Albert Cipriani

Gee Jobar,
You seem to be loosing your grip. Tsetse flies and roundworms ain’t got nuthin to do with morality and everything to do with pain, death, and the consequence of Original Sin as described by John Milton in Paradise Lost: “And all of Nature groaned.”

But since you guys don’t believe in all that rot about Original Sin, you’ve got no choice but to believe that Tsetse flies have everything to do with your godless theory of evolution. The claw and the tooth of this dog-eat-dog atheistic world has been brought to us by chance mutations and survival of the fittest, remember? If you wish to rethink this conventional wisdom, come join me in on the evolution vs. creationism board. I could use the help.

You ask,
If the Israelites could live on manna for forty years and saints could live on the Eucharist... yeah. The idea of life surviving by the death of another life is inimical to the mind of God and was not part of His original plan. Thus, plan B, whereby He gave to His Chosen People a land He described as “flowing with milk and honey,” the only two life sustaining foods that don’t require the death of another. This was God’s symbolically affirmative response to your question.

For the record books, this statement of yours I totally agree with:
But man being what he is (my euphemistic phrase whereby I skirt calling us all jackasses), the fact that God cannot be spoken of won’t stop us from trying. Ergo, this board thrives!

(That’s my not-so-subtle way of calling all of us here jackasses. But at least us theists believe in the God Whom we cannot speak of. Whereas, you guys are in the double bind of speaking about Him Who cannot be spoken of and of not even believing in the existence of Him of Whom you speak to boot!) – Cheers, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Fiach

Cheers to you as well Albert, watch out for the Opus Dei,

Fiach

Keith Russell

Albert the Traditional Catholic said:
Thus, plan B, whereby He gave to His Chosen People a land He described as “flowing with milk and honey,” the only two life sustaining foods that don’t require the death of another.

Uh, they require the death and destruction of plants--or did you forget that plants, too, are alive...?

Keith.

Darkblade

Still, it was not your place to tell me of your opinion that I sounded young, and I did find it offensive, as I had only presented several arguments. Please do not try to change others’ perceived (by you) “character”, and instead focus on counterarguments. (If you do not wish to argue with me, I won’t have any hard feelings about it.)

Firstly, definitions from dictionaries are not worthless; they are, unless otherwise specified, the general meaning of the words used in conversation with others. Without knowing what a word may mean (because of not accepting the standard (and, in this case, very innocuous) definition) how are people supposed to convey actual meaning to each other? Furthermore, as I had said (but you conveniently omitted from your quotes of me (I reposted all the things said by you, so as to not take or place things out of context so easily)), I defined your god as a being. That means that I meant that it existed. The definition of thing (which you took as some sort of sly trickery attempt from my using of the word something) also merely means that which exists. So, all I said was that your god existed (for the sake of argument, of course). I wonder why you seem so preoccupied by that?

My point was that, by saying that your god was a being and “something”, all I was saying was that he existed. By denying that your god is something (or a thing, as you extrapolated), you are denying his existence yourself. There was no insidious intent here by me. Also, just because “the cosmological constant and radio waves” have been discovered (as opposed to always having been known about) does not negate that they were always things. Existence (of a thing) is not subjective to humans (or any being or thing) having knowledge of them, and I never claimed that. I do (and did previously) understand that nothing (including ideas and laws of nature, as they are also things), as a universal reality can not exist, so I can actually agree with you on something!

Ouch! Anyway, I am sorry if you feel that that warranted such a retort. I was frustrated because, as of then (and now), you have not attempted to counter my arguments, which have been very complete, in my opinion. I was hoping that I would get a good (i.e., logical) challenge to some of my conclusions. Anyway, as we have both been lightly insulting each other, I am not feeling too bad about what I said, and, I suppose, neither should you.

I still do not see why a being would fall out of constant conformity to morality, were it created properly. All CGC needed to have done was create these free-willed, morally perfect beings, and grant them the proper knowledge that was necessary for them to never want to break from morality. It seems that CGC didn’t do this. The question is, can you blame someone for being stupid if they were created that way, or is the one that created that someone actually to blame, possessing knowledge that the person that he created would indubitably break from moral perfection, due to lack of knowledge? It seems like you grant your god special pleading, and humans poor pleading. But that is not a major surprise to me. The fact is, CGC could’ve made reality perfect, but didn’t. Therefore, CGC is not who he “claims” to be (perfect).

This was one of two arguments I made (Please do not misquote me (you ended the sentence where I did not, making it appear as though that was all I said there).). I was merely trying to anticipate some sufficiently logical responses and debunk them (for expediency of the argument). So, they therefore were worthless, because I had made them so. In any case, because you used neither of them, they were worthless (just as they were) to the debate. Please forgive me if I seemed to say that those things would be what you would say (as I would not make the outrageous claim of knowing the future). I was just trying to eliminate some possibilities, which did not come up, because you did not even respond to the point that was made in the text before that which you quoted. (I really do wish, for the clarity of all, myself included, you would not modify, abridge, or eliminate any of what I had wrote; I do extend this courtesy to you.)

