Elephants in Orissa Attack Exactly One Year After Persecutions
#41
Dr. Bombay:

Please also look up the scripture passages that I gave you earlier in their contexts.  They are quite clear that they are speaking from the mouth of the Lord God.  This is not a grey area.
Reply
#42
(12-21-2009, 04:55 PM)Cyriacus Wrote: 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.

Scripture is the infallible, inerrant word of God.  I accept everything in it as an actual historical event (i.e., it really happened) in accordance with what the Church teaches.  Nothing more and nothing less.  It seems to me that when miracles occurred in Scripture, it was very obvious to everyone that God's hand was involved.  There was no doubt or speculation. It was either prophesied or directly initiated by someone under God's authority.  I don't think stampeding elephants in this case were either prophesied or directed by anyone, but I'm willing to be corrected on that point.

Hagiography, on the other hand, is something else entirely. 
Reply
#43
The Golden Legend is great - and a healthy pinch of salt doesn't ruin the general effect.


Reply
#44
(12-21-2009, 05:02 PM)quoprimumV Wrote: 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?  

Oh, come on, read Aquinas.  That's where I got the adjective.  Does he pass your test?  Seriously?

You read, then get back to me.  His Treatise on God would be a good starting point.  And then try reading Leo XIII's Aeterni Patris

And one more thing.  God himself didn't actually put pen to paper and write the bible, he worked through human agents.  Yea....hard to believe but true.
Reply
#45
(12-21-2009, 02:50 PM)i.p.i. Wrote:
(12-21-2009, 01:16 PM)Rosarium Wrote:
(12-21-2009, 09:32 AM)i.p.i. Wrote: they couldn't release the photos of the actual elephants until they've been tried and convicted.

or, more likely, nobody has volunteered to stand in front of a herd of elephants bent on destruction to take photos.  so they used a stock photo.

True; I did not expect actual footage from the attacks, but I wouldn't expect a prominently displayed picture to display creatures which would not live in that area at all. If there is an article on a Pit Bull attack on a child in a city, I do not think a giant photo of a Great Dane is necessary (note: at least Pit Bulls and Great Danes are the same species).

They could have taken a stock photo of Indian elephants, the aftermath of an attack or a map of the area.

have you double-checked that those aren't Indian elephants?  i haven't and can't now, must leave for doctor's appt and am running late, like the white rabbit.  i was watching a tv program about . . . elephants!

Yes. They have the ears, back, feet and trunks of African elephants.

Check it out:

[Image: africanelephants1.th.jpg]

Google for anatomical features of African and Indian elephants (note, there are more varieties of elephants, but these are major differences.)
Reply
#46
(12-21-2009, 05:12 PM)DrBombay Wrote: Scripture is the infallible, inerrant word of God.  I accept everything in it as an actual historical event (i.e., it really happened) in accordance with what the Church teaches.  Nothing more and nothing less. 
Do you belive that God sent lions, bears, and beasts to punish, kill, and destroy men as literal history that happened in time and space as is told in the Old Testament?

(12-21-2009, 05:12 PM)DrBombay Wrote: It was either prophesied or directly initiated by someone under God's authority.  I don't think stampeding elephants in this case were either prophesied or directed by anyone, but I'm willing to be corrected on that point.
Miracles do not need to be initiated by anyone eles but God. No one prophesied anything because we no longer have prophets in our times. Prophets were for God's people before the coming of Christ in Old Testament times. We now have the Church and Christ. God has given certain men private revelations from time to time since the begginnig of the Church, but there is no more public revelation or prophets anymore. Many miracles of the last centuries were not intiated by men at all, but they occurred and came from God.
Reply
#47
(12-21-2009, 05:28 PM)DrBombay Wrote:
(12-21-2009, 05:02 PM)quoprimumV Wrote: 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?  

Oh, come on, read Aquinas.  That's where I got the adjective.  Does he pass your test?  Seriously?

You read, then get back to me.  His Treatise on God would be a good starting point.  And then try reading Leo XIII's Aeterni Patris

And one more thing.  God himself didn't actually put pen to paper and write the bible, he worked through human agents.  Yea....hard to believe but true.

