Pain is a positive existence and creation, not a deprivation of anything

[TheReturnofLive]

You said that there was a moral problem with a 12 year old getting pregnant, suggesting it was a case where Scripture condoned pedophilia. As we've already established, that cannot be the case. Pedophilia is sexual attraction to a pre-pubescent child. Pre-pubescents don't get pregnant. Puberty is the mark that distinguishes a child from a young adult. Moot point. Furthermore, the age of consent has varied a lot throughout the ages. People have been able to get a canonical marriage as young as 12 or 13 years old in medieval Europe.

But why have we changed to such a degree where the mere thought of such a thing is morally repulsive and abominable?

[John Lamb]

You said that there was a moral problem with a 12 year old getting pregnant, suggesting it was a case where Scripture condoned pedophilia. As we've already established, that cannot be the case. Pedophilia is sexual attraction to a pre-pubescent child. Pre-pubescents don't get pregnant. Puberty is the mark that distinguishes a child from a young adult. Moot point. Furthermore, the age of consent has varied a lot throughout the ages. People have been able to get a canonical marriage as young as 12 or 13 years old in medieval Europe.

But why have we changed to such a degree where the mere thought of such a thing is morally repulsive and abominable?

My guess is that with the breakdown of paternal authority – which used to safeguard the chastity of young women – the state had to step in and impose stricter age of consent laws to prevent girls from being exploited. Back when sex/marriage was more paternally managed, it was easier to protect a 12-18 year old girl from being exploited and abandoned with a baby. As sex has come to be more understood as a private decision rather than a family one, it's become more reprehensible to induce still immature girls to have sex before they understand the full repercussions of it. It's difficult to maintain that "consent" guarantees the morality of sexual acts when you could have 30 year olds grooming ignorant 12 year olds.

[Vetus Ordo]

It's the same apocryphal account where we learn about the Virgin Mary's life, who her parents were, and the implication of her own personal sinlessness from her devotion to God. I don't think you can dismiss the story of the Virgin Mary's life without resorting to an arbitrarily defined Sola Scriptura (where somehow, the death of the Apostles are all canonical but the life of the Virgin Mary is not).

The information we may extract from apocryphal writings is completely subordinate to the scriptural account, always prone to be corrected by it. It is Scripture that is the word of God. I don't dismiss outright that the Blessed Virgin may have conceived Christ at 12 years or 14 years old but that isn't a dogmatic fact. In other words, the information is not definitive.

Here's a hard truth for ya, Vetus...

The hard truth is that only Scripture is inspired and canonical. That's what makes it materially sufficient to derive doctrine from, a most Patristic and Catholic principle. The value of the apocryphal writings varies greatly but all of them are subject to the authority of the word of God, as with everything else. Francis' teachings about the intrinsic immorality of the death penalty, though issued with his full apostolic authority and incorporated into the Catechism, are ultimately squashed by the authority of Scripture. Thus is life.

Nevertheless, this is a digression. You brought up a point about pedophilia regarding the Virgin conceiving Christ at 12 years old. However, there's no pedophilia to speak of. If she can conceive, she is not prepubescent. Your point has been refuted. I was also wondering if you wanted to elaborate on your misgivings regarding Christ's physical height.

But why have we changed to such a degree where the mere thought of such a thing is morally repulsive and abominable?

Cultural conditioning, besides what John Lamb has already mentioned. Menarche continues to mark the physical transition to adulthood in females.

[TheReturnofLive]

I did.

[Xavier]

"Although a number of church councils condemned it as an inauthentic writing of the New Testament, this did little to diminish its popularity. Pope Innocent Icondemned this Gospel of James in his third epistle ad Exuperium in 405 AD, and the so-called Gelasian Decree also excluded it as canonical around 500 AD.[13] Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologiae, rejects the Protevangelium of James teaching that midwives were present at Christ's birth, and invokes Jerome as contending that the words of the canonical gospels show that Mary was both mother and midwife, that she wrapped up the child with swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger. And thus concludes, "These words prove the falseness of the apocryphal ravings."[14] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_James

[Graham]

Truly, even if one wants to argue that pain "naturally" aids survival, the form is hardly necessary for the function, and often the opposite is the case, when pain occurs in spite of the fact that the action causing the pain will save ones life, eg., with amputation of a limb.

