Eschatology: "the Passion of the Church"

Started by Mono no aware, November 17, 2019, 08:43:26 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Mono no aware

#60
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on November 25, 2019, 11:01:35 AMConsider the pedophile. He sins voluntarily and out of necessity because the perversion of his nature is inescapable to him. Yet, he does not sin out of coercion. Don't we convict pedophiles who abuse kids? Yes. And yet they sin out of necessity, their urges overcome them and they culpably act on those urges. What is required is that they don't sin out of coercion. In fact, as a society we don't even require them to sin in order to shun them and to keep them away from our children. Similarly, with an habitual drunkard that kills someone while driving. He sins out of necessity, due to his condition, but not out of coercion. He is justly punished.

This is definitely our impasse.  A criminal is convicted on the basis that he could have chosen otherwise.  A sex offender could have chosen not to rape.  A drunkard, even the though the alcohol may have impaired his judgement, could have chosen not to drink.  First he was sober, then he made the decision to drink.  We convict based on guilt and responsibility, not compulsion.  Of course the drunkard had the compulsion to drink.  Of course the rapist was randy.  We all have compulsions but we don't always act on them.  As rational creatures, we have the capacity for prudence, compassion, judiciousness, self-discipline, and restraint.  Otherwise ethics would be pointless: we're all just evil-bots.  The legal system to which you appeal operates on the assumption of free will.  You are denying that free will exists.  That is why I see this as some sort of nihilism.

Peace be with you, Vetus Ordo; we have probably taken this one to the end of its tether.  I appreciate your usual patience and thoughtfulness on these topics.  And I think I have the answer to the OP, so peace be with all.




Vetus Ordo

Quote from: Pon de Replay on November 25, 2019, 12:21:30 PMThis is definitely our impasse. A criminal is convicted on the basis that he could have chosen otherwise.

The criminal is convicted first and foremost on the basis of the crime he committed. This is the delictum consummatum. It's enough to objectively warrant punishment. Secondly, we ascertain if the criminal was coerced into action or not. That he committed the crime out of necessity of nature, like in the example of the pedophile that I mentioned, doesn't really excuse him. We know of pedophiles that are utterly incapable of controlling their urges. It's part of their nature. Are they not to be punished for molesting children just because they couldn't have chosen otherwise according to their inclinations? I think the answer is clear and you would be in favor of imprisoning them.

Quote from: Pon de Replay on November 25, 2019, 12:21:30 PMWe all have compulsions but we don't always act on them.

Tue. However, even if we always acted on them out of sickness or impairment, that wouldn't excuse our moral culpability in the actions themselves. A pedophile that can't help himself is not an unimputable robot.

QuoteYou are denying that free will exists. That is why I see this as some sort of nihilism.

God creates everything and is the source of existence by necessity. Men will out of their own accord, in a secondary causal sense, but their wills are impaired, they are not indeterminate and freely able to choose between good and evil. This is merely a denial of libertarian or humanistic free will.

QuotePeace be with you, Vetus Ordo; we have probably taken this one to the end of its tether.  I appreciate your usual patience and thoughtfulness on these topics.

It's always a pleasure exchanging thoughts with you, Pon.
DISPOSE OUR DAYS IN THY PEACE, AND COMMAND US TO BE DELIVERED FROM ETERNAL DAMNATION, AND TO BE NUMBERED IN THE FLOCK OF THINE ELECT.

Maximilian

Quote from: Pon de Replay on November 25, 2019, 07:50:59 AM
I am simply helpless to see this as anything other than a theistic reformulation of nihilism or relativism.

I have used before this metaphor from Carlos Castaneda (which some understandably find a dubious source for analogies).

I compare these great theological concepts to the spiritual entities that he describes as "allies." They are massive and powerful spiritual beings that threaten to crush one like an ant. However, if you grab hold of it, you can wrestle with it like Jacob wrestling with the angel. By doing so you gain power from the ally and it spins you around and takes you away to another world where you live another life.

To imagine how this process works, you can think of the concept of "generosity in accepting children from God in what number He deems to send you." So long as I keeps this spiritual principle at arm's length with equivocations like NFP, it manifests itself to me as a massive, powerful entity that will crush me if I get too close to it. But when I truly embrace it, and wrestle with its tangible reality, I ingest its spiritual power, and it spins me around and takes me away to another world where I live a very different life.

Another "ally" of this sort is predestination  -- not the secondary-source theological angels-on-a-pin arguments -- but the true reality of predestination. As long as I hold it at a distance by quoting one theologian versus another, it remains a massive, frightening spiritual entity that threatens to crush my soul like a bulldozer rolling over a pop can. But once I truly grab hold of it, and struggle with its tangible reality, then I receive its spiritual power, and I live a different life in a different world.

Of all these questions, however, none certainly can equal the question of the nature of God. The great men of old spent their time contemplating great questions, but we puny men of today waste our time arguing over trivialities that are derivatives of derivatives. But in terms of the great and powerful spiritual entities that make us quiver in fear even to gaze upon them, the reality of God more than encompasses all the rest. Of all the "allies" that we must either wrestle with or else run away screaming liked a scared girl, the nature of God takes precedence.

