fascinating, McCavity, because when I was younger, I too had a Murphy Bed. It functioned as a bed, a bookcase and a breakfast table. And speaking of riddles, when I snacked in bed, I always had to deal with the problem of crumbs –crumbundrums,I used to call them . How about you?
LikeLike
So sorry, McCavity. You believe in God after all, do you? Methinks you must believe in an Omnimpotent– which is to say, an All Powerless – God, but each to his own. Still, if you’re planning on sticking around, it would be best to nail your colours to the mast.
LikeLike
An answer to what, McCavity?
If you are talking about the evil that men do to one another, the answer is “free will”. It is not an answer that is ever going to comfort anyone, but it has the inconvenience of being a truthful answer; it would be oxymoronic to claim that God could limit our scope of action while still allowing us to have free will.
LikeLike
cripes not another karlf sockpuppet … 😦
LikeLike
It is ludicrous to try and second-guess God
LikeLike
Quite.
Original Sin is the knowledge of Good and Evil.
The lilies in the field are unconcerned with earthquakes in Lisbon.
LikeLike
“It is ludicrous to try and second-guess God” says Jabba.
True, and equally foolish to try and first-guess Him, on some matters.
Such as these.
We surely need to make a clear distinction between the events man is responsible for, and those for which he is not.
Not as easy as all that.
But nobody suggests man is responsible for leprosy or hurricanes, malaria or earthquakes.
Or do they?
Are those two, and their like, a direct result of Original Sin? Surely somebody can either verify or falsify that, at least?
LikeLike
I have just pulled twenty or so weeds out of my onion patch. Naturally, this is a devastating tragedy for the weeds, but I am neither filled with remorse nor asking why did God allow me to do it? Spare us the tedious theodicy, please!
LikeLike
In what context?
LikeLike
My main points were that God does not give effective warnings of impending disasters and does not alleviate the suffering of those affected by these events.
Also, how come you consider yourself to be able to determine what sort of world God is or is not capable of creating?
LikeLike
You are implying that the fate of weeds is comparable to the suffering of real human lives?
LikeLike
No one can “expose the Word of God to ridicule“…… that is impossible.
What they are doing is ‘fighting’ God in their anger and pride, as they scream out: “Non serviam”.
Remind you of the ‘someone’ who first said these words McCavity?
Failure, illness, suffering, loss etc. is all part and parcel of our human condition, thanks to Original Sin (as Jabba points out). To accept our crosses with humility, and convert them into instruments of purification and sanctification is tough – our inclination is to rebel against them – and it takes a lot of faith, prayer and grace to do so as we place our trust in God, Who we know will not abandon us. Then we learn what real joy truly is.
And discover the path to Heaven.
LikeLike
But if CP&S disnenses with “the tedious theodicy” Brere Rabit, what are we left with?
A lot of inanity from Toad and you about donkeys and things, maybe. prollywobbly.
(…Toad doesn’t find “theodicy*” the least bit tedious. But then, he hasn’t had your advantages.)
*”A theodicy (/θiːˈɒdɪsi/ from Greek theos “god” + dike “justice”) is an attempt to resolve the evidential problem of evil by reconciling the traditional divine characteristics of omnibenevolence, omnipotence, and omniscience with the occurrence of evil or suffering in the world.” (Viz: Wikki.)
LikeLike
Adrian
You’ve already had an answer on your first question and your second is irrelevant: we are in the world that He created; people plonked down in a world that was not subject to such forces would not be the people that we are.
As I’ve said before, it would be better for you to deal with the answers that you’ve had instead of just re-posting the same questions.
LikeLike
I was not re-posting them as questions, but correcting you as to what my questions were.
And in dealing with your answers I asked “how come you consider yourself to be able to determine what sort of world God is or is not capable of creating?”
How do you know that we need to be exactly the people that we are, or that life could not have evolved in a different sort of environment?
LikeLike
Consider the lilies of the field.
LikeLike
Quite right, very little pension. In all my years in church service they did not even pay my National insurance stamp. Consider the lilies of the field.
LikeLike
“Methinks you must believe in an Omnimpotent- which is to say, an All Powerless – God, but each to his own.”;
I think JH must mean “all powerful,” here. surely?
LikeLike
“The argument that Adrian is trying to make is that natural disasters are, in some form, an evil and therefore incompatible with the existence of a loving God. I think his argument fails because I do not accept that these things are an evil.”
True, Raven, cancer is no more “evil,” than, say, a rattlesnake bite, or a flash flood. Just something sent to keep us on our toes.
I also think Adrian’s argument fails – in my case because I don’t regard God as being in any way responsible for the existence of evils of any description – natural or not.
LikeLike
Whatever. It just seems like some of you go round this track on a monthly circuit. Have we learned anything yet? And the two new motormouths do not bring much wisdom to it either!
LikeLike
True, most of their offerings are mangled hunks of junk, but occasionally one or the other lets out a brainf**t that fairly ricochets around the room.
LikeLike
…(^) meant as a reply to 17:49.
LikeLike
No McCavity, I was actually objecting to the way you seemed to be twisting St. Augustine’s words to have a little dig at Raven and Brother Burrito – both who had already given you excellent, coherent replies in attempting to explain the mystery of suffering.
I believe that in that quote from St. Augustine, he was simply telling us to be use Faith and Reason when dealing with non-believers’ scorn on Christian, and especially Catholic, teachings and doctrines…. something I wholly agree with. IOW, he was saying, be “as wise as serpents and as gentle as doves” when facing the ‘wolves’ (today’s Gospel by the way) or they will try and get the better of you!
When I say “the human condition”, it is clearly a reference to our fallen natures in a fallen world. Suffering is unavoidable in this life, even for the rich and privileged (or so they say) and yet it is natural that we constantly try to avoid it and to search for relief from it and happiness… sometimes though in the wrong places. Unavoidable suffering, whether it be physical, material or spiritual, should not lead men to despair, for it is through the Cross that we attain Eternal Life. We have Our Lord’s words and example to assure us of this, and the greater the suffering, the greater the sanctification, and the grace poured upon us.
LikeLike
“No one can “expose the Word of God to ridicule“…… that is impossible..”
No it’s not.
Anything can be ridiculed.
Might be a sin to do so, but it’s possible.
LikeLike
I had no idea Our Lord said that, JH. Very enlightening. It appears to be a complete non sequitur.
Jesus might just as well have asked. “What colour socks is Herod going to wear next Wednesday, and then I’ll tell you why?” before refusing to answer.
LikeLike
No, Omnimpotent means All Powerless. Just a little pun. Clean your spectacles.
LikeLike
Toad
I disagree, these things are not “sent to keep us on our toes”, they are simply the natural result of our life in the world.
LikeLike
You’re not correcting me, Adrian, I am well aware what your questions are. That is why I answered them.
Are you really claiming that evolution could take place in a non-entropic system? You’re a very creationist atheist if you are.
LikeLike
I think what your mutual friends on CP&S are trying to tell you, McCavity, is “…if you can’t take a joke, you shouldn’t have joined.”
…For that is the philosophy round here. JH and Rabit will confirm this.
LikeLike
Sigh!
McCavity, I was trying to say that you used St. Augustine’s words to try to snub R and BB, but in fact you were using them in the wrong context. Their responses on the subject of the mystery of suffering (and I would include JH’s too) were intelligent and coherent, so no one could ridicule (or to appear to ridicule) the Word of God by criticising their arguments.
LikeLike
Well Toad, Our Lord said: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.” (Matt. 24:35)
It is Holy and Forever.
It might seem to us that those who hate and attack the Word of God might be using ridicule sometimes, but it’s just a lot of angry hot air in the end.
(You know the saying: “He who laughs last……”)
LikeLike
Knowledge of Good and Evil is not a tectonic phenomenon.
LikeLike
“Have we learned anything yet? “
asks the rhetorical Rabit.
Well, it is sobering to consider that Toad – who had thought he was a Sceptical Agnostic Catholic, has learned he is actually a Solipsistic Egotistical Satanist.
LikeLike
You’re not a Solipsistic Egotistical Satanist. You’re just a very norty boy.
LikeLike
Toad, I hope you are appropriately attired. In Pope Ratzinger’s Introduction to Christianity he had this to say:
Belief has always had something of an adventurous leap or break about it, because in every age it represents the risky enterprise of accepting what plainly cannot be seen as the truly real and fundamental. Belief was never simply the attitude simply corresponding to the whole slant of human life. it has always been a decision calling on the depths of existence, a decision that in every age demanded a turnabout by man that can only be achieved by an effort of will.
