Why not hedonism?

Started by Daniel, January 13, 2019, 12:21:10 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Kreuzritter

#180
Quote from: Pon de Replay on February 25, 2019, 10:28:23 AM
Not that the Orthodox don't have plenty of confusion themselves, just considerably less is all.  Even were I to accept Orthodoxy, however, I would always be picked up by a tsunami of doubt and tossed squarely back to agnosticism whenever I consider the problems of evolution and theodicy.

Intelligent design, in which I include evolution by intelligent design, needn't imply the divinity or goodness of the designer. You seemed to agree with my conclusion from some time back that the truth of "theistic" evolution implied an evil "theos". We know the following propositions of gnostics are heretical: the material is intrinsically evil and the creation of an evil demiurge, and Yahweh is that evil demiurge. However, if evolution is true, we needn't go as far as the gnostics to akcnowledge there may be a kernel of truth in the ideas, when the Devil deal is half truths not just to make them more believable but to obscure the true part. It is enough to propose that this physical reality of law-bound materiality was formed by a malevolent intelligence and identify that intelligence with the one that rebelled against Yahweh and tempted Adam into to his expulsion from Eden and fall into this world (2 Corinthians 4:4). One could go further and identify a false "Yawheh" in the deity of the Pharisees, Muslims, etc. and make sense of John 8:44-45. This is rather heterodox and assigns a greater role to Satan in cosmology than usual, but it's nowhere near as "heterodox" as the theistic evolutionist reading of scripture.

Mono no aware

#181
Quote from: Kreuzritter on February 25, 2019, 11:19:27 AMIntelligent design, in which I include evolution by intelligent design, needn't imply the divinity or goodness of the designer. You seemed to agree with my conclusion from some time back that the truth of "theistic" evolution implied an evil "theos". We know the following propositions of gnostics are heretical: the material is intrinsically evil and the creation of an evil demiurge, and Yahweh is that evil demiurge. However, if evolution is true, we needn't go as far as the gnostics to akcnowledge there may be a kernel of truth in the ideas, when the Devil deal is half truths not just to make them more believable but to obscure the true part. It is enough to propose that this physical reality of law-bound materiality was formed by a malevolent intelligence and identify that intelligence with the one that rebelled against Yahweh and tempted Adam into to his expulsion from Eden and fall into this world (2 Corinthians 4:4). One could go further and identify a false "Yawheh" in the deity of the Pharisees, Muslims, etc. and make sense of John 8:44-45. This is rather heterodox and assigns a greater role to Satan in cosmology than usual, but it's nowhere near as "heterodox" as the theistic evolutionist reading of scripture.

Yes, theistic evolution is probably one of the worst theological positions one can take.  I attempted to hold it for a time myself.  Nothing will make a person contemplate theodicy like theistic evolution; one must lay aeons and aeons of suffering and horror at the feet of God's infinite goodness.  I am quite sympathetic to the Gnostics and Marcionites for such reasons.  The orthodox understanding of Satan renders him little other than the left hand of God, seeing as how nothing he does is opposed to God's permissive will.  And the Gnostics only push the problem back a single step, as it would have to be asked why God allowed the Demiurge his work in the first place.  Only the Manichees, I think, set the forces of evil up as a serious contender, free in their reign.  A genuinely dualistic system.  Of course, all of these are dead religions.  I tried in the past to square problems like papal infallibility and others by holding "heterodox" views on the matters, but the hard fact of trying to do that is that one ends up in a tent of their own.  Catholicism is an apostolic and universal religion.  There was no Catholic priest I could confess my view on infallibility to who would not have told me I was a heretic in a state of mortal sin.  Heavy is the head that wears the white zucchetto, but some can bear the awesome weight of being their own pope.  I am not one of them.



Daniel

#182
Quote from: Kreuzritter on February 25, 2019, 10:58:54 AMNo. I'm distinguishing betweent he immediate knowledge of the heart and the intellectual knowledge of concepts that is arrived at through deriving it by a process of reason.
What do you mean by "immediate knowledge of the heart"? Are you referring to some sort of innate knowledge? Or are you referring to grace/faith? Or to something else?

