FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
Good and Evil; Commoner's Views. - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Archives (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Theology and Philosophy (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: Good and Evil; Commoner's Views. (/showthread.php?tid=71977)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12


Re: Good and Evil; Commoner's Views. - Oldavid - 05-15-2015

Righto. Let's thrash this Trinity thing around. I think it is pertinent to the goodness of God.

Give me a moment to find my soap box, though. I can't make properly didactical speeches without standing on my soap box and waving my finger around pointing at the sky.

Contrary to RF's assertion, I think it would be bordering on heresy to say that one can't and shouldn't think about the Trinity. If He didn't want us to think about it He could never have mentioned it and even made another Commandment prohibiting any such considerations.

"11 ) Thou shalt not consider the Trinity!"

Anyhow, I think it makes such perfectly good sense that even if He hadn't mentioned it some clever contemplative would have surmised it eventually.

Let's begin with a concept that we can appreciate. Every one of us has some idea about ourselves that bears some more-or-less resemblance to who or what we are. However, God's idea of Himself is perfectly and exactly what He IS. The idea of self is distinct from, but not separate or separable from the self. An infinite power and intellect could not exist without knowing Who and What He is.

Is that starting to bear some congruency with "In the beginning there was God and the Word was with God and the Word was God"... or something like that. I didn't look up the exact quote; from the beginning of John's Gospel, I think.

So, there is, I think, is a rough approximation of 1 st and 2 nd Persons. Now I'm getting giddy from all the finger-waving. 3 rd Person will have to wait for another instalment.

Muslims and Jews should be starting to cringe a bit if they ever could think about it. I say that any god that is not a Trinity is a Satan pretending to be God.

Trinity should be spoken about and thought about as an aid to avoid heresy and apostasy, I suggest.


Re: Good and Evil; Commoner's Views. - Renatus Frater - 05-16-2015

Where have I said one shouldn't think about the Trinity? Feeling slanderous today, Oldavid?

The problem is, its hard to speak about the trinity and one must be super careful because there's a heresy on every side.

How can you not know the exact quote from John 1, 1? We hear that literally every single Mass. Not going to Mass lately? How dare you come here slandering me about creating a new commandment while you give the appearance of not obeying the third commandment?




Re: Good and Evil; Commoner's Views. - J Michael - 05-16-2015

(05-16-2015, 12:12 AM)Renatus Frater Wrote: Where have I said one shouldn't think about the Trinity? Feeling slanderous today, Oldavid?

The problem is, its hard to speak about the trinity and one must be super careful because there's a heresy on every side.

How can you not know the exact quote from John 1, 1? We hear that literally every single Mass. Not going to Mass lately? How dare you come here slandering me about creating a new commandment while you give the appearance of not obeying the third commandment?

Don't you think you're over-reacting just a tad bit??  I don't believe Mr. Old was slandering you, at least not consciously.  I think he probably mistook your meaning.  Happens to me all the time (which is to say I'm good at mistaking others' meanings  :blush:).  Try not to get your knickers in a twist and just calmly correct him  :).

Could you explain in a little more detail why you think that "The safe bet is always to assume one is bordering on heresy whenever one speaks about the trinity."?  (Your use of the "sticking tongue out at you" emoticon is somewhat, shall we say, ambiguous.)

How can he not know the exact quote of John 1:1?  Well, there are certainly times when I don't know recall the exact wording either.  And yes, there are times when I don't go to Mass regularly.  But, maybe it's best to stick with the meat and potatoes of the subject matter rather than taking things too personally and getting into slanging matches.

I really do appreciate your contributions on this board, fwiw. :)




Re: Good and Evil; Commoner's Views. - Renatus Frater - 05-16-2015

Well, I wasn't really being serious about being that offended. :P

I don't know how I can explain my phrase better. It was more of a joke directed to your comment that you thought you were bordering on heresy. But it is very serious, nonetheless. I mean, every image one uses to explain the Trinity must be qualified by a long and laborious preamble, even the Augustinian allegory with the intellect--even though it is the most exact precisely because of the created things with which we are familiar the most resembling God is our intellect--must be prefaced by a litany on the absolute transcendence, simplicity and eternity of God.


Re: Good and Evil; Commoner's Views. - Oldavid - 05-17-2015

Ahem!

Just continuing...
The 3 rd Person is not so easy to explain only because the terminology to explain it has been so abused in contemporary useage that it's difficult to pinpoint a particular required meaning. The concept is quite intelligible all the same.

God is infinitely perfect in all things. He knows that perfection and, because it is perfection, He loves it. If He didn't love that perfection it would be a self-contradiction... the thing He cannot do.

Now comes the tricky bit; what does it mean "to love"?