But CGC still knew (and did not prevent) that these creatures would “create” evil. In fact, by creating them, with full knowledge that evil would ensue, he created evil willingly! At the very least, CGC is much more responsible (due to the fact that he had much more (a whole lot more) knowledge beforehand) than the creatures he created for the creation and existence of evil and imperfection. I believe that CGC would be omniresponsible, due to the fact that he knew evil would be done in the future, as a result of his actions, had other, perfect options open to him (creation of beings sufficiently well-made (as described above in this post)), and possessed “free will”, and yet made the choice to create a vastly inferior world! I realize that you will not likely agree with this, but it is basically what I have been trying to get at all along.

Fiach

The Israelites did not destroy plants or kill them. In all fairness the Israelites under God's alleged violence only killed men, women, children, babies, infants, while taking virgin girls as sex slaves. So give the Israelites their credit.

Fiach

Albert Cipriani

I stated the obvious, that the Land of Milk and Honey refers to a land that can sustain life without death. But Keith doesn’t think so. He says:
As a former bee-keeper, you don’t need someone with my expertise in the matter to tell you that bees do not kill or even eat flowers. Quite to the contrary, they pollinate flowers, spreading life where ever they alight. Neither do cows kill grass; they eat grass.

Do you make a practice of “killing” your lawn once a week or do you mow it? Well, then, why don’t you extend the same lexical honesty here?

God says that He prunes us for our own growth. I suspect your lawn and your tongue could use a good whacking. – Albert the Traditional Catholic

Jobar

Sigh.

Albert, hasn't it occurred to you that such comments are a sure demonstration of the weakness of your arguments? When you start addressing the messenger instead of his message, it is apparent to the discerning reader that you wish to distract attention from the real meat of the argument. It seems clear to me that such tactics are only resorted to if you don't have a rational riposte to offer.

Darkblade and Fiach (and I!) have attacked your ideas strongly, no question. But we have made no comments like "I suspect your lawn and your tongue could use a good whacking."

Understand me well- I am trying to point out that your 'rough and tumble' tactics, while perhaps entertaining, are counterproductive. If you consider your arguments reasonable, then maintaining a reasonable tone to your posts will aid your arguments.

Now- as Fiach points out, you did say All creatures. You also say "The idea of life surviving by the death of another life is inimical to the mind of God and was not part of His original plan." That is a very odd statement coming from someone who agrees that the mind of God is something no one can speak of! How do you claim to know what is in the mind of God?!

And it seems so directly opposed to the evidence of our senses! Predators and their prey are *everywhere*. Life surviving by death is the rule and not the exception. The 'Fall' you speak of is more like the utter and complete transformation of the Edenic universe to something so entirely other, as to make it an entirely new and separate creation! Why, given the vast complexity of the interlocking food chains in this tooth-and-claw universe, you must give Satan (in his Serpent form) far greater powers of creation that you attribute to God!

Albert Cipriani

Dear Jobar,
Your comments provide evidence that there are parallel universes… and you and I live in different ones!

We’ve all heard of getting a verbal “tongue lashing.” So I propose the converse, a “tongue whacking” for Darkblade’s misuse of the English language, for saying that pollinating flowers and mowing grass is the “death and destruction of plants.” If you don’t see my good-natured humorous response to him as appropriate, then, pray tell, what do you suggest be his punishment?

I said that life depending upon death is inimical to the mind of God. You said: No one can speak of the mind of God save for in those matters where God has spoken for Himself, revelation. Of course you don’t believe in the Word of God, nor that He set up the Catholic Church to authoritatively and infallibly interpret His Word. But that’s my myth. Try to show some respect for it. Show disdain for me because of any inconsistencies you can find in my articulation of that myth, but for the myth itself, try to remain unprejudiced.

This is the first time I’ve been able to quote you so extensively with complete agreement. Here’s our new world’s record, 75 contiguous words of yours of which I can find no fault and whole-heartedly agree:


One of us must be making progress. – Cheers, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Albert Cipriani

Dear Fiach (from the last page),
The Catholic Church rightly put Descartes works on her index of banned books. The Jesuits eventually got access to them, ostensibly to hone their pedagogical efforts against them. Like judges that insist on viewing pornography to adjudicate whether or not it is obscene, the Jesuits simply had to get a hold of Descartes’ forbidden fruit. Needless to say, that order has been in decline ever since, as has the discipline of philosophy.

You speak my mind when you say:
Believing in God is not a matter of having evidence for Him. By definition, I can have no evidence for a non-material being. In short, I, like you, “don’t know if there is anything other than our matter-energy universe.” But not knowing ought not to stop us from believing.

I’m glad to hear you say:
Of what you know, yourself is the best place to start from. You believe in evolution, a process generated by chance mutations in conjunction with environmental fitness. Yet you, no doubt, also believe that you ought not to steal purses from dear little old ladies. But evolution does in the form of wolves that pick out the oldest and weakest members of deer herds for their sustenance. How do you explain this disconnect between what you know? – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Darkblade

Thanks for including me in that trio, Jobar. I was worried that no one was reading my posts because they were so long!

I’m afraid that it is you who is misusing the English language, in defining Darkblade as Keith Russell. Or do you view all atheists merely as persons of the IPU?

Please forgive me if you take that the wrong way…

[Edited to correct a very slight grammatical error]