Once one has perceived the adventure essentially implicit in the whole attitude of belief , it is impossible to avoid a second consideration, namely, that of the particularly acute difficulty in believing that affects us today. On top of the gulf between “visible” and “invisible” there comes, to make things harder for us, the gulf between “then” and “now”. The basic paradox already present in belief as such is rendered even more profound by the fact that belief appears on the scene in the garb of days gone by and, indeed, seems itself to be something old-fashioned, the mode of life and existence current a long time ago. All attempts at modernisation, whether intellectual, academic “demythologisation”, or ecclesiastical, pragmatic aggiornamento, do not alter this fact; on the contrary, they strengthen the suspicion that a convulsive effort is being made to proclaim as contemporary something that is, after all, really a relic of days gone by.
Just sharing :-).
google books has parts of the second edition of Pope Benedict’s book here.
LikeLike
You are , as always, Golden, very kind and gracious. May you never be moderated. Even in fun.
To my mind, Ex-Pope Benedict’s extract can be paraphrased as. ” Believing six impossible things each morning, before breakfast, takes a great deal of hard work and practice. But – if we just put our minds to it – it can be done”
Of course he uses more big posh words. Like “demythologisation”, or ecclesiastical, pragmatic aggiornamento,” But it comes to the same in the end.
Or so I suspect.
Christmas is just around the corner, Buy your cards now, while stocks last.
LikeLike
Do we choose what we believe to be true, or do our experiences of life convince us one way or another?
LikeLike
This is the nub (or one of them, at least) isn’t it, Jabba?
The idea that knowledge – of any description – is “sinful,” is where I really have to draw the line.
Might be wrong, of course…
The uncaring Lillies of Lisbon might not have given a rat’s patootie about the quake, but the poor old Lisboners sure did.
Voltaire was pleased to be able to point out that it killed the Jesuits along with everybody else.
So it was, at least, “fair.”
LikeLike
Growth in understanding of spiritual things proceeds at God’s pace. He has to remake our wine-skins first so they can accept the new wine.
If we try to cram it in to our old wine-skins ourselves, they burst, and the wine is wasted.
LikeLike
I’m surprised no one has answered you yet on this question Uncle Kyle.
To ‘choose’ to believe something just because it makes one ‘feel good’, or is convenient, is a big mistake. We must search for Truth first. Our common sense tells us that not everything taught, proclaimed or expounded can be true, for many of the ideas inherent in each philosophy or religion are in direct conflict with each other.
In the same way one cannot be a Conservative and a Socialist at the same time, or a believer in God and an atheist, so no one can be “just a Christian”. Assuming one is already a believer in Christ, many of the Christian denominations, while holding to the same fundamental belief in the One Triune God, and in the Passion Death and Resurrection of Jesus (or they would not be able to call themselves ‘Christian’ to start with) they hold to differing teachings.
This reality has led countless men into the Catholic Church, the only Church that can trace its origins back to the very words of Jesus Christ when He formed His Church and Made Peter the first Holder of the ‘Keys’ (its Doctrines and Dogmas). All other churches are off-shoots of the One True Church, and these Protestant churches divide up into more and more little churches, having left the one source of Truth, the Church Jesus founded, that is, and always will be, prevented from Error. We have Our Lord’s own words for it.
We should pray that all men come to this realisation. And once one has made use of their own faith and reason to discover the Truth, then one makes the ‘choice’ to believe all that the Church teaches. Belief must come first.
LikeLike
Thank you Kathleen.
Can we choose to believe that something is true or not? I would think that nearly everyone wants to know what is true, but their experiences of life point them in the wrong direction. But as you imply, ideas which fit with their desires will surely be more seductive to them.
LikeLike
Hmmm, having reeled off my reply to you above rather too quickly, I see I didn’t make it clear that what one believes in has to ring true! If it does not, one is fooling oneself to ‘choose’ to believe in something that has not convinced you. You can’t just cherry pick one religion or another because one seems better suited to your tastes, or worse, because one appears to be less demanding or challenging, but because, only one can be right. Only one proclaims the whole unadulterated Truth.
Once a person has discovered this, there is nothing he can do but (metaphorically speaking) “sell all to buy the field that holds this pearl of great price.”
It sometimes takes years to discover…. and perhaps, unfortunately, owing to conflicting experiences (as you say), opinions, circumstances etc., or even temptations to certain bad habits or sins that they do not want to forgo, they never finds this longed-for truth. Sincerity, prayer, common sense plus clear reasoning, courage… and also humility (to be able to admit one’s former misconceptions and errors) are necessary in this endeavour.