Quote from: Pon de Replay on November 25, 2019, 07:50:59 AM

There would be no way, in this scheme, to know whether God is good, at least not according to our own sense of goodness, so ultimately we wouldn't know what goodness is (or for that matter, what evil is).  God could be the devil and the devil could be God.  We, in our absolute self-abnegation and surrender, would have no way of knowing.  The divine sayer could be a deceiver; his claim to beneficence could be a lie.  We would be taking him at his word.  This is a problem which Nietzsche framed beautifully and I see no way out of it except for Nietzsche's, but as you indicate, for the believer it is possible to come out on the other side.  The proposed fideism just seems an awful risk.  Faith, and gnosis (of good and evil) must truly come only by grace.

Rationalizations are like sticks that Carlos Castaneda might pick up to hold the "ally" at arm's length. Soon the sticks are crushed to powder, but then you pick up a new stick. The incomprehensible disproportion between our rationalizations and the immensity of God is much greater than the ludicrous disproportion between the dry stick and the massiveness of the ally, or between the pop can and the bulldozer.

You can compare life to going to a swimming pool with a high dive. Some people go to the pool where they spend their time on the deck writing in their notebook a list of all the reasons why it makes no sense to jump off the diving board. Others jump. Only one experiences the reality of life.

Non Nobis

Quote from: Maximilian on November 24, 2019, 12:51:37 PM
Quote from: Pon de Replay on November 24, 2019, 12:00:43 PM

And the reason he cannot is because "his will is sick, it is enslaved to sin."  He was born thus.  This returns to the question I asked earlier, concerning the justice of punishing him: "enslaved to sin" we may be.  But would you fault a person born into slavery for his own enslavement?

Yes. Because what matters is what we are ontologically. We live in an historical age in which actions are valued, but what God values is our being.

It's true that our actions contribute to our being. Each stroke of the artist's chisel helps to define a stature. But an artist can spend years on an inferior piece of marble and never achieve anything except a pile of rubble.

Are you saying that one enslaved to sin is an inferior piece of marble? God's grace can achieve a Saint out of that.  The base material is a man made in the image of God.  ...Sorry if I misunderstand you.
[Matthew 8:26]  And Jesus saith to them: Why are you fearful, O ye of little faith? Then rising up he commanded the winds, and the sea, and there came a great calm.

[Job  38:1-5]  Then the Lord answered Job out of a whirlwind, and said: [2] Who is this that wrappeth up sentences in unskillful words? [3] Gird up thy loins like a man: I will ask thee, and answer thou me. [4] Where wast thou when I laid up the foundations of the earth? tell me if thou hast understanding. [5] Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

Jesus, Mary, I love Thee! Save souls!

Non Nobis

Quote from: Pon de Replay on November 24, 2019, 12:00:43 PM

And the reason he cannot is because "his will is sick, it is enslaved to sin."  He was born thus.  This returns to the question I asked earlier, concerning the justice of punishing him: "enslaved to sin" we may be.  But would you fault a person born into slavery for his own enslavement?

Pon, one who sins (or is currently enslaved to sin) cannot choose good, but he doesn't even WANT to be able to make that choice. He wouldn't take God's grace even if he had complete power to do so. He enjoys his enslavement. At the point of the sin, it is absolutely his free choice and he is 100% to blame. "But I was not to blame because God didn't overwhelm me with grace" is the whining "it's not fair" of a child.

...
I would note that being born to Original Sin is not the same as being born to the eternal flames of hell, although it means losing God in heaven unless you are baptized.  Nobody is born (or enslaved from the beginning) to personal freely willed sin, which is the only gateway to the torments of eternal flames.  It is true that men are born enslaved to personal sin in the sense that to do good naturally is extremely difficult and doing good supernaturally is impossible until God gives grace. But (see my post #45) not every act of an unbeliever is a sin.
[Matthew 8:26]  And Jesus saith to them: Why are you fearful, O ye of little faith? Then rising up he commanded the winds, and the sea, and there came a great calm.

[Job  38:1-5]  Then the Lord answered Job out of a whirlwind, and said: [2] Who is this that wrappeth up sentences in unskillful words? [3] Gird up thy loins like a man: I will ask thee, and answer thou me. [4] Where wast thou when I laid up the foundations of the earth? tell me if thou hast understanding. [5] Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

Jesus, Mary, I love Thee! Save souls!

Non Nobis

Quote from: Maximilian on November 25, 2019, 08:47:10 PM
Quote from: Pon de Replay on November 25, 2019, 07:50:59 AM
I am simply helpless to see this as anything other than a theistic reformulation of nihilism or relativism.

I have used before this metaphor from Carlos Castaneda (which some understandably find a dubious source for analogies).

I compare these great theological concepts to the spiritual entities that he describes as "allies." They are massive and powerful spiritual beings that threaten to crush one like an ant. However, if you grab hold of it, you can wrestle with it like Jacob wrestling with the angel. By doing so you gain power from the ally and it spins you around and takes you away to another world where you live another life.