QuoteI mean that things are what they are, that actions and the phenomena they involve have an essential nature and and intrinsic meaning. A person in possession of his wits knows what it means to torture and kill a child; he knows the spirit of the act, and he will encounter and know the demonic evil that will be invoked in committing it, from which he will either recoil in aborrence or revel in if he is wicked. That is an extreme example, but it is no less true of other evils.  It's totally inconsequential to whether I am acting in good or bad will, when it comes to something that is intrinsically evil in nature, that I know whether or not some authority I call "God" forbids it. Someone who chooses what is evil has evil in his heart, and that's that.
Even in your extreme example, I wouldn't say that I know that it's wrong to torture innocent children. It does seem quite wrong to do to, and so I would say that I think it's wrong to do so. (If I did say that I 'know' that it's wrong, I'd have been using 'know' in a looser sense.) And if somebody tortured my child, I'd probably be pretty angry. Still, it's conceivable that I'd be mistaken in thinking that it's wrong to torture innocent children, and it's conceivable that my anger would then be out of line.

Xavier

#183
Sigh. Evolution is one of the great hoaxes (the Masons brag of having made modern man believe he is the descendant of the ape in their letters) of the modern world that keeps souls from God. Will get back later, but was reminded of this conversion story: "For a few years of my life, I used to be an atheist. I became an atheist in junior high school when I was exposed to the theory of evolution and due to lack of education in Catholicism–the faith that I was baptized into as an infant–I fell away very easily. However, being an atheist made me very depressed. Why? Because at the end of the existential road is nihilism and accepting that life is meaningless and pointless made me harbor suicidal thoughts. Really, it got quite hard to get out of the bed each morning and to desire to do anything productive, like attend college, have a career, marry, raise a family, etc. So, one day, when I was 17 years old, I literally said to myself, either I believe there is a God, or I kill myself because there is no purpose for my existence. I had no joy in my life and always being a deep thinker my whole life, thinking that there was no purpose for my existence was that troubling for me ...

Then, as people who have read my conversion story know, in 2001, I broke my leg and during surgery, I encountered God in what was very similar to a near-death experience, etc. Now, that supernatural experience should have brought me home immediately to the Catholic Church, but due to various circumstances, it was not until late December 2002, that I discovered the Catholic faith of my infant baptism. I was 3 months shy of my 25th birthday, because–surprise, surprise–God remembers promises like the one I made to myself at age 17. And yes, like so many Catholic conversion stories, it was the Blessed Mother who ultimately brought me back to the Catholic Church and I found Jesus. I am so eternally grateful ...

Firstly, I recommend these three books ... Now, I will say that I wish priests at the pulpit in Holy Mass spoke more about the supernatural. Many Catholics are starving for this information, because talking about God and how He is literally speaking to us today and that miracles really happen, would wake up people in the pews and bring people back to the Catholic Church ... Reading about miracles excites people in their faith. Knowing that God continues to help people even today, is exciting to know. Seriously, if priests were to read these books and just for one year, preach about one miracle at every Sunday Mass, how many people would become animated each week. People would joyfully wonder to themselves, hmm, I wonder what miracle story dear Father is going to share with us today! Such stories stick in the minds of people and demonstrate God's Great Love for us and the power of prayer ...

Firstly, read all the miracle books on the list that I provided, then give the books to your parish priest and ask him to preach on a miracle at every Holy Mass for a year. That way, people can learn of God's Love and care for them and the necessity of prayer to God.

For example, many people know that St. Patrick was a great saint of Ireland, but not many know why. It was because St. Patrick performed a resurrection miracle by the power of God. St. Patrick resurrected the drowned daughter and son of the pagan king, which then led to the entire pagan island converting to Catholicism. One of the books that I recommend recounts 400 resurrection miracles performed by the Saints. Priests could simply preach on the power of the Resurrection for a year and that would animate many people in the pews ... Now, let's say that you are an atheist and you do not believe in miracles. Well, I am going to present to you in the remainder of this blog post, several miracles that are hard for an atheist to refute if he really delves into researching the history of them. Here are the miracles for you to consider. Firstly, there are over 200 bodies of different Saints in the Catholic Church that are incorruptible. Incorruptible means that they have not decayed from natural causes." https://maryrefugeofholylove.com/2019/02/03/is-there-a-god-for-those-seeking-god-atheists-and-lukewarm-catholics/

Knowledge of the existence and experience of the Risen Christ and the Eucharistic Lord is accessible and available to all who seek God in prayer, in the Sacraments, in study, in natural good works that can prepare the way for grace and so on. Pray, dear friends, pray and seek God sincerely, and He will lead you to Him, to salvation and to everlasting happiness, if you seek Him with all your hearts.
Bible verses on walking blamelessly with God, after being forgiven from our former sins. Some verses here: https://dailyverses.net/blameless

"[2] He that walketh without blemish, and worketh justice:[3] He that speaketh truth in his heart, who hath not used deceit in his tongue: Nor hath done evil to his neighbour: nor taken up a reproach against his neighbours.(Psalm 14)

"[2] For in many things we all offend. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man."(James 3)

"[14] And do ye all things without murmurings and hesitations; [15] That you may be blameless, and sincere children of God, without reproof, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation; among whom you shine as lights in the world." (Phil 2:14-15)

Kreuzritter

Quote from: Daniel on February 26, 2019, 07:09:36 AM
Quote from: Kreuzritter on February 25, 2019, 10:58:54 AMNo. I'm distinguishing betweent he immediate knowledge of the heart and the intellectual knowledge of concepts that is arrived at through deriving it by a process of reason.
What do you mean by "immediate knowledge of the heart"? Are you referring to some sort of innate knowledge? Or are you referring to grace/faith? Or to something else?

I am referring to the work of the law that is written on the heart. The heart knows what it is doing and the nature of its acts.

Quote
QuoteI mean that things are what they are, that actions and the phenomena they involve have an essential nature and and intrinsic meaning. A person in possession of his wits knows what it means to torture and kill a child; he knows the spirit of the act, and he will encounter and know the demonic evil that will be invoked in committing it, from which he will either recoil in aborrence or revel in if he is wicked. That is an extreme example, but it is no less true of other evils.  It's totally inconsequential to whether I am acting in good or bad will, when it comes to something that is intrinsically evil in nature, that I know whether or not some authority I call "God" forbids it. Someone who chooses what is evil has evil in his heart, and that's that.
Even in your extreme example, I wouldn't say that I know that it's wrong to torture innocent children. It does seem quite wrong to do to, and so I would say that I think it's wrong to do so. (If I did say that I 'know' that it's wrong, I'd have been using 'know' in a looser sense.) And if somebody tortured my child, I'd probably be pretty angry. Still, it's conceivable that I'd be mistaken in thinking that it's wrong to torture innocent children, and it's conceivable that my anger would then be out of line.

I don't know how many more times I have to repeat myself if you still don't get it after that explication and return to talking about an ill-defined "right" and "wrong". What part of this are you not getting? Every act, as phenomenon, is something; it has a nature, an essence, an energy, a spirit, or whatever else one likes to call it. I couldn't care less whether a person knows that torturing children is "right" or "wrong" by whatever sense of those words one intends; a person who wills to torture children wills to torture children; he wants to do what he is doing. The torture of children is something, not just an abstract concept or a string of words, and the person who wills it and experiences it knows what that something is; he knows what it means to torture children and he wills to do that. And that is really, truly, categorically distinct from an act like loving a child, caring for a child, or saving a child's life and proceeds from a differently disposed heart. And knowing or not knowing that it is "forbidden" will not change what a heart that is so disposed is, namely cold, demonic, hateful, vindictive, perverse or a host of other things we associate with the nature we call evil.

Picture a man standing before God at his judgment.

God: You wilfully tortured and murdered a little child.
Man: But I didn't know it was forbidden by you.
God: But you know what torture and murder are.
Man: But nobody ever told me they are wrong.
God: But you, knowing what torture and murder are, wilfully tortured and murdered a little child. Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire.






Tales

QuoteEven in your extreme example, I wouldn't say that I know that it's wrong to torture innocent children. It does seem quite wrong to do to, and so I would say that I think it's wrong to do so. (If I did say that I 'know' that it's wrong, I'd have been using 'know' in a looser sense.) And if somebody tortured my child, I'd probably be pretty angry. Still, it's conceivable that I'd be mistaken in thinking that it's wrong to torture innocent children, and it's conceivable that my anger would then be out of line.

Only with logic and intellectualism can a man be so thoroughly lost as to not definitively know that torturing children is wrong.   Thomism has done the greatest disservice to you, your life would be incalculably better had you never encountered it.  Once logic came to dominate faith and morals we were off to the races, the race being to see who can lose their minds the quickest.

At risk of sounding like a hysterical nut, I will use all caps.  You must LIVE the faith, not intellectualize about it.  You know it by living it!  I know what love is because I love my family.  If I were to "know" love through philosophical treatises, or even the catechism, then I know it not.  A man can know drugs are bad from seeing the lives they destroy.  A man can know the sexual sins wrong by becoming bondaged to them and seeing other deviants in chains as well.

Living it is the reality check against the insane nonsense we craft with our logic.  In physics we have theoretical and experimental physicists.  The theorist uses pure mathematics to craft a theory about how nature functions, then he calls up his colleague the experimentalist to see if his purely logical theory, which works on paper and makes great sense, is actually real or not. 

And it goes vice versa too.  The experimentalist discovers something, say that iron filings form rings around a current. Then perhaps he'd pass it off to a theorist to turn this knowkedge into logic (math).  The theorist will come up with something that beautifully explains it, but that does not guarantee that its actually true.  It is merely a model, one that to the best of our knowledge works - yet we cannot say this is definitively how reality is.  But knowing it is not in the field theory model (intellectualization) but in seeing the iron filings form rings (living it, if you will).

Non Nobis

#186
Quote from: Kreuzritter on February 26, 2019, 08:06:55 AM

Picture a man standing before God at his judgment.

God: You wilfully tortured and murdered a little child.
Man: But I didn't know it was forbidden by you.
God: But you know what torture and murder are.
Man: But nobody ever told me they are wrong.
God: But you, knowing what torture and murder are, wilfully tortured and murdered a little child. Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire.

Really knowing what torture and murder are INCLUDES knowing that they are wrong.  We can say more than just "they are what they are"; what they are is evil, and so wrong, and that is why God said "Thou shalt not kill".  For some reason God saw fit to give that command, as if to to  point out as a forceful reminder "look, you know what they are, you know they are evil, you know they are wrong".  The Israelites worshiping a golden calf knew what they were doing, and therefore they were evil, and (had they died) would have been cast into everlasting fire (I think you would agree).  But God still gave them the command "Thou shalt have no strange Gods before Me".  It is very  good to be told something is morally wrong even if not being told is not an excuse.

Considering only that something is checked off as right or wrong, and neglecting the knowledge in our hearts (as we do it) that it is good or evil in itself, can go with being an evil man or thinking in an evil way. But if something is "evil in itself, known as you do it" it can also be known as objectively wrong, abstractly.  The study of morality (the implications of the commandments of God) is useful for men with muffled hearts and blurred intellects.

[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!

Daniel

#187
Quote from: Kreuzritter on February 26, 2019, 08:06:55 AMI am referring to the work of the law that is written on the heart. The heart knows what it is doing and the nature of its acts.

[. . .]

I don't know how many more times I have to repeat myself if you still don't get it after that explication and return to talking about an ill-defined "right" and "wrong". What part of this are you not getting? Every act, as phenomenon, is something; it has a nature, an essence, an energy, a spirit, or whatever else one likes to call it. I couldn't care less whether a person knows that torturing children is "right" or "wrong" by whatever sense of those words one intends; a person who wills to torture children wills to torture children; he wants to do what he is doing. The torture of children is something, not just an abstract concept or a string of words, and the person who wills it and experiences it knows what that something is; he knows what it means to torture children and he wills to do that. And that is really, truly, categorically distinct from an act like loving a child, caring for a child, or saving a child's life and proceeds from a differently disposed heart. And knowing or not knowing that it is "forbidden" will not change what a heart that is so disposed is, namely cold, demonic, hateful, vindictive, perverse or a host of other things we associate with the nature we call evil.

Picture a man standing before God at his judgment.

God: You wilfully tortured and murdered a little child.
Man: But I didn't know it was forbidden by you.
God: But you know what torture and murder are.
Man: But nobody ever told me they are wrong.
God: But you, knowing what torture and murder are, wilfully tortured and murdered a little child. Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire.
I'm sorry, but I honestly still don't understand.

I can just barely get a glimpse of what you're saying through that last piece of imagery. But it's still so unclear. What I now hear you saying is that each man has, in his heart (which I guess is distinct from the intellect), an idea about the reality of one of his potential actions (e.g. all men know what comprises the act of "torturing children"). Each man also has his own preferences with regard to that idea (or, with regard to that reality?): some men find pleasure in torturing children, while other men find torturing children to be repulsive. Then there is God who hates the torturing of children. The men who happen to have all the same preferences as God (e.g. the men who don't like to torture children) are saved, while the men who happen to prefer what God does not prefer (viz. the ones who like to torture children) are damned. Is that pretty much it, or am I still way off?



