Good and Evil; Commoner's Views.
#21
Melkite, it may serve you to start with just giving Jesus the benefit of the doubt, and working from there.
Reply
#22
(04-07-2015, 03:14 PM)Dirigible Wrote: Melkite, it may serve you to start with just giving Jesus the benefit of the doubt, and working from there.

Shall I also give Buddha and Mohammed the benefit of the doubt?
Reply
#23
(04-07-2015, 04:11 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(04-07-2015, 03:14 PM)Dirigible Wrote: Melkite, it may serve you to start with just giving Jesus the benefit of the doubt, and working from there.

Shall I also give Buddha and Mohammed the benefit of the doubt?

Do you want to be a Christian?
Reply
#24
(04-07-2015, 04:33 PM)Dirigible Wrote: Do you want to be a Christian?

Part of me does and part of me doesn't.  If Christ is the truth, I want to know it.  If Christ isn't the truth, I want to know it.  If Christ is true, there are some hopes I have that I think rationally I would have to turn over to despair.  For those things, I don't want Christ to be the truth.
Reply
#25
(04-07-2015, 05:06 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(04-07-2015, 04:33 PM)Dirigible Wrote: Do you want to be a Christian?

Part of me does and part of me doesn't.  If Christ is the truth, I want to know it.  If Christ isn't the truth, I want to know it.  If Christ is true, there are some hopes I have that I think rationally I would have to turn over to despair.  For those things, I don't want Christ to be the truth.

What are those hopes that you would have to despair of if Christ is the truth?
Reply
#26
(04-06-2015, 06:42 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(04-06-2015, 05:09 PM)Oldavid Wrote: What we're talking about is "good and evil". I don't think that there words in the English language to differentiate the different types of "good".  Perhaps we should confine our discussion to the type of "good" that is mostly called "virtue". Etymologically speaking, virtue is the quality of manness, that which makes a man (as in distinct from beasts).

If good and evil are defined by what makes a man unlike a beast, and happiness is disassociated with what gives one a sense of fulfillment in their existence, only being that which God wants one to be, then we're nothing but robots.  Or, at least, we cannot be holy unless we consent to act as robots under God's will, completely detached from our own.
Suggesting that saints are robots and the only free spirits are the villains?

I'm sure that every properly evil bastard will completely agree with you there. Herod, Caiaphas, the Iscariot......... Satan.........

And I'm also sure that the Great Mother, Her Boy, and all their friends will disagree.

Perhaps you should ask Mary Magdalene or one of the millions of others that have tried both for their opinion.

To be the slave of egomaniacal Pride, Greed and Lust is not the recipe to be free to know and love Truth and Virtue.
Reply
#27
(04-07-2015, 05:51 PM)Dirigible Wrote: What are those hopes that you would have to despair of if Christ is the truth?

I forgot to say in my last post, regardless of whether I want to be Christian or not, if I should give Jesus the benefit of the doubt, I need to know why I should not also give Buddha or Mohammed that same benefit.  It is not reasonable to grant one the benefit while not the other, unless there is a substantive reason to be discriminatory.

For hopes, I hate that I was circumcised.  It doesn't seem very likely that a resurrected body would have a need for genitals.  They would at best be superfluous.  God's not undoing it in this life, and actual foreskin regeneration might be available at a time when I'm just about old enough for it to be pointless.

I would love to have been born into a family and have a few older brothers.  Unless reincarnation is true, there is no hope of that.

I love the earth.  Natural beauty makes my world go round.  If God is a sun that shall never set, then the beauty of the night and stars will be lost forever.  If there are no oceans and no beaches, there will be no sunrises and sunsets to watch over them, no waves to listen to crashing onto them.  If there are no woods, there will be no crackling campfires to sit around.  If there are no rising or falling temperatures, there will be no thunderstorms.

I love the natural world.  Everything about heaven in the Bible seems to indicate heaven will not be the natural world in perfection, but something altogether different.

Reply
#28
Wow! Someone has being reading his bible way too literally. Imagine, if Christ is true, then he is also a door! What a despairing thought! And if Christ is true, then God is a rock! Alas!

But yes, give those guys the benefit of the doubt. There is only one true religion, and though the multitude of religions share in the truth (say, if they recognize One God, as did, say, Proclus) only the Catholic Church is the fullness of the truth—as St. Paul says, the fullness of Him who fills all in all—and there's no reason to be afraid of silly Buddha or Mohammed.
But, as VI affirms, in the end there is the element of faith—that is, it involves the will. Not because there is an irreducibly irrational core to the Church, but because, as Ratzinger says, God is not something you put on a table and study, but rather, as He is the foundation of thought itself this basic attitude of the credo is a fundamental mode of seeing and relating to being.
Also, its not about what makes you feel better, what suits one.
But, with all due respect, I suspect you're not serious. If you were you would not be diverting yourself on internet forums but rather would be praying and reading the classical tomes
Reply
#29
(04-07-2015, 02:31 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(04-07-2015, 12:54 PM)J Michael Wrote: You'll find any excuse or reason to criticize the Church, to find fault with her and deny her, won't you?  Is it because you are trying to find a way back to her and want us or others to provide you with air-tight, convincing arguments for doing so, or is it because you need to find ways to rationalize leaving her?  Sorry, but I had to ask.

No, not any excuse.  I realized that when I was Catholic, I assumed that whatever the Church taught was true, without giving it any critical thought.  Then once I actually started looking at things that didn't make sense, wrestling with trying to find a reconciliation, and not finding one, I decided I was no longer going to accept the Church's word without it proving itself.  By this, I don't mean I think no reconciliation can be found, rather I just haven't found it.  But, if the Church is going to tell me that something is objective truth, and that I must believe it or suffer eternal torment, then the burden of proof is on the Church to prove why it's correct.  The burden is not on me to blindly comply.  Some of the things I say are my way of testing to see if the hole in an argument that I perceive is really a hole, or just a shadow of something else.  I'm not omniscient, I understand that there are points I may have not considered or may not even be aware of that may change my understanding of them.  When I put something out there, and I get responses that show I'm not thinking correctly, I can weigh it to see if it adds up, and if it does, I change my mind.  If I make an accusation, and all I hear back is "Heretic!  Burn him!," then I know that either there is no answer to my accusation/question, or if there is, even the supporters within the Church don't know what that answer is.  If the former, there is no reason for me to trust the Church; if the latter, the Church, insofar as I am in touch with it, is incompetent to give me reason to have faith in it.  One thing is for sure, though; I will never give the Church the benefit of the doubt again.  If it expects me to believe something, it must show me, in a way I can understand, why I must believe it.

Quote:Yes, I think we moderns ARE misguided when it comes to what "happiness" is and means, especially those of us in the West.  We equate happiness with feeling good.  And, if we don't feel good, we're not happy.  And if it feels good, do it.  And if it feels good, and we do it, it must, ergo, be good, even though the "it" may actually be objectively bad or sinful.  If the Church teaches that in heaven we will experience perfect happiness eternally.  What that means precisely for *then*, I'm not entirely sure.  But what it (happiness) means for us here and now in this life is, especially if we call ourselves Christians, has to be about being and doing objective, knowable good, rather than it being just about a subjective and relative feeling which is eminently changeable.  Is that not the or a basis for the trap of moral relativism?

Well, yeah.  If we don't feel good, we're NOT happy.  We might not be happy when we feel good as well, but when you don't feel good, you're not happy.  You can still be joyful about things.  Happiness is a feeling; it is not a verb like love.  Happiness isn't the action of doing good.  Happiness is in the feeling of good.  When one helps out at a homeless shelter, or visits the sick or prisoners, or helps the poor, that feeling of goodness and content that one gets, that's not happiness.  It may be better than happiness, but it's not happiness.  It's something else.  For heaven to be appealing to sinners, there has to be hope that heaven can provide them with happiness greater than what they are able experience now.  If the Church is not actually promising eternal happiness, according to modern usage, but rather an eternity of...moral indentured servitude if you will, then the Church has just detached from the audience it's supposed to be preaching to.  The Church is at enmity with the lost.

Thanks for answering and clarifying the questions of my first paragraph!



If we don't feel good, we don't feel good.  Happiness is in the doing and being of good.  If I don't feel good (totally subjective to me and relative to everyone else), I can still do good and be good (totally objective and not relative to anyone else).  If I feel good I can also do and be good.  If I feel good I can do and be bad.  In fact, sometimes doing and being bad might actually feel good.  Does that mean the person in that situation is happy?  This is starting to get wearisome...
Reply
#30
(04-07-2015, 07:23 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: Wow! Someone has being reading his bible way too literally. Imagine, if Christ is true, then he is also a door! What a despairing thought! And if Christ is true, then God is a rock! Alas!

But yes, give those guys the benefit of the doubt. There is only one true religion, and though the multitude of religions share in the truth (say, if they recognize One God, as did, say, Proclus) only the Catholic Church is the fullness of the truth—as St. Paul says, the fullness of Him who fills all in all—and there's no reason to be afraid of silly Buddha or Mohammed.
But, as VI affirms, in the end there is the element of faith—that is, it involves the will. Not because there is an irreducibly irrational core to the Church, but because, as Ratzinger says, God is not something you put on a table and study, but rather, as He is the foundation of thought itself this basic attitude of the credo is a fundamental mode of seeing and relating to being.
Also, its not about what makes you feel better, what suits one.
But, with all due respect, I suspect you're not serious. If you were you would not be diverting yourself on internet forums but rather would be praying and reading the classical tomes

Just giving this post a "Like" is totally inadequate.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)