I think you just glossed over a fatal flaw in this theory. If Lucifer created pain, what exactly was his goal in making it so useful for the preservation of life and limb and for the acquisition of wisdom and strength?

[Mono no aware]

Suppose, just for an example, that a person or persons contracted a disease through their own fault. And then, to remedy the disease, it sadly became necessary for animals to suffer and die in order to provide the toxin for that disease leading to its ultimate cure. In this case, man would be at fault; those animals would have been sacrificial victims suffering on account of man's fault, and that would be the analogy.

I don't think this analogy works for two reasons.  Firstly, I would have to take the disease cure thing on a case-by-case basis.  It would depend on the disease, the human, and the animal in question.  Since you've put us in the realm of hypotheticals, imagine a sexually transmitted disease that only afflicts adults who rape children.  Then imagine that the antidote requires the painful death of certain cats with just the right kind of genetic code, and your own cat happens to be one of the unlucky few.  Would you make that trade?  Even if I was told, "the pedophile rapist is truly sorry for what he did," my answer would be to start chiselling his tombstone because that antidote is not coming from my cat.

But secondly, the problem is that it was not man who decreed that the penalty or remedy for sin would be the suffering of animals.  So the analogy does not capture the problem.  This is God's universe; every aspect of the design is his.  Surely God was never constrained by having to make certain animal suffering was part of the equation.  This isn't something along the lines of, "can God make a rock so heavy he can't lift it?"  It's not a logical impossibility.  We don't even have to take it back to the question of why God would let man sin knowing it would cause the suffering of innocents.  It's a question of why he chose to make the suffering of innocents a consequence of sin.  According to our sense of justice, the proper thing to do is to punish the guilty.  We don't torture the pets of people convicted of crimes, or go to their neighborhood and give poisoned bread to the local ducks.  That would be absurd.

[Daniel]

.

[Xavier]

Pon, Pon. Please heed the Wisdom of Jeshua ben Sirach: "Sir 39:[38] Therefore from the beginning I was resolved, and I have meditated, and thought on these things and left them in writing. [39] All the works of the Lord are good, and he will furnish every work in due time. [40] It is not to be said: This is worse than that: for all shall be well approved in their time.

[41] Now therefore with the whole heart and mouth praise ye him, and bless the name of the Lord." http://www.drbo.org/chapter/26039.htm

And Job also: "Job submits himself. God pronounces in his favour. Job offers sacrifice for his friends. He is blessed with riches and children, and dies happily,

Job 42:[1] Then Job answered the Lord, and said: [2] I know that thou canst do all things, and no thought is hid from thee. [3] Who is this that hideth counsel without knowledge? Therefore I have spoken unwisely, and things that above measure exceeded my knowledge. [4] Hear, and I will speak: I will ask thee, and do thou tell me. [5] With the hearing of the ear, I have heard thee, but now my eye seeth thee.

[6] Therefore I reprehend myself, and do penance in dust and ashes ... And the Lord gave Job twice as much as he had before. http://www.drbo.org/chapter/20042.htm

In any good Mystery Book, the Mystery is made fully clear in the end only, not in the beginning. The more one reads, parts of it will become clear. Similarly, the more one prays, the more one allows oneself to be touched by suffering, one exercises the compassion and empathy God wants to see in us, one will slowly begin to gain some understanding as to why it is necessary that suffering currently exist. Job became a Saint through his suffering; he gained treasures for himself in Heaven. Then his material wealth was restored as well.

The ways of God are marvelous and wonderful, and high above our limited thinking and little comprehension of Him; we hardly discern the Mysteries of the Universe; can we claim to know and understand all the ways of the Supreme Being Who made all these things? It is enough to know that the God Who came down from Heaven to Sacrifice His Life for us is All-Good and Loves us more than we can ever think; otherwise, He would not have died for us, nor spoken so many Words of Love and Encouragement and Comfort to us, as in fact He has, both Himself, telling us to cast all our cares on Him, that He will give rest to the weary and the heavy laden, and so much else; and through His Apostles. St. Paul the Apostle justly says, "[18] For I reckon that the sufferings of this time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to come, that shall be revealed in us ... [28] And we know that to them that love God, all things work together unto good, to such as, according to his purpose, are called to be saints. " http://www.drbo.org/chapter/52008.htm