Quote from: Davis Blank - EG on February 26, 2019, 09:11:21 AMAt risk of sounding like a hysterical nut, I will use all caps.  You must LIVE the faith, not intellectualize about it.  You know it by living it!  I know what love is because I love my family.  If I were to "know" love through philosophical treatises, or even the catechism, then I know it not.  A man can know drugs are bad from seeing the lives they destroy.  A man can know the sexual sins wrong by becoming bondaged to them and seeing other deviants in chains as well.

Living it is the reality check against the insane nonsense we craft with our logic.  In physics we have theoretical and experimental physicists.  The theorist uses pure mathematics to craft a theory about how nature functions, then he calls up his colleague the experimentalist to see if his purely logical theory, which works on paper and makes great sense, is actually real or not. 

And it goes vice versa too.  The experimentalist discovers something, say that iron filings form rings around a current. Then perhaps he'd pass it off to a theorist to turn this knowkedge into logic (math).  The theorist will come up with something that beautifully explains it, but that does not guarantee that its actually true.  It is merely a model, one that to the best of our knowledge works - yet we cannot say this is definitively how reality is.  But knowing it is not in the field theory model (intellectualization) but in seeing the iron filings form rings (living it, if you will).
What you speak of is not "knowledge". Or, at least not "knowledge" as I use the word. Because our experiences can be wrong. And even if they aren't wrong, they can still only bring us so far.

But anyway, even if the answer is to be found in "living the faith", how does the man without faith "live the faith"? Seems impossible.
And in what does "living the faith" consist? Do you just mean living a life in obedience to the Catholic Church, or do you mean something else? If the former, I'm not seeing how that's reconcilable to the more-intuitive idea that we ought to live our lives out of love for God. If the Catholic Church is not from God, but rather is blasphemous, deceptive, and oppressive, then common sense would tell us to disregard whatever the Catholic Church is saying.
(Since I personally have no knowledge that the Catholic Church is blasphemous, deceptive, or oppressive, I'm hesitant to disregard it. But since I personally have no knowledge to the contrary, I'm also hesitant to obey. If I were to make a judgment based on experience, I'd have to choose to disregard the Catholic Church. But I think such a decision is rash.)

Kreuzritter

Quote from: Daniel on February 26, 2019, 11:14:07 PM
What I now hear you saying is that each man has, in his heart (which I guess is distinct from the intellect), an idea about the essence of some particular action (e.g. all men know what comprises the act of "torturing children").

Not an idea. The knowledge is not that of a system of signs somehow corresponding to reality like that of the rational intellect, nor even a verbally unexpressed idea, but is immediate; the heart knows its own acts, what it wills and what it does.

Quote
Each man also has his own preferences with regard to that idea: some men take pleasure in torturing children, while other men find torturing children to be repulsive. Then there is God who hates the torturing of children.

The "preference" is only an expression of the nature of a man's heart. I point to the Bible calling David a "man after God's own heart". That nature is either fundamentally open to God and to being a conduit for the divine energies or it is shut off and reprobate.

QuoteThe men who happen to have all the same preferences as God (e.g. the men who don't like to torture children) are saved, while the men who happen to prefer what God does not prefer (viz. the ones who like to torture children) are damned. Is that pretty much it, or am I still way off?

My intention was to present it as a economy of salvation. I wanted only to express that "ignorance" of the "wrongness" of intrinsic evils does not change what is in the heart of the man who commits them. Evil does as evil is, and what is evil cannot unite with God.

QuoteWhat you speak of is not "knowledge". Or, at least not "knowledge" as I use the word. Because our experiences can be wrong. And even if they aren't wrong, they can still only bring us so far.

No. Experiences can't be right or wrong; they are only what they are. Only judgments of possible statements about experience can be right or wrong.

Non Nobis

#189
Quote from: Kreuzritter on February 27, 2019, 07:02:44 AM
I wanted only to express that "ignorance" of the "wrongness" of intrinsic evils does not change what is in the heart of the man who commits them. Evil does as evil is, and what is evil cannot unite with God.

If I KNOW the intrinsic evil of abortion, and don't do it (or wish it), I have no evil in my heart (regarding that matter).  If I claim I don't KNOW the intrinsic evil of abortion, and do it, then because it is in fact intrinsic the heart really "knows" in its way what I am doing, and "evil does as evil is" and cannot unite with God.

But if I DON'T know that abortion is intrinsically evil (or claim I don't), I still may not do it at all, but also I don't condemn others for doing it, or protest them, or stay away from occasions that would tempt me (sex outside of marriage), or pray for help for myself or others.