Aeternis Patris is beautiful, but it does not give the attribute simple even once in the entire document.  It does give this however....

"Again, it shows God to excel in the height of all perfections, especially in infinite wisdom before which nothing lies hidden, and in absolute justice which no depraved affection could possibly shake; and that God, therefore, is not only true but truth itself, which can neither deceive nor be deceived. Whence it clearly follows that human reason finds the fullest faith and authority united in the word of God. In like manner, reason declares that the doctrine of the Gospel has even from its very beginning been made manifest by certain wonderful signs, the established proofs, as it were, of unshaken truth; and that all, therefore, who set faith in the Gospel do not believe rashly as though following cunningly devised fables"

Aquinas does use simple with God in the Summa Theologica, but as a description regarding His Substance, and it does not effect His ability to have emotions.

"God is simple, without composition of parts, such as body and soul, or matter and form."

Of course he used human agents for scripture - but that doesn't mean He isn't the author of every word of it.

COUNCIL OF TRENT
Decree Concerning the Cannonical Scriptures

"...the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament--seeing that one God is the author of both --as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ's own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession..."

So if the Holy Ghost says God was angry, and it says so many times in scripture, then we can take it as Truth that God gets angry, therefore God does have emotions.  We can also see from those same scriptures that God used animals/beasts to fulfill His Adorable WIll. 


Reply
#48
Unless you choose to dispute a doctor of the Church like Aquinas, God most certainly does not have emotions.  Now, he's only a saint, not infallible, so perhaps he's wrong.  In which case, you can dispute with the numerous popes, including Leo XIII, who have recommended his teachings.

It's Thomistic philosophy, not rocket science.  It's not really that hard to grasp.

Biblical literalism isn't really Catholic, it's more of a prottie thing....so, yea...you might want to study more than the Summa.  Just sayin.

Reply
#49
(12-22-2009, 12:12 AM)DrBombay Wrote: Biblical literalism isn't really Catholic, it's more of a prottie thing....so, yea...you might want to study more than the Summa.  Just sayin.

That is liberal Biblibal Modernist exegesis that smears literalism. The fact is that both Catholics and liberal Protestants have been destroying Biblical exegesis for over two hundred years. The Church has always understood the Bible as literal before the Modernists came in the 19th century to destroy  Biblical understanding with their nonsense of allegories, myths, and literarry devices. "Literarry devices" is code word that means the removal of anything supernatural from the Bible. As if the Bible was just another  book that human authors thought that they were writing, and used  literarry devices because it was just an ordinary work of literature. 

The Church has always understood that the Bible is literal history and to be read as literal by any Catholic. Literalism is Catholic. However, besides literalism, the Church has taught that there is also the moral and eschatlogical sense of the Bible. The Bible has three layers and meanings: the literal, moral, and eschalogical.

I also want to know what your answer is to the question in reply # 45?
Reply
#50
(12-22-2009, 12:12 AM)DrBombay Wrote: Unless you choose to dispute a doctor of the Church like Aquinas, God most certainly does not have emotions.  Now, he's only a saint, not infallible, so perhaps he's wrong.  In which case, you can dispute with the numerous popes, including Leo XIII, who have recommended his teachings.

Dr. Robert Sungenis says it the best in his book Not by Bread Alone:

"Pioneering in this line of argumentation is the philosophical school of Phenomenology, whose proponents (eg., Max Scheler, Dietrich von Hildebrand, Josef Seifert, William Marra, et all see inadequacies in the limited categories afforded by Thomistic philosophy to explain emotions (e.g. love, joy, appreciation of beauty, etc.), which forces Thomism to relegate them to biological sensations rather than inherent faculties of the human soul." (Not By Bread Alone, pg. 364)

Sungenis later says this on his website about the above quote:

"Although I am a Thomist, there is one area of Thomas' philosophy that I feel is inadequate and of which Phenomenology has a better answer. That is all. Thomas sure didn't claim to be perfect, and I'm sure if someone were to show him the weakness of this particular area of his philosophy, he would lend a grateful ear."
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)