LikeLike
What you say about ‘ringing true’ is right – for me at least, Kathleen.
As to the notion that, only one can be right, well, that is a pretty sweeping statement. It may be true – or possibly it may not – I don’t know. And I don’t see how it can be demonstrated. Maybe it can, though.
A devout Muslim, or Jew, would certainly agree with you on that.
It is not inconceivable that there as as many ‘truths’ as there are people.
In which case it gets awkward.
However.. …and also humility (to be able to admit one’s former misconceptions and errors) are necessary in this endeavour.
I also heartily agree with you there.
Have you ever been obliged to do it yourself. with regard to your religion? Do you speak from experience here? Toad certainly has. (And Sir Anthony Kenny.)
I ask because you give the impression of having had total, unswerving, confidence in Catholicism from the day you were born.
(How intriguing that Pope Francis is an admirer of Borges, by the way…)
LikeLike
Hmmm, indeed, Kathleen.
I agree that an idea must “ring true,” or it’s no good. However, what rings true to a Muslim, Jew, or Calvinist – might just not “ring true,” to Toad, for example. What then?
Is there only one truth? The same three random specimens would presumably say “Yes.” I don’t know, myself.
Maybe Pragmatism is right. If it’s true for you, then it’s true. (at least for you.) Or maybe not.
But I’m very interested when you assert: “Sincerity, prayer, common sense plus clear reasoning, courage… and also humility (to be able to admit one’s former misconceptions and errors) are necessary in this endeavour…” I assume you write from experience? Have you had to jump through such spiritual hoops yourself, as have I (and Sir Anthony Kenny)?
If so, what were the former misconceptions and errors in your case?
LikeLike
How do you imagine, toad, that reality would function if more than one truth existed ?
LikeLike
” Sincerity, prayer, common sense plus clear reasoning, courage… and also humility (to be able to admit one’s former misconceptions and errors) are necessary in this endeavour” – a great many people have applied these techniques and not all have ended up as Catholics, have they?
I hear a lot of comments about those who “reject” God, which demonstrate a refusal to understand these issues of ‘belief’.
LikeLike
Toad,
I am as human and vulnerable as everyone else, and I don’t know how you can even ask me that above. Of course I’ve had doubts, questions and even some dire tests in my journey of faith to God. If it were not so, I would be a robotic pre-programmed ‘believer’ – an absolutely ridiculous idea!
“Blessed are those who do not see, but believe”, said Our Blessed Lord to St. Thomas.
In Hebrews 11:1 we read: “Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen”.
Faith is believing in that in which we do not see. That is why it is one of the theological Virtues, together with Hope and Charity.
Once we are beyond this Life, in Eternity, Faith and Hope will be redundant; only Charity will remain.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines it thus:
143 By faith, man completely submits his intellect and his will to God.2 With his whole being man gives his assent to God the revealer. Sacred Scripture calls this human response to God, the author of revelation, “the obedience of faith”.
151 For a Christian, believing in God cannot be separated from believing in the One he sent, his “beloved Son”, in whom the Father is “well pleased”; God tells us to listen to him.18 The Lord himself said to his disciples: “Believe in God, believe also in me.”19 We can believe in Jesus Christ because he is himself God, the Word made flesh: “No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.”20 Because he “has seen the Father”, Jesus Christ is the only one who knows him and can reveal him.
Then read on from no.153 onwards for all the characteristics of Faith.
It will do you a world of good! 😉
LikeLike
But if it doesn’t “ring true” for Toad, how can he have faith? The believer has quite an advantage here.
LikeLike
Toad,
You remind me of a brainy child on his first visit to the seaside. You stand at the shore, and observe all the children frolicking in the waves, but remain shy of joining in. Your braininess inhibits you as you consider the force of the waves and the density of your body relative to water etc.
Why don’t you just dive in? As the resident beach donkey, I am tempted to grab you by your swimming costume and throw you in, without your consent if necessary! There are an abundance of lifeguards on duty, so there is nothing to fear.
LikeLike
An undeserved advantage, you must admit.
LikeLike
It’s not a question of being deserved or not – that’s the point!
LikeLike
Why not?
LikeLike
Well, do people believe things because the ‘deserve’ to, or vice versa? Please explain.
LikeLike
“How do you imagine, toad, that reality would function if more than one truth existed ?”
I haven’t a clue, Jabba. But one possibility – from an infinite number – is that it would function exactly as it functions ar present.
But I don’t see how this could be either verified or falsified.
Perhaps you can.
“143 By faith, man completely submits his intellect and his will to God.
Now we are getting somewhere!
That doesn’t “ring true” to me. Why would God give me discrimination and then forbid me to use it?
If I submit my intellect, (such as it is,) to God, I might as well keep it in a hat box under the bed.
LikeLike
“How do you imagine, toad, that reality would function if more than one truth existed ?”
I don’t know, Jabba. “reality’ (whatever that is) might very well function exactly as it does now.
Or then, it might not. We have no way of knowing.
Except through faith.
And even then, we don’t “know.” Or so I think.
LikeLike
“…to be able to admit one’s former misconceptions and errors…”
All I was asking Kathleen, was if you would tell us what some of (or preferably all ) those “errors and misconceptions” actually were.
I’d find that interesting and instructive. As would others, I ‘m sure.
Of course, it’s entirely up to you.
LikeLike
Well, I might ‘dive in,’ Burro, except that I would be obliged to wear a tee shirt over my upper body for modesty’s sake. That’s one tiny – but telling – reason why I don;t. There are others more serious..
But I must remind you (or maybe tell you) I was born in that sea, and have, when young, done my share of ‘frolicking.’ Pretty dismal frolicking it was in those days, too.
In fact, I only paddled back to shore. after about 16 years, because my soul was going all wrinkly round the edges.
LikeLike
Does anyone else find that all the answers seem to be getting all mixed up in the ‘wrong’ places these days? Or is it just silly old Toad?
I write things that vanish, I think they’ve been blown away accidentially by me,(quite possible) or ‘killed’ and so I resubmit them – then they pop back up out of nowhere.
LikeLike
Toad gets himself tied in awful knots when he wrestles with the concept of truth.
The Liar Paradox: “This statement is false.”
True Contradiction: Toad stumbles whilst entering his local cantina and lies sprawled over the threshold. Toad is in the bar. Toad is not in the bar. Which is true?
LikeLike
I fail to grasp the essential point of any of your contributions today, Adrian. And I doubt that the Socratic Method is a pedagogical tool you should be playing with. Try running with scissors.
LikeLike
“Toad gets himself tied in awful knots when he wrestles with the concept of truth.”
Indeed he does JH. It’s a knotty problem. For him, at least.
Toad is never sprawled anywhere but safely inside the bar.
LikeLike
[This comment was misplaced by WordPress, and so I take the liberty of repeating it here in its proper place.]
I fail to grasp the essential point of any of your contributions today, Adrian. And I doubt that the Socratic Method is a pedagogical tool you should be playing with. Try running with scissors.
LikeLike
It would appear that Adrian is following a very similar line of inquiry to mine i.e.
“Can we choose to believe that something is true or not? I would think that nearly everyone wants to know what is true, but their experiences of life point them in the wrong direction.”
And Adrian asks “But if it doesn’t “ring true” for Toad, how can he have faith? ”
Also “do people believe things because the(y?) ‘deserve’ to, or vice versa?”
LikeLike
Toad, sorry for not getting round to answering you about this yesterday.
When referring to needing “humility to overcome one’s former mistakes or misconceptions” (when converting to Christianity, and especially, of course, Catholicism), I was referring to the journey converts from other faiths, or unbelievers, have to undergo…. not cradle Catholics.
But yes Toad, I admit that in my youth, and living through that difficult period of post Vatican II, with the abuses and liberalism of the seventies rife in the Church and world at large, and seeing the falling away from the Faith of so many priests, nuns and lay people, I too was beset by doubts and confusion.
I thank God every day for his grace in sending me holy friends, guides, who were able to show me the errors of that period, and keep me on the straight and narrow path to God.
Yet that does not mean that I (like everyone else) does not have to struggle with the “child of Adam” within me, continually battling my many weaknesses and failures to live up to the holiness we are all called to. We cannot take Faith for granted; constancy in prayer and the sacraments is vital. Every day we have to convert anew and give thanks to God for the gift of Faith.
Every day we have to say: “Yes Lord I believe, but help Thou my unbelief”.
LikeLike
Yes, thanks, UK. But don’t hold your breath waiting for any satisfactory answers. I don’t reckon it’s a very popular topic here, however central to the understanding ‘faith’ it might be.
LikeLike
You could say that the fact we do not choose what we believe to be truth is “unquestionably problematic” 🙂
LikeLike
yes indeed; an unsettlingly big can of worms which no one wants to open!
LikeLike