At the actual moment of an intrinsically evil act, intellectual knowledge of its objective evil is too late, but the heart knows the evil it is doing as it is done. That seems reasonable. But intellectual knowledge (or a forceful reminder) that an act is intrinsically evil can help you not to get to that moment. I think this is one reason why God tells us "Thou shalt not kill".

Does this make some sense?
[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!

Xavier

Quote from: PonI probably don't need as much convincing as it might seem, Xavier, in order to be persuaded that Christianity is the most likely of the theistic religions on offer.

Great. In Christianity, Pon, and specifically in the Person of Christ, we see something dramatically different than in other religions. We see that God comes to find Man, we see that God becomes Man for love of us, that God comes to save Man, that God offers His Life in Sacrifice for our sake, purely in Love, even before we knew to ask! In other religions, even those that approach the Truth, we see consciousness of something like sin that hinders man from approaching the Divinity, something like a divine intervention through sacrifice that is needed to take it away, and yet those of those religions are still searching for what that is, for where that supreme sacrifice of the Lamb of God in blood that alone blots out sin is.

QuoteBut seeing as how Vatican II happened, I find Eastern Orthodoxy (should a form of Christianity be true) the more palatable form over Catholicism.

Well, Eastern Orthodox are actually very close to us, on like 99% of doctrines. For e.g. they also pray for the departed to be purified to enter heaven in peace, but then say purgatory is questionable, though St. Paul speaks of being purified in fire (1 Cor 3:15) and Judas Macchabeus commands prayers and sacrifices for some who sinned, (2 Macc 12:43-46, accepted by Orthodox) - thus proving sins are loosed for the departed by prayer and sacrifices - while they themselves also pray for the same in their Divine Liturgy, taught by Apostolic Tradition and by the whole of Scripture just like us Catholic Christians. And similarly, there are so many words in Greek itself that express the sinlessness of the Virgin, Whom they themselves call All-Holy Theotokos, like Panagia, Panomomos, Prokathartheisa, All-Holy, Stainless, Sole Prepurified One, but they disagree with the Immaculate Conception, while also believing Mother Mary to be the New Eve. So this I think is relatively a small matter which can be cleared up in a future Council. If one is attracted to Eastern Christian spirituality, being Eastern Catholic is a legitimate option.

I think Orthodox and Catholics may well be re-united in a single Catholic Church within about 30 years. There's something exciting like the beginning of a Council being planned for 2025. In my opinion, we will see Catholic-Orthodox re-union in our lifetime. The event in 2025 is to commemorate the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.

QuoteI am aware of the miracles.  All I can say is that the amount of reasonable doubt I have from evolution and theodicy is more than sufficient to overcome the miracle claims.

If we take the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano, for instance, does it not show it is quite reasonable for us to believe Christ keeps His Word, even in the most seemingly difficult things? He said, "Jn 6:33 For the Bread of God is He Who cometh down from heaven, and giveth Life to the world.", He said it, and He has done it, even visibly, for those who still doubt.

"Doubting Thomas" did make a mistake, originally, but after knowing by experience the Risen Christ, became a great Apostle, who was gloriously martyred after preaching the Faith and forming the Church in India. God imho wants us all to begin to enjoy the blessing and peace of a strong Faith in Him Who is Truth, such as the holy Apostles had after the Resurrection, and which already even in this life is a prelude to eternal happiness and a foretaste of everlasting bliss.

I think you said, Pon, that you also have experienced what seemed to you at the time to be the Presence of Christ in Eucharistic Adoration. I would say you should continue such practices as far as possible, even as you study, and inquire, and you could just pray to Jesus in simple words also. "Lord, if You're there, help me believe in You firmly, and love You and my neighbor". A simple persevering prayer like that, in Eucharistic Adoration now and then, will often help you receive signal graces. The Rosary is another great means, for which the same grace is expressly promised by the Mother of God.

I know you are attracted to "Jansenistic" spirituality, but imho, that tends over time rather to keep souls away from God. For e.g., it says, out of the claim of Reverence for the Blessed Sacrament - something so commendable in itself - that we need to stay away from Jesus in Holy Communion for long periods of time, allegedly in order to grow closer to Him, which seems plainly erroneous. Most Holy Doctors like St. Alphonsus recommend strongly the exact opposite. One good confession is all it takes. The firm resolve to be detached from the world and be united to Christ Who has loved us so much and waits always as a Prisoner of His Love for us in the Blessed Sacrament. Then, we should go, believing in Him, to adore Him in Holy Mass, offer Him with the Priest to the Eternal Father for sins, and then receive Him.

If we meditate on the promise of Heaven, and the great joy the blessed enjoy for all eternity, we will the more easily grow in love of God Who has promised it to us. And St. Augustine remarks that Jesus has done a greater thing for us than He has promised. "What has He done? He has died for love of you. What has He promised to do? He has promised to take you to love with Him" so we should believe Him.

Others are discussing Conscience. The Catechism has this on conscience, CCC 1776 "Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God.His conscience is man's most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths."47 1777 Moral conscience,48 present at the heart of the person, enjoins him at the appropriate moment to do good and to avoid evil. It also judges particular choices, approving those that are good and denouncing those that are evil.49 It bears witness to the authority of truth in reference to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn, and it welcomes the commandments. When he listens to his conscience, the prudent man can hear God speaking.http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a6.htm

God's Light showing us the difference between good and evil is like the light of the sun that manifests the difference between light and darkness. It always exists objectively, whether we acknowledge it or not subjectively. The natural faculty of our conscience is perfected by the supernatural light of the Holy Spirit that is faith, when we are regenerated in Baptism. If we can be certain and treat it as a fact that terrorism is wrong legally (as all of us do), we can be certain that there is an immutable moral law, above every mutable civil law. It is this law we discern on our conscience and in our hearts when we act, which shows us God is Goodness.

Evolution we can discuss in the DNA thread. I think there's a lot of purely scientific evidence against evolution, we have DNA, soft tissues, and even living bacteria! (and not much different from modern bacteria!) surviving for what is alleged to be hundreds of millions or even billions of years - which seems to be sufficient reason to doubt the accuracy of those dates.  But because of what our conscience assures us about the Supreme Goodness Who made us being the Eternal source of the moral law, we can be assured He is Good no matter what. Perhaps, Pon, the fact that we know God is Good should be yet another moral and philosophical reason to reject the evolutionist opinion.

God bless.
Bible verses on walking blamelessly with God, after being forgiven from our former sins. Some verses here: https://dailyverses.net/blameless

"[2] He that walketh without blemish, and worketh justice:[3] He that speaketh truth in his heart, who hath not used deceit in his tongue: Nor hath done evil to his neighbour: nor taken up a reproach against his neighbours.(Psalm 14)

"[2] For in many things we all offend. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man."(James 3)

"[14] And do ye all things without murmurings and hesitations; [15] That you may be blameless, and sincere children of God, without reproof, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation; among whom you shine as lights in the world." (Phil 2:14-15)

Daniel

#191
Quote from: Kreuzritter on February 27, 2019, 07:02:44 AM
Quote from: Daniel on February 26, 2019, 11:14:07 PM
What I now hear you saying is that each man has, in his heart (which I guess is distinct from the intellect), an idea about the essence of some particular action (e.g. all men know what comprises the act of "torturing children").

Not an idea. The knowledge is not that of a system of signs somehow corresponding to reality like that of the rational intellect, nor even a verbally unexpressed idea, but is immediate; the heart knows its own acts, what it wills and what it does.
What do you mean by 'immediate'?

Quote
Quote
Each man also has his own preferences with regard to that idea: some men take pleasure in torturing children, while other men find torturing children to be repulsive. Then there is God who hates the torturing of children.

The "preference" is only an expression of the nature of a man's heart. I point to the Bible calling David a "man after God's own heart". That nature is either fundamentally open to God and to being a conduit for the divine energies or it is shut off and reprobate.

QuoteThe men who happen to have all the same preferences as God (e.g. the men who don't like to torture children) are saved, while the men who happen to prefer what God does not prefer (viz. the ones who like to torture children) are damned. Is that pretty much it, or am I still way off?

My intention was to present it as a economy of salvation. I wanted only to express that "ignorance" of the "wrongness" of intrinsic evils does not change what is in the heart of the man who commits them. Evil does as evil is, and what is evil cannot unite with God.
I think I get what you're saying. Good deeds follow from good people, and evil deeds follow from evil people. Each man is either good or evil, and there's nothing he can do about it (he can't even know whether or not he is evil). But didn't the Catholic Church condemn all this?

Quote
QuoteWhat you speak of is not "knowledge". Or, at least not "knowledge" as I use the word. Because our experiences can be wrong. And even if they aren't wrong, they can still only bring us so far.

No. Experiences can't be right or wrong; they are only what they are. Only judgments of possible statements about experience can be right or wrong.
Good point. But regardless, if our judgements can be wrong then our experiences still cannot bring us knowledge.

Non Nobis

#192
Quote from: Daniel on February 28, 2019, 06:27:15 PM
Quote from: Kreuzritter on February 27, 2019, 07:02:44 AM
Quote from: Daniel on February 26, 2019, 11:14:07 PM
What I now hear you saying is that each man has, in his heart (which I guess is distinct from the intellect), an idea about the essence of some particular action (e.g. all men know what comprises the act of "torturing children").

Not an idea. The knowledge is not that of a system of signs somehow corresponding to reality like that of the rational intellect, nor even a verbally unexpressed idea, but is immediate; the heart knows its own acts, what it wills and what it does.
What do you mean by 'immediate'?

Sorry if I'm interrupting a conversation between you and Kreuzritter (maybe so, as I think I haven't been fitting in).

You do KNOW that torturing children is wrong, right? There are different kinds of knowledge, don't belittle one of them. It is "gut level", in the heart (immediate; you don't have to think about the essence of things), but the intellect can't deny it.  There are crazy people who might contort their minds and deny that they know that 2 + 2 equals 4.  And there are absolutely evil people who contort their heart (and their mind's recognition) and deny their knowledge that torturing children is wrong (= evil). But that doesn't disprove the reality that sane and decent people know the truth. No argument is needed.

An act is evil (as it is done) in the heart of a man; but it can also be intellectually recognized (even by a man who doesn't do it) as being an evil act WHENEVER it is done by any man (for an intrinsically evil act, there are no exceptions). "Objective intrinsic evil" maps to "evil in the heart" when it is done.
[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!

Tales

QuoteBecause our experiences can be wrong.

An experimentalist successfully demonstrates an experiment, the theorist exclaims "Ah, but does it work on paper?"  Some people do not believe their lying eyes nor can they see the trees for the forest.

QuoteBut anyway, even if the answer is to be found in "living the faith", how does the man without faith "live the faith"? Seems impossible.

How does a baby learn English when he has it not?  By listening and doing.  He receives and lives it.  The Church teaches that everyone has access to the graces of God.

QuoteAnd in what does "living the faith" consist? Do you just mean living a life in obedience to the Catholic Church, or do you mean something else? If the former, I'm not seeing how that's reconcilable to the more-intuitive idea that we ought to live our lives out of love for God. If the Catholic Church is not from God, but rather is blasphemous, deceptive, and oppressive, then common sense would tell us to disregard whatever the Catholic Church is saying.

You either follow an organized religion, make it up as you go, take no stance on it, or reject it all.  Starting from nothing, how is it more intuitive to live our lives out of love for God than anything else?

Non Nobis

#194
Quote from: Davis Blank - EG on March 01, 2019, 12:59:59 AM

QuoteBut anyway, even if the answer is to be found in "living the faith", how does the man without faith "live the faith"? Seems impossible.

How does a baby learn English when he has it not?  By listening and doing.  He receives and lives it.  The Church teaches that everyone has access to the graces of God.

QuoteAnd in what does "living the faith" consist? Do you just mean living a life in obedience to the Catholic Church, or do you mean something else? If the former, I'm not seeing how that's reconcilable to the more-intuitive idea that we ought to live our lives out of love for God. If the Catholic Church is not from God, but rather is blasphemous, deceptive, and oppressive, then common sense would tell us to disregard whatever the Catholic Church is saying.

You either follow an organized religion, make it up as you go, take no stance on it, or reject it all.  Starting from nothing, how is it more intuitive to live our lives out of love for God than anything else?

I don't see how most of this couldn't be said for a Muslim.  He follows an organized religion by listening and doing, and receiving and living it. Are you just saying "by God's grace YOU happen to be following the right religion, so stop thinking about it"?

Adam and Eve found it natural or intuitive to love God above all before they fell. Even we are attracted to good (we have a conscience) unless we have let ourselves become corrupted.  People aren't born with a natural neutral attitude towards torturing children. There is good in the Catholic Church that can be seen even before one is personally living it.  Otherwise why talk about it to others and try to convert them? Grace (the gift of faith) comes only from God, but He works through reason too.

I agree that once you are a Catholic (and believe its teachings) the best way to increase your faith is to live it. But I think St. Thomas is a good example of living it partly by thinking and teaching others about it. Living includes thinking and (for some) teaching the truth about faith. Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. (St. Thomas teaches truth is the conformance of the intellect to reality; which is what we are trying to help Daniel with here.)
[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!