But, as to your questions; no, I would not consider myself bound to sacrifice my cat to save an evil criminal who deserves jail; but if I did it, it would clearly be an act of gratuitous mercy, would it not? How much more God shows His Love for us, dear Pon, in that He Sacrificed not His cat, but His Son, One with Himself, for love of us greatest of criminals who deserve hell; even for those who committed the Deicide and killed God Himself; God in His Goodness Sacrificed Himself for all. We repeat the Deicide every time we commit mortal sin, for mortal sin is to kill God living in Spirit among or in us. And after killing God so many times, after becoming the worst of killers and the greatest of criminals, what an amazing thing that God shows us Mercy again and again, and offers us possibility of contrition and repentance, and Baptism or Confession. We ought to praise His Mercy, dear Pon, for giving us so many opportunities. If God sacrificed animals for us without being bound to cure our sin, we ought only to praise Him for it.

Everything we have on this planet comes from God. We did not create the Earth; would we condemn a King when we are living in His home only through His generosity? Yet, the Earth is the House of the Lord, which He built and gave to us for free. Would we despise the generosity and goodness of a King, Who has given us so much in Nature itself, and so much more in the Sacraments of His Church, especially in the Blessed Sacrament and Holy Communion? God has shown in numberless ways that He is Infinite Goodness and All-Love. We ought to thank Him for such goodness, we ought to act, pray and work, so that all unnecessary suffering may soon end, as we are promised that it will. God always keeps His Promises. He promised the Messiah would come, and in the fullness of time, He did. God will keep all His Promises no matter who says He cannot. God has promised us not only that a period of temporal peace with very little suffering will come soon, in the Sixth Age soon to begin, but also has promised us of Heaven one day, where there will be no sorrow; which ought to fill our hearts with happiness right now, just as we would be delighted if a King promised to take us to His palace one day. What we ought to do is prepare our own hearts and minds so that we will be worthy of the inheritance promised to us. No one can go to heaven still attached to many sins; he or she must be purified by contrition and sorrow, by repentance and penance, and through the Sacraments or much prayer and sacrifices. So it is a merciful action of God that sorrow exists by which we can pay our debts and go to heaven. If we bear in a holy way sorrow when, say, our pets or other animals die, that too can be a good and holy sorrow, which can purify us progressively. God allows everything for a reason beyond our comprehension right now. It will be clear one day when we see Him face to face. We must prepare ourselves to be very pure, before we see Him.

[Mono no aware]

Peace be with you, Xavier.  If this is a mystery, then it is a mystery, and we must leave it at that.  I will say only that we seem to be talking about two different things.  You are focused on what might be called redemptive suffering, while I am focused on gratuitous suffering.  You are, of course, contending that even apparently gratuitous suffering is in fact redemptive in some way—the suffering of animals contributes to the redemption of the humans.  But I must return you to the problem at hand: that any deity or entity which deliberately and purposefully extracts suffering from innocents in order to benefit the guilty is a strange one ("mysterious ways" indeed).  It could certainly be said that this entity must love the guilty very much, but it seems a perverse way of demonstrating love.  Things like love and mercy must be tempered with a sense of justice.  "Gratuitous mercy" sounds like a fine thing, but not when it's at the expense of innocents.  It's lavishing all the mercy on the undeserving, and depriving it from blameless others.

I think we agree, though: there is no constraint upon God, nor any necessity forced upon him, that would require him to extract suffering from innocents to redeem the guilty.  It is simply the way he has decided to do things.  I do take your point about the crucifixion, but I don't think it's analogous to (or greater than) the hypothetical act of me sacrificing my cat.  If I had the power to resurrect my cat after it died, then yes, I would sacrifice it to save the life of even a repentant pedophile rapist.  But then, it wouldn't be much of a loss to me.

[Xavier]

Peace, Pon. Yes, all suffering contributes toward the redemption of the world. This is the hope promised to us by Jesus Christ Our Lord. We wait patiently for the veil to be lifted and for us to understand fully in the end of time, how all suffering contributed to sanctification and salvation in some way; even those we could not understand at the time. I deny gratuitous suffering. All suffering is redemptive. No suffering appeared at the time to be more "gratuitous" than the unjust suffering of the Innocent Son of God, the blameless Victim and Lamb of Sacrifice for our sins; yet it was Redemptive.

