Albert Cipriani

I love professor Peter Kreeft. But he, like C.S. Lewis, is only a Christian popularizer, not a theologian. Ergo, I take exception to the following quotation of him posted by Scigirl:

This is a very sloppy statement that can be seen as true metaphorically and as untrue metaphysically. Allow me to deconstruct it.

Theology 101 says God doesn't have to do anything. He’s under no obligations whatsoever. So his statement that God “must allow” for suffering is false right out of the chute.

Ethics 101 says that the ends don’t justify the means. How, then, could an ethical God violate this axiom by allowing the bad of suffering for the greater good of heaven? Any theist who thinks about it at all, cannot believe Kreeft’s statement and still believe in an ethical God. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Wounded King

Except the obligation not to change his mind that Catholics put on him?

Jobar

Oooooo! WK, I do believe you have wounded Albert- at least, it looks to me as if he's bleeding.

Albert, let me ask you a very direct question. Are you a creationist? That is, do you categorically deny that all life on Earth, including us, evolved from other life forms?

See, if you do not, then all this is a huge misunderstanding, IMO. I think that scigirl is not primarily meaning to attack theism by pointing out that male and female are not as clearly delineated as the Bible would have it; she is attacking creationism, as is most appropriate in this forum.

We have people in this forum- like Bubba- who are theistic evolutionists. Hell, man, your own pontiff is one! So unless your 'traditional Catholicism' includes evolution-denial, then although the argument is an interesting one, I would say we are carrying it on in the wrong forum- it should be in GRD or EoG.

Albert Cipriani

Dear Jobar,
You ask me a direct question: I give you a direct response: No. I am agnostic.

Since I entered this forum and especially since I’ve been feeding at the TalkOrigins trough, I’ve become much less agnostic and more convinced of the undeniability of even macro evolution.

Ergo, I feel I must grudgingly make some room in my zeitgeist for evolution as a brute fact. Philosophically, it remains nonsensical, internally inconsistent, self-refuting, and a profoundly ugly notion. But logically, I must find ways to accommodate it. That I am doing. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

scigirl

Ha ha! Sounds like endocrine physiology.

For what it's worth - though we don't exactly agree on things, discourse with you has been interesting and fun. Hope you find these debates helpful in refining your beliefs - I know I do.

scigirl

Albert Cipriani

Yes Scigirl,
They are (fun) and I do (find them helpful). Tho I at times my dialogues here do get me frustrated, as ours did toward the end just recently, where it seemed like my best laid metaphores went awry. But all and all, it is satisfying to contrast and compare and refine. Like metal against metal, both getting sharpened. Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic