Humility: Good or Bad?

[Probius]

When I say that the test were inconclusive, I mean that the carbon 14 tests came up with an age which put the shroud in the Middle Ages.

The studies of pollen prove a mid East origin of the Shroud.  Historical studies of the weave used also point to a first century origin.  Carbon 14 was not the only scientific test done.  I suggest you do some research.

I know there was a whole battery of tests done on the shroud, but until it is known how old the thing is, the result will be inconclusive.  What do you think about my post above with regard to pride and humility?

[james03]

What I think is your imprecision in terms leads you into error.  E.G.:

He is trying to convince himself by convincing others.  If others believe I am great, he reasons, then it must be true.

What you describe is the vice of pride.  What you think is meant by pride is in fact the Catholic virtue of magnanimity, coupled with humility, fortitude, temperance, and prudence.  This video was meant for you.

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7V1W967ofA[/yt]

The priest goes through the various virtues and shows how they lead to real manliness.  The presentation is so logical I believe it will do you a lot of good.  As a bonus, please try to catch where he condemns big government and advocates subsidiarity.

[james03]

I know there was a whole battery of tests done on the shroud, but until it is known how old the thing is, the result will be inconclusive.

Get a good book on it and read it.  Then you won't make ignorant statements.

1.  The weave dates the cloth to the first century.  It is possible (highly improbable) that a person from the Middle ages could have obtained a first century cloth and forged an image.  It is so improbable that someone asserting it should be laughed to scorn, however:
2.  Pollen embedded within the image shows that the image was not created in middle ages Europe, but was from the mid-East.

There were other tests done, however I have not read the book in over ten years.  I recall that there were coins in the eyes dating from the first century.  The micro precision in that image can not be replicated even today.  I came away convinced from the scientific evidence that the Shroud of Turin was the burial cloth of Jesus Christ.

[Probius]

I know there was a whole battery of tests done on the shroud, but until it is known how old the thing is, the result will be inconclusive.

Get a good book on it and read it.  Then you won't make ignorant statements.

1.  The weave dates the cloth to the first century.  It is possible (highly improbable) that a person from the Middle ages could have obtained a first century cloth and forged an image.  It is so improbable that someone asserting it should be laughed to scorn, however:
2.  Pollen embedded within the image shows that the image was not created in middle ages Europe, but was from the mid-East.

There were other tests done, however I have not read the book in over ten years.  I recall that there were coins in the eyes dating from the first century.  The micro precision in that image can not be replicated even today.  I came away convinced from the scientific evidence that the Shroud of Turin was the burial cloth of Jesus Christ.

I don't know which statements you are referring to as ignorant.  I gave you a link in which the carbon 14 tests were shown to date the shroud from the middle ages, and then I explained why the carbon 14 tests were problematic.  There is nothing as of right now that can prove how old the shroud is, but even if there were it would be impossible to prove that it was the shroud of Jesus.  No matter what tests are done, the only thing scientists will be able to say is that it might be the burial shroud of Jesus, it is impossible to say for certainty that it is definitely his.

[columba]

I know there was a whole battery of tests done on the shroud, but until it is known how old the thing is, the result will be inconclusive.

Get a good book on it and read it.  Then you won't make ignorant statements.

1.  The weave dates the cloth to the first century.  It is possible (highly improbable) that a person from the Middle ages could have obtained a first century cloth and forged an image.  It is so improbable that someone asserting it should be laughed to scorn, however:
2.  Pollen embedded within the image shows that the image was not created in middle ages Europe, but was from the mid-East.

There were other tests done, however I have not read the book in over ten years.  I recall that there were coins in the eyes dating from the first century.  The micro precision in that image can not be replicated even today.  I came away convinced from the scientific evidence that the Shroud of Turin was the burial cloth of Jesus Christ.

