Elephants in Orissa Attack Exactly One Year After Persecutions
#31
what's the big deal?!

I'd be thrilled to send a bunch of pissed off elephants to a few people I know.

... happy holidays.

:angrywom:


those are African elephants.

I think that it's a more effective picture than the Indian ones, what with their big flappy ears and all.
Reply
#32
(12-21-2009, 03:25 PM)libby Wrote: what's the big deal?!

I'd be thrilled to send a bunch of pissed off elephants to a few people I know.

... happy holidays.

:angrywom:


those are African elephants.

I think that it's a more effective picture than the Indian ones, what with their big flappy ears and all.

A-frican elephant is a-frican elephant. What difference Indian or otherwise?
Oh my Jesus, I surrender myself to you. Take care of everything.--Fr Dolindo Ruotolo

Persevere..Eucharist, Holy Rosary, Brown Scapular, Confession. You will win.
Reply
#33
(12-21-2009, 01:10 PM)DrBombay Wrote:
(12-21-2009, 03:39 AM)Bonifacius Wrote: Dr. Bombay,

Only a cowardly lion fights with straw men.  *No one* is saying that these animals are conscious or have souls!  They're saying that God is driving these elephants against the persecutors.  God does this sort of thing so it's not superstitious to suggest or claim that this is what's happening here.  Uh, you ever heard of the two she-bears that killed the youths who mocked Elisha?  Or the plagues of locusts and frogs?  Or Jonah and the whale?  So spare us your over-wrought complaints.  If the reports are accurate, this is indeed one of the coolest things in the world right now. 

Holy Scripture is indeed accurate.  Vague reports on the internet, not so much.  Not only is it superstitious, it's hysterical as well.  Better not hurt a Christian or God will send rampaging elephants after you.  What?  It is perverse theology.  God does not require elephants to execute his will.  You see, God doesn't really get angry or experience any other emotion.  That's just a literary device.

Try not to get over-wrought.  They really are just brutes....really...

It's only funny until they catch up with you!
Oh my Jesus, I surrender myself to you. Take care of everything.--Fr Dolindo Ruotolo

Persevere..Eucharist, Holy Rosary, Brown Scapular, Confession. You will win.
Reply
#34
(12-21-2009, 03:33 PM)Jacafamala Wrote: A-frican elephant is a-frican elephant. What difference Indian or otherwise?

!!!

:laughing:


African elephants have that je ne sais quoi going for them.

They're more dramatic.

If i had to send them to somebody's house, those are the guys that I would pick, alright.
Reply
#35
(12-21-2009, 02:16 PM)quoprimumV Wrote: Dr, Bombay:

Your quote: "You see, God doesn't really get angry or experience any other emotion"
Please tell the money changers in the temple that.  Have you also missed the entire old testament? 

Lets just look at anger - here's a small sampling....
Judges 2:12, 2:14
Kings 11:6
Kings IV 23:26
Psalms 2:5
Jeremiah 2:3
and a very angry Malachi 2:3 -I suggest you read this one.

God has used the animals in His Divine Providence so many times it is laughable, yes laughable, to say that this is superstitious.  I'd leave that up to those who have the jurisdiction to make a proclamation of that sort.  Time for another read of Heliotropium, eh?

Our Lord of course got angry in his human nature.  God, however, does not get mad in his divine nature.  God is perfect and he is simple.  For him to get angry or experience any other emotion something would have to be added to his simple perfection, at which point he would cease to be both simple and perfect and would thus cease to be God.  Therefore, God experiencing emotion is, simply, impossible.  

Emotion requires potentiality and since God is pure act, it would be against his nature to get angry or emotional in any way.  Just as it is impossible for God to create a rock so large that he can't lift it or to commit an evil act.  God cannot act against his nature since he is incapable of contradiction. We can only know God by analogy and that is what the writers of sacred scripture are doing when describing the anger of God.  It's a metaphor.
Reply
#36
(12-21-2009, 03:20 PM)Walty Wrote:
(12-21-2009, 01:10 PM)DrBombay Wrote:
(12-21-2009, 03:39 AM)Bonifacius Wrote: Dr. Bombay,

Only a cowardly lion fights with straw men.  *No one* is saying that these animals are conscious or have souls!  They're saying that God is driving these elephants against the persecutors.  God does this sort of thing so it's not superstitious to suggest or claim that this is what's happening here.  Uh, you ever heard of the two she-bears that killed the youths who mocked Elisha?  Or the plagues of locusts and frogs?  Or Jonah and the whale?  So spare us your over-wrought complaints.  If the reports are accurate, this is indeed one of the coolest things in the world right now. 

Holy Scripture is indeed accurate.  Vague reports on the internet, not so much.  Not only is it superstitious, it's hysterical as well.  Better not hurt a Christian or God will send rampaging elephants after you.  What?  It is perverse theology.  God does not require elephants to execute his will.  You see, God doesn't really get angry or experience any other emotion.  That's just a literary device.

Try not to get over-wrought.  They really are just brutes....really...

But he didn't say a word about God being angry or requiring elephants to execute his will.  How many must have said the same words about the Flood, plagues of locusts & frogs, Jonah's whale, earthquakes etc.  And surely these were mentioned in Scripture while this is internet news reporting, but are we only to believe what is reported to us via Scripture?  How about the million true things reported on the internet daily?  The point was that God has and does use natural phenomenon (animals included) in order to affect change or bring about justice in the world. 

You might as well begin saying that it is superstitious to believe that locusts really attacked the Egyptians or that those she-bears really attacked the children who mocked Elisha.  Certainly they were really just brutes... try not to get over-wrought.

This article may or may not be factual. It may or may not be superstitious (in the sense that it puts faith into a perhaps false spiritual answer to a question that may be more easily explained by something more mundane), however your reasons for condemning the validity of the story are all bunk.

Bunk!!!  What's bunk is divining supernatural portents in the actions of brute beasts. That's bunk.  Short of an ex-cathedra declaration by the pope that this was the work of divine justice, I still maintain it's nothing but a natural phenomenon.  Do we really want to go down the road of attributing natural disasters to God's wrath?  What about when it happens to good, traddy Catholics, even priests?  Well, then it's the devil at work.  Uh huh.  And the devil can make a bunch of stupid elephants stampede if he really wants to I'm sure. 

It's nonsense and trying to read something more into it than is there is superstition. 
Reply
#37
(12-21-2009, 03:52 PM)DrBombay Wrote:
(12-21-2009, 03:20 PM)Walty Wrote:
(12-21-2009, 01:10 PM)DrBombay Wrote:
(12-21-2009, 03:39 AM)Bonifacius Wrote: Dr. Bombay,

Only a cowardly lion fights with straw men.  *No one* is saying that these animals are conscious or have souls!  They're saying that God is driving these elephants against the persecutors.  God does this sort of thing so it's not superstitious to suggest or claim that this is what's happening here.  Uh, you ever heard of the two she-bears that killed the youths who mocked Elisha?  Or the plagues of locusts and frogs?  Or Jonah and the whale?  So spare us your over-wrought complaints.  If the reports are accurate, this is indeed one of the coolest things in the world right now. 

Holy Scripture is indeed accurate.  Vague reports on the internet, not so much.  Not only is it superstitious, it's hysterical as well.  Better not hurt a Christian or God will send rampaging elephants after you.  What?  It is perverse theology.  God does not require elephants to execute his will.  You see, God doesn't really get angry or experience any other emotion.  That's just a literary device.

Try not to get over-wrought.  They really are just brutes....really...

But he didn't say a word about God being angry or requiring elephants to execute his will.  How many must have said the same words about the Flood, plagues of locusts & frogs, Jonah's whale, earthquakes etc.  And surely these were mentioned in Scripture while this is internet news reporting, but are we only to believe what is reported to us via Scripture?  How about the million true things reported on the internet daily?  The point was that God has and does use natural phenomenon (animals included) in order to affect change or bring about justice in the world. 

You might as well begin saying that it is superstitious to believe that locusts really attacked the Egyptians or that those she-bears really attacked the children who mocked Elisha.  Certainly they were really just brutes... try not to get over-wrought.

This article may or may not be factual. It may or may not be superstitious (in the sense that it puts faith into a perhaps false spiritual answer to a question that may be more easily explained by something more mundane), however your reasons for condemning the validity of the story are all bunk.

Bunk!!!  What's bunk is divining supernatural portents in the actions of brute beasts. That's bunk.  Short of an ex-cathedra declaration by the pope that this was the work of divine justice, I still maintain it's nothing but a natural phenomenon.  Do we really want to go down the road of attributing natural disasters to God's wrath?  What about when it happens to good, traddy Catholics, even priests?  Well, then it's the devil at work.  Uh huh.  And the devil can make a bunch of stupid elephants stampede if he really wants to I'm sure. 

It's nonsense and trying to read something more into it than is there is superstition. 

And you may be, and probably are, correct Doc.  I'm just saying that God using natural disasters and beasts is Scripturally proven.  It can and does happen.  Whether any specific event is God or merely brutish violence is really almost unknowable.  So, while you can't prove that this is anything but animals being animals, you also can't positively prove (even though it may be much, much more rare) that it isn't something more.

We know God used things like this in the OT.  We know God will use things like this in The End. 
Reply
#38
Not that I am vouching for the elephant story, but do you regard, short of a specific, ex cathedra proclamation, the behavior of beasts in Scripture as literary devices? What about the behavior of beasts in hagiography?

Nearly every people, heathen and otherwise, has its animal stories of fierce beasts submitting or acting gently towards figures of authority, signifying a mastery of powers usually outside control. Among the Sikhs, their Guru Nanak is said to have been shaded by the hood of a cobra. Similarly, stories of the scourges that beasts inflict upon man never seem without some sort of special special agency, e.g., Artemis and the Calydonian boar.

Do you think, perhaps, that such motifs, which are so prevalent in oral literature and mythology throughout the world, are present in Scripture in a strictly metaphorical way, employed to illustrate Faith and Morals in accordance with the interpretive principle of "limited inerrancy"? If not Scripture, then it at least permeates spiritual writings of the saints, who either confused allegory and history or were not terribly concerned with the latter?

I reject that perspective, but I'm curious how far you are willing to take the notion of superstition.
Reply
#39
How much territory does a herd of elephants need for survival? Like about 180 miles away from the nature preserve this was? How much land do they need?
Oh my Jesus, I surrender myself to you. Take care of everything.--Fr Dolindo Ruotolo

Persevere..Eucharist, Holy Rosary, Brown Scapular, Confession. You will win.
Reply
#40
Dr. Bombay:  Your quote
 "Our Lord of course got angry in his human nature.  God, however, does not get mad in his divine nature.  God is perfect and he is simple.  For him to get angry or experience any other emotion something would have to be added to his simple perfection, at which point he would cease to be both simple and perfect and would thus cease to be God.  Therefore, God experiencing emotion is, simply, impossible.  

Emotion requires potentiality and since God is pure act, it would be against his nature to get angry or emotional in any way.  Just as it is impossible for God to create a rock so large that he can't lift it or to commit an evil act.  God cannot act against his nature since he is incapable of contradiction. We can only know God by analogy and that is what the writers of sacred scripture are doing when describing the anger of God.  It's a metaphor
."

Congratulations on being a poster child of the Age of Reason.  Rousseau and  Voltaire would have been very proud.  They too, would say to never attribute the actions of animals to anything supernatural.  Bravo.  They were firm believers in denying the super and supranatural in events.

Trouble is, fine priests and Doctors in the Church have written numerous times about the WIll of God and how he manifests it.  Trustful Surrender to Divine Providence and Heliotropium are two of the best; the former being one of the favorite books carried around by the Cur of Ars.  That book describes the events of the world and gives the example that even if a pencil drops, it occurs only through God's permissive Will.  These elephants attacked these people only through God's permissive WIll.  God Willed it - there is no way to get around this one.  Wasn't St. John Bosco that Saint who enjoyed the protection of Grigio.  I bet he was willing to attribute that to God...

As far as "Our Lord of course got angry in his human nature,"  the majority of examples I gave were from the Old Testament, before the Incarnation, so there goes that arguement.   You also cannot divide Christ's natures - it got Nestorius into alot of hot water.  Christ is both Divine and Human - you can't say that only part of God acted.  Your influence seems to be heavily from the second council.  

And "We can only know God by analogy and that is what the writers of sacred scripture are doing when describing the anger of God.  It's a metaphor."  with this quote you are getting into some dangerous area.  The Council of Trent and earlier Councils declared dogmatically that God is the author of Sacred Scripture, the opposite view was anathematized.

For God, emotion does not require potentiality - and since God is perfection, in His Anger He is perfectly so, as well as with any of His other attributes.  

I have also never seen the attribute "simple" given to God by any of the recognized Church Fathers, Doctors or leading theologians.  May I ask where you get this adjective for God?  
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)