Romans 8:[16] For the Spirit himself giveth testimony to our spirit, that we are the sons of God. [17] And if sons, heirs also; heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ: yet so, if we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified with him. [18] For I reckon that the sufferings of this time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to come, that shall be revealed in us. [19] For the expectation of the creature waiteth for the revelation of the sons of God. [20] For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him that made it subject, in hope:

[16] "The Spirit himself": By the inward motions of divine love, and the peace of conscience, which the children of God experience, they have a kind of testimony of God's favour; by which they are much strengthened in their hope of their justification and salvation; but yet not so as to pretend to an absolute assurance: which is not usually granted in this mortal life: during which we are taught to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. Phil. 2. 12. And that he that thinketh himself to stand, must take heed lest he fall. 1 Cor. 10. 12. See also, Rom. 11. 20, 21, 22.

[19] "The expectation of the creature": He speaks of the corporeal creation, made for the use and service of man; and, by occasion of his sin, made subject to vanity, that is, to a perpetual instability, tending to corruption and other defects; so that by a figure of speech it is here said to groan and be in labour, and to long for its deliverance, which is then to come, when sin shall reign no more; and God shall raise the bodies and unite them to their souls never more to separate, and to be in everlasting happiness in heaven.

[21] Because the creature also itself shall be delivered from the servitude of corruption, into the liberty of the glory of the children of God. [22] For we know that every creature groaneth and travaileth in pain, even till now. [23] And not only it, but ourselves also, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption of the sons of God, the redemption of our body. [24] For we are saved by hope. But hope that is seen, is not hope. For what a man seeth, why doth he hope for? [25] But if we hope for that which we see not, we wait for it with patience."

[John Lamb]

I'd like to extend an olive branch to Kreuzritter in this thread and say that one of my frustrations with traditional Catholics is that sometimes I feel Aristotle is being preached more strongly than Christ, inasmuch as the religion becomes more about moral training in the virtues than about recognising what Christ has accomplished for us on the Cross, and being healed by His grace. I think I'm going to call this dog-training Christianity, as in the priest is the dog-trainer and those in the congregation are his disobedient dogs. That may be hyperbolic, but you get the point. This is tangential to the current thread, but I just want to say that using some Aristotelian jargon and metaphysics doesn't necessarily mean selling out the religion to Aristotle. The point in this discussion is that God does not positively will pain for anyone, but only tolerates it for the sake of some greater good. As for suffering animals and children I admit it's difficult to countenance, but they will all find peace without doubt, and their suffering ought to arouse compassion in the rest of us.

[Mono no aware]

The point in this discussion is that God does not positively will pain for anyone, but only tolerates it for the sake of some greater good.

A question for both you, John Lamb, and Kreuzritter.  I only wonder how this is squared with what God says in scripture: "I will intensify your toil in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children" (Genesis III.16).  It seems in Genesis that God positively willed it that the punishment for the fall was to be pain, sorrow, travail, death, and animal sacrifice.  Kreuzritter says some other entity created pain, whereas you say God only tolerates it.

Just to be clear, I am not arguing against the O felix culpa position, which by extension becomes "O happy pain" if everything is designed for some future greater good.  That is something we can put aside as a mystery.  I am just unclear on how God is not the author of pain, if pain is a penalty he deliberately imposed.  I think this gets us on topic as per the OP.

[GBoldwater]

The point in this discussion is that God does not positively will pain for anyone, but only tolerates it for the sake of some greater good.

A question for both you, John Lamb, and Kreuzritter.  I only wonder how this is squared with what God says in scripture: "I will intensify your toil in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children" (Genesis III.16).  It seems in Genesis that God positively willed it that the punishment for the fall was to be pain, sorrow, travail, death, and animal sacrifice.  Kreuzritter says some other entity created pain, whereas you say God only tolerates it.

Just to be clear, I am not arguing against the O felix culpa position, which by extension becomes "O happy pain" if everything is designed for some future greater good.  That is something we can put aside as a mystery.  I am just unclear on how God is not the author of pain, if pain is a penalty he deliberately imposed.  I think this gets us on topic as per the OP.

Why are you pretending to talk about God when you don't believe He exists?

[Mono no aware]

Why are you pretending to talk about God when you don't believe He exists?

It's not a belief of mine that God does not exist.  I'm assuming he does exist in order to ask, if so, whether he's the author of pain.  Kreuzritter's contention is that God exists, and yet someone else is the author of pain (presumably Satan).  That's intriguing.  But I'm curious how he reconciles it w/ Genesis, chapter III.