I don't know which statements you are referring to as ignorant.  I gave you a link in which the carbon 14 tests were shown to date the shroud from the middle ages, and then I explained why the carbon 14 tests were problematic.  There is nothing as of right now that can prove how old the shroud is, but even if there were it would be impossible to prove that it was the shroud of Jesus.  No matter what tests are done, the only thing scientists will be able to say is that it might be the burial shroud of Jesus, it is impossible to say for certainty that it is definitely his.

In his sermon at Mass yesterday (Easter Sunday) the priest revealed a new piece of evidence recently discovered on the shroud of Turin. It was found that other relics of burial cloths discovered near Golgotha contained the name of condemned criminals and the charge against them writen on the cloth they were buried in. The shroud of Turin was examined for such a mark and a female forensics scientist discovered the writen name and crime that the condemned on the Turin shroud was charged with. After many enhancement methods were employed It was found to read; "Jesus of Nazareth, Blasphemer."

I will ask him (the priest) for the source when I see him next which will be May 4th.

[Probius]

Let's move the shroud talk to another thread.  I interested in this idea of pride/humility and how they are defined.

[columba]

Let's move the shroud talk to another thread.  I interested in this idea of pride/humility and how they are defined.

In a nutshell:

Pride = Falsehood, (acknowledging that one's existence was not derived from oneself yet claiming independnce from the Creator who can be known with certainty through His works)
Humility = Truth, (acknowledging one's total dependence for everything one has -including one's very existence- on the Creator).

[Probius]

Let's move the shroud talk to another thread.  I interested in this idea of pride/humility and how they are defined.

In a nutshell:

Pride = Falsehood, (acknowledging that one's existence was not derived from oneself yet claiming independnce from the Creator who can be known with certainty through His works)
Humility = Truth, (acknowledging one's total dependence for everything one has -including one's very existence- on the Creator).

So...

Pride = Not believing in God.
Humility = Believing in God.

Really?  Is this all there is to these two terms?  Can you define the two terms?

[columba]

Let's move the shroud talk to another thread.  I interested in this idea of pride/humility and how they are defined.

In a nutshell:

Pride = Falsehood, (acknowledging that one's existence was not derived from oneself yet claiming independnce from the Creator who can be known with certainty through His works)
Humility = Truth, (acknowledging one's total dependence for everything one has -including one's very existence- on the Creator).

So...

Pride = Not believing in God.
Humility = Believing in God.

Really?  Is this all there is to these two terms?  Can you define the two terms?

Yep... That's all there is to it.  But that's not to say that pride cannot be found in those who do acknowledge their Creator for they/I too are still prone to thinking themselves independent. The origin of this follishness can be found in Genesis.

Pride = personal autonomy (including determining for oneself what is good and what is evil)
Humility = Dependency. As in, how a child depends on its mother for everything. ("Without Me you can do nothing." John 15:5)

[Probius]

If a man is not independent, he can do nothing for others.  How will he be a husband if he is dependent on others, will he be dependent on his wife?  The independent man is strong and is capable of taking care of others.  He neither sacrifices himself to others, nor does he seek to sacrifice others to himself.  Here is how I define the two terms.  Pride is the joy which proceeds from the attainment of proper values.  Humility is to wallow in one's sense of inferiority, it is self abasement.

[columba]

If a man is not independent, he can do nothing for others.

But no matter how independent a man may think he is, he is still dependent on a 1000 and 1 other people and factors, eg, Boss, employees, weather, electricity, skills, intellect, health, peace; any one of which could fail at any time. He isn't in total control of any of the above mentioned so where does that leave his independence?

How will he be a husband if he is dependent on others

The fact remains; He is dependent on others.

will he be dependent on his wife?

He could well be if his health should fail.

The independent man is strong and is capable of taking care of others.

But this is false. He is not creator of of the strength he now has. It can be taken from him at any time, can it not?  Not only his strength but his continued existence on earth isn't even guaranteed from one moment to the next.

He neither sacrifices himself to others,

But he does sacrifice himself for others, ie, his family, loved ones, otherwise he wouldn't go out and provide for them while he still can.

nor does he seek to sacrifice others to himself.

This would be a sign associated with a virtuous man.

Pride is the joy which proceeds from the attainment of proper values.

Pride is not always bad for there are two kinds of pride. One can have pride in ones work that it may be done well to further the common good and yes, there is even a temporal reward associated with that. The pride we are discussing is the bad kind where one couldn't care less about the benefit to others that his work would attain but carelessly performs his duties (what he can get away with) and still claim his wage.
Joy is a reward for something done well but it is distinct from pride.

Humility is to wallow in one's sense of inferiority, it is self abasement.

Humility is appropriate even for the proper order in society. For example; if one where a carpenter he would acknowledge his inferiority in the presence of a surgeon by not trying to perform a medical operation. Likewise, the surgeon would not try and build a cabinet but neither could be said to be wallowing in their inferiority.

The old cliché, "No man is an island" comes to mind. The prideful man believes -despite the evidence- that he is self sufficient. The humble man knows that he's at the mercy of others and above all at the mercy of God.

[james03]

Until you listen to the talk, you will continue to screw up with your imprecision.  This is a Catholic forum, so learn to use the precise terms.  What you call "pride" is in reality magnanimity, so use that term.  What you call "humility" is in reality self-loathing, and is a mental disease.  So use the term "self loathing" when that is what you mean.

Listen to the talk and pick up on the terms he uses.  He goes through the virtues.

As far as sacrifice, you are picking that up from Rand.  She was a woman and therefore understanding manly sacrifice was impossible for her.  Tell any successful leader that he does not have to sacrifice for his men, and he'll laugh you to scorn.

[james03]

The independent man is strong and is capable of taking care of others.

Quit being sophmoric.  An independent man is highly constrained and under utilizing resources.  I run million dollar projects.  I can do that because I depend on the team.  If I was independent, I'd be poking holes in the ground with a stick.

[Probius]

I did listen to the talk, the priest said some very good things, but I disagree with some other things he said.  As long as we are defining terms, it is necessary to define the term sacrifice.  If I give up $10,000 and in return receive a car worth $20,000, surely no man would say I sacrificed.  If I give up $10,000 and in return receive a car worth $10,000, no man would say I sacrificed.  If I give up $10,000 and receive nothing in return, I could rightly be said to have sacrificed.  So, I shall define sacrifice as to give up something of value only to receive less in value or nothing in return.  Do you agree with this definition or not, and why?

[Probius]

Until you listen to the talk, you will continue to screw up with your imprecision.  This is a Catholic forum, so learn to use the precise terms.  What you call "pride" is in reality magnanimity, so use that term.  What you call "humility" is in reality self-loathing, and is a mental disease.  So use the term "self loathing" when that is what you mean.

Listen to the talk and pick up on the terms he uses.  He goes through the virtues.

As far as sacrifice, you are picking that up from Rand.  She was a woman and therefore understanding manly sacrifice was impossible for her.  Tell any successful leader that he does not have to sacrifice for his men, and he'll laugh you to scorn.

mag·nan·i·mous adjective \mag-?na-n?-m?s\
: having or showing a generous and kind nature
1
:  showing or suggesting a lofty and courageous spirit

mag·nan·i·mous  [mag-nan-uh-muhs]  Show IPA
adjective
1.
generous in forgiving an insult or injury; free from petty resentfulness or vindictiveness: to be magnanimous toward one's enemies.
2.
high-minded; noble: a just and magnanimous ruler.
3.
proceeding from or revealing generosity or nobility of mind, character, etc.: a magnanimous gesture of forgiveness.

Definitions matter.  How is magnanimity used to mean the joy which proceeds from the attainment of proper values, when the dictionary defines the word differently?  Magnanimity is not the same thing as pride.