Humanly there are many nuances of "loving"... some we will not even consider here.
One instance is the desire to posess and consume... as one might "love" ice cream.
Another is a desire for some mutually beneficial relationship... as one might love their friends.
Or an expression of gratitude and familiarity... as one might love their parents, culture, nation.
Love might be a willingness, or desire to spend one's self in the pursuit of some perceived good... as one might "love" science.
And there is the Love that is the gift of self, or part thereof, to another... as in the love of one's children.

God knows and loves infinite perfection. That love is infinite and is infinite and perfect love which is the total, unreserved, gift of self.

A gift requires a giver and a receiver. Even if you were the Pacific Ocean you could not give yourself to me because I cannot contain "receive" it. God's perfect gift of Himself is only giveable and receivable by Himself and His Idea of Himself (Word). His gift of Self is exactly and perfectly what He IS... distinct but not separate or separable.


Re: Good and Evil; Commoner's Views. - Melkite - 05-17-2015

(04-20-2015, 11:59 AM)J Michael Wrote:
(04-19-2015, 08:04 PM)Dirigible Wrote: I meant "offence" in a very particular way, and I should have chosen a different word. Allow me to rephrase: if you just bluntly say "everything bad you do is your fault, and you can't be proud of anything good you do", it will, if the person is not already predisposed to agree, strike them as absurd and monstrous and, in order to avoid this reaction, one should phrase oneself more carefully and reach the same idea by a more circuitous route.

But why sugar coat this particular extremely important truth?  Now, I agree that you don't have to bludgeon someone with it in a nasty or disagreeable manner but getting all gushy and p.c. so as not to offend strikes me as even more absurd and monstrous than speaking the truth...in love.  In a way, though, this particular truth, given the ethos of these times in which nothing is anybody's fault but is always someone else's fault, in which people have been taught extremely effectively to avoid and deflect responsibility for their own actions, in which virtually anything said can be a cause of grievous offense because we are all so incredibly fragile and sensitive, would strike many people as absurd and even monstrous, so contrary is it to the unreality of our  times.

I'm a perfect example of the person who finds it absurd and monstrous that everything wrong is only my fault, and nothing I do right can I take credit for.  This is Calvinism.  I understand full well that everything I have that is good was ultimately given to me, something I did not create myself.  Yet, at the same time, if God gave me a free will, then when I choose to do good, I deserve the credit for that.  Either I chose to act rightly, and thus the good came from me, or God made the good choice for me because I was incapable, in which case, I am inherently evil and can only be so because God made me that way.  We can't have a truly free will and at the same time be incapable of doing good on our own.  This is logically impossible.  If our "free" will only allows us one choice that we can take credit for, evil, then our will isn't actually free.  This is why it is absurd and monstrous to rational thinkers.

I think the reason why you need to sugar coat the truth is because, as the Church, your mission is to save sinners and convert them to Christ.  If someone needs to have the truth sugar coated in order to accept that, and you then suggest that this truth is too important to be sugar coated, which are you more concerned about?  The pristine truth, or the salvation of souls?  I'm not saying the purity of truth is unimportant, but what is the Church's first mission?  What did Christ come to earth and die for?  It wasn't the proper definition of truth.


Re: Good and Evil; Commoner's Views. - Melkite - 05-17-2015

(05-15-2015, 12:53 PM)J Michael Wrote: Oh boy.... :Hmm:  I'm not exactly sure what I think about that.  I can't speak for Lucifer, in spite of my claims to occasional superiority over God, so don't know if that's the essence of his rebellion and pride.  Would a Creator sacrifice Himself for His creatures?  Sheesh!  As I sit here and spontaneously combust, er...I mean..."think" about it, this is one of the things that crosses my mind:  God created all of us and the heavens and the earth, etc., etc.  This is where it gets tricky...presumably God still IS.  So...what did He sacrifice?  His Son, Jesus, who is also Him God (you know, this whole Trinity thingee really just boggles my remaining brain cell--I can't seem to get a grasp of it!!  No wonder the Jews reject it!  Ooops!!  Am I entering "heresy" now?? :O :O) but was incarnate (made flesh) for a period of approx. 33 years?  (See how confusing this can be??)  Jesus was "sacrificed" on the cross.  So, Jesus, the man, died.  But then he was resurrected, as we are told and asked to believe.  So, where, exactly is the "sacrifice"?  In the death of a man?  Who then while dead became not dead but not flesh (at least after the Ascension)?  In the death of God?  But if God still IS, (and why wouldn't He "be"?), how could He have died?  See how clear it is? :eyeroll: :Hmm: :LOL: :LOL:

The one that has always gotten me is dyophysitism.  So Jesus has both a human soul and a "divine soul" so to speak?  How does that work?  He's essentially the theanthropic version of a split-personality that never disagrees with each other?  How can divinity exist and think and perceive and do everything else that is meant by consciousness in one man all the while a separate human soul is in there doing the same thing?  I think this is why the priest at my parish once told me "Christ is God, and Christ is Man, and Christ is One."  I could go insane trying to figure it out beyond that.  I understand why there are Mia- and Mono-physites and sympathize with them.


Re: Good and Evil; Commoner's Views. - Oldavid - 05-17-2015

You're not thinking straight, Melkite. Looking at things through one's own ego is like looking through a telescope backwards. Saints do not advocate and practice self-renunciation as a mere political gimmick.

You will be rewarded for the good you accept or reject.

Jesus needed a human soul to animate His humanity. God does not need a Divine soul as He is Life itself.


Re: Good and Evil; Commoner's Views. - Renatus Frater - 05-17-2015

(05-17-2015, 09:17 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(04-20-2015, 11:59 AM)J Michael Wrote:
(04-19-2015, 08:04 PM)Dirigible Wrote: I meant "offence" in a very particular way, and I should have chosen a different word. Allow me to rephrase: if you just bluntly say "everything bad you do is your fault, and you can't be proud of anything good you do", it will, if the person is not already predisposed to agree, strike them as absurd and monstrous and, in order to avoid this reaction, one should phrase oneself more carefully and reach the same idea by a more circuitous route.

But why sugar coat this particular extremely important truth?  Now, I agree that you don't have to bludgeon someone with it in a nasty or disagreeable manner but getting all gushy and p.c. so as not to offend strikes me as even more absurd and monstrous than speaking the truth...in love.  In a way, though, this particular truth, given the ethos of these times in which nothing is anybody's fault but is always someone else's fault, in which people have been taught extremely effectively to avoid and deflect responsibility for their own actions, in which virtually anything said can be a cause of grievous offense because we are all so incredibly fragile and sensitive, would strike many people as absurd and even monstrous, so contrary is it to the unreality of our  times.

I'm a perfect example of the person who finds it absurd and monstrous that everything wrong is only my fault, and nothing I do right can I take credit for.  This is Calvinism.  I understand full well that everything I have that is good was ultimately given to me, something I did not create myself.  Yet, at the same time, if God gave me a free will, then when I choose to do good, I deserve the credit for that.  Either I chose to act rightly, and thus the good came from me, or God made the good choice for me because I was incapable, in which case, I am inherently evil and can only be so because God made me that way.  We can't have a truly free will and at the same time be incapable of doing good on our own.  This is logically impossible.  If our "free" will only allows us one choice that we can take credit for, evil, then our will isn't actually free.  This is why it is absurd and monstrous to rational thinkers.

I think the reason why you need to sugar coat the truth is because, as the Church, your mission is to save sinners and convert them to Christ.  If someone needs to have the truth sugar coated in order to accept that, and you then suggest that this truth is too important to be sugar coated, which are you more concerned about?  The pristine truth, or the salvation of souls?  I'm not saying the purity of truth is unimportant, but what is the Church's first mission?  What did Christ come to earth and die for?  It wasn't the proper definition of truth.

Yes, of course one has merits for one's good acts. I think what Oldavid and the subsequent commentators were talking about was the ontological aspect of the good, which must not be mixed with the ethical. Just like saying that ontologically the evil is nothing does not mean that ethically it is something (and that in the divine economy it can even be used to bring good things, not that it ontologically generates a thing). And of course, in the salvation economy this also means that it is by grace that we merit something: only if sanctifying grace is in us can our acts merit something (not that those in sin cannot ask things of God, they can and God listens, and they can even predispose themselves for the receiving of grace).
Both to say that by the free will alone one merits eternal life (the end of man) and to say that one cannot (in grace) do any good is condemned by Trent.

Now, in no way this is Calvinism. Calvinism says that every act is evil, even good acts—basically every good act is a mortal sin. But these are covered by the merits of Christ.

Also, souls cannot be saved apart from truth. Christ Himself said a bunch of things that were kinda hard, and the Church proclaims things hard to take. But one should not despair, but calmly think the issues over (proper evangelization takes years, its not simply saying a prayer).




Re: Good and Evil; Commoner's Views. - Oldavid - 05-20-2015

Righto, fellas, you can all come back and play now. I've had a wash so that should make me slightly less odious.

Any discussion of sanctity and sin, associated praise and blame, good and evil related to the human condition, almost inevitably gets round to a discussion of free will and predestination.

It's all rather interesting because some of the most famous doctors and scholars have resorted to some amazing mental gymnastics trying to reconcile the two.

Any takers? (Don't worry, the Missus has burned my soap box so I'm grounded until I can find another).