To imagine how this process works, you can think of the concept of "generosity in accepting children from God in what number He deems to send you." So long as I keeps this spiritual principle at arm's length with equivocations like NFP, it manifests itself to me as a massive, powerful entity that will crush me if I get too close to it. But when I truly embrace it, and wrestle with its tangible reality, I ingest its spiritual power, and it spins me around and takes me away to another world where I live a very different life.

Another "ally" of this sort is predestination  -- not the secondary-source theological angels-on-a-pin arguments -- but the true reality of predestination. As long as I hold it at a distance by quoting one theologian versus another, it remains a massive, frightening spiritual entity that threatens to crush my soul like a bulldozer rolling over a pop can. But once I truly grab hold of it, and struggle with its tangible reality, then I receive its spiritual power, and I live a different life in a different world.

Of all these questions, however, none certainly can equal the question of the nature of God. The great men of old spent their time contemplating great questions, but we puny men of today waste our time arguing over trivialities that are derivatives of derivatives. But in terms of the great and powerful spiritual entities that make us quiver in fear even to gaze upon them, the reality of God more than encompasses all the rest. Of all the "allies" that we must either wrestle with or else run away screaming liked a scared girl, the nature of God takes precedence.

Quote from: Pon de Replay on November 25, 2019, 07:50:59 AM

There would be no way, in this scheme, to know whether God is good, at least not according to our own sense of goodness, so ultimately we wouldn't know what goodness is (or for that matter, what evil is).  God could be the devil and the devil could be God.  We, in our absolute self-abnegation and surrender, would have no way of knowing.  The divine sayer could be a deceiver; his claim to beneficence could be a lie.  We would be taking him at his word.  This is a problem which Nietzsche framed beautifully and I see no way out of it except for Nietzsche's, but as you indicate, for the believer it is possible to come out on the other side.  The proposed fideism just seems an awful risk.  Faith, and gnosis (of good and evil) must truly come only by grace.

Rationalizations are like sticks that Carlos Castaneda might pick up to hold the "ally" at arm's length. Soon the sticks are crushed to powder, but then you pick up a new stick. The incomprehensible disproportion between our rationalizations and the immensity of God is much greater than the ludicrous disproportion between the dry stick and the massiveness of the ally, or between the pop can and the bulldozer.

You can compare life to going to a swimming pool with a high dive. Some people go to the pool where they spend their time on the deck writing in their notebook a list of all the reasons why it makes no sense to jump off the diving board. Others jump. Only one experiences the reality of life.

In this life we are incapable of experiencing the full reality of life, although those closest to God experience it more nearly, and some perhaps have a special gift to do so more than others. But God gave us our intellect too as a source of an imperfect understanding of parts of reality.  Leaving everything to experience of reality results in a different supposed reality for everyone; intelligence can be at least a sort of check.  The Church does not leave everything to experience. God gave us reason, which works step by step.

Some matters (especially deep mysteries that have not been pronounced on by the Church) may be over-intellectualized by some (predestination); it is hard for me to tell when this is the case.  But even there the Church uses intelligence in asserting that the will is free and that God is absolutely sovereign, even if it leaves their reconciliation as a mystery.
[Matthew 8:26]  And Jesus saith to them: Why are you fearful, O ye of little faith? Then rising up he commanded the winds, and the sea, and there came a great calm.

[Job  38:1-5]  Then the Lord answered Job out of a whirlwind, and said: [2] Who is this that wrappeth up sentences in unskillful words? [3] Gird up thy loins like a man: I will ask thee, and answer thou me. [4] Where wast thou when I laid up the foundations of the earth? tell me if thou hast understanding. [5] Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

Jesus, Mary, I love Thee! Save souls!

MaximGun

Vetus ...   If your concept of free-will (lack of it) is correct then in what sense are we made in the image and likeness of God?

The chief likeness (or great of the likenesses) being in our soul?

As PdR says above we are "evil-bots".  That is nothing like God at all.  Totally different beings.

The Catechism is wrong/misleading/lying/in error on the very first page.

---
Both God (in the Bible) and people (from observation) have intellect, emotions and will.  Our ability to reason and think abstractly comes from God.  We have the capacities of intellect, emotion and will because God has them and we are made in His image.

Evil-bots are nothing at all like God.

Michael Wilson

The root of sin is the deliberate choice of evil; if man cannot help but sin, then his will isn't free by any rational definition, and therefore his actions, as bad as they may be, are not sinful. But God does not abandon man to himself, without the aid of His grace; therefore man can (with the help of grace) not sin.
Quote"Behold, I stand at the gate, and knock. If any man shall hear my voice, and open to me the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me."
God stands at the gate of our soul and with His grace, continually "knocks" i.e. Calls to us to repent and turn to Him; if we do so, we can cease sinning, and lead a life of virtue.
God does not make "vessels of destruction", understood in the sense that He creates certain men in a condition that is impossible for them to save their souls. God on the contrary
Quote
"Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth."
The Catholic teaching is that God wills all men to be saved; therefore none are created for Hell.
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers