|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: An abhorrent doctrine
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
Bad things done with faith in God can be pleasing to God.
Name one.
There isn't one in my opinion. Believing good things done without divine purpose are evil, is just the flip side of the coin from those who believe evil things done for divine purpose are good. That is fanaticism in my opinion. I agree with the word used in the thread for both. Abhorrent.
I totally agree but there are (regionally) influential people who wouldn't start at 8:35
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It's not the case that God did it reduces our role to a sock puppet, any more than thanking God at grace reduces the farmer to a stage show.
Does the reverse hold true for the Devil and human evil?
No. The Devil in orthodox Christian theology is another creature. Therefore, the devil is in genuine competition for ontological space with us. Either the devil did it or we did it, but not both.
I suppose an exception would be in a Walter Wink theology in which spiritual powers are social structures that take on lives of their own. In that case, it is possible to attribute human action simultaneously to both the human person and to the social structure that acts through the human person.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Making life a "competition" for salvation misses the point.
If this is what you understand of my position then you have sorely misread it.
To summarize:
- God is not pleased by our works but by our faith and devotion
- works done by anyone - believer or not - are not in and of themselves pleasing to God, although they can have a great benefit to other humans and possibly to ourselves in terms of aligning ourselves with God's attitude of love
- God will save who He saves, and who He saves will have nothing to do with the amount of Earthly good works that they did
In sum - I believe the homeless drug addict and Gandhi will be seen EQUALLY by God. I do not accept that Gandhi (I don't know why him...is he the kindest and best person who ever lived? but anyway) is going to be more pleasing to God because he was able to get his nation independence, something that 99.9% of humans can never accomplish. This attitude presumes that God values the same things humans value - achievements, works, etc.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
If you were to ask, "How did the hallway get cleaned?" then, if I was being careful about my answer, I'd acknowledged that the cleaning involved me, the vacuum cleaner, and some electricity. All three were necessary.
Sure, but that would take the analogy beyond what I was using it for. We have two real entities here - God and you - and I was mapping them to two out of three in the analogy, ignoring the third on purpose to make a point by my choice. But I will use all three next, switching de facto to a different analogy.
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
But Augustine seems to be saying that in any good act, nothing human is involved. On the contrary - "everything in us that was of our doing was displeasing to him". It's as if, the hallway being cleaned, the electricity suddenly finds a voice and claims all the credit! It's pure, clean, good electricity, and has nothing but condemnation for dirty old vacuum cleaners.
No, that's not right. It's as if the vacuum cleaner says: "Without electricity I'm useless at what I'm supposed to do, namely cleaning, and the owner doesn't like me running around the carpet without electricity-induced suction, because then my activity does not clean (good) but only thins out the carpet (evil)."
Of course the analogy still doesn't really work, because actual vacuum cleaners do not make choices (whether to run around with or without suction), but are purely passive devices. We could now elaborate in terms of a robotic vacuum cleaner, which is always electricity powered, but can run around on its own with or without suction - and we would actually get closer to our reality. But I think that would be over-egging the analogy. The real point here is that St Augustine doesn't see God as some kind of external actor. He sees God as being closer to His heart than himself. To become "grace-filled" is not to become possessed by an entity that steals his agency, but to become truly himself. When he talks about his "own" action, he basically talks about "the flesh", the not very saintly Augustine who stole apples and was a bit of a Casanova. His own action is sort of "Augustine with a blocked heart", and it is God who unblocks him. He really considers his own conversion experience to be a radical sign for his inner state, with the "big ticket" items (he no longer steals or screws around now) being just obvious expressions of a universal requirement of heart unblocking that he has and had. He is like a coin, with "the flesh" on one side and "the heart" on the other. It's always the same coin, but he needs God to flip him the right side up.
Now, you may wish to argue that he is going to far in all this, and maybe he does. But I think you are doing him an injustice if you think that he simply thinks of humanity as dirt. Rather, he is exalting God's work in us best he can. I guess you could say that St Augustine had the worst case of convertitis in the history of mankind. Well, perhaps after St Paul... (try Gal 2:20 for size). You need to understand him in terms of this complete inner state change that he has experienced, it dominates his thinking. And well, good on him, really...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
seekingsister: - God is not pleased by our works but by our faith and devotion
Yes He is.
quote:
seekingsister: - works done by anyone - believer or not - are not in and of themselves pleasing to God, although they can have a great benefit to other humans and possibly to ourselves in terms of aligning ourselves with God's attitude of love
Yes they are.
I'm not much into proofreading, but I have to say your position is very unbiblical. There's plenty of stuff in the Bible about "Treating the orphans and widows well pleases Me".
quote:
seekingsister: - God will save who He saves, and who He saves will have nothing to do with the amount of Earthly good works that they did
With this I agree. In fact, I personally believe He'll save everyone. That's the Universalist position. Consequently, our amount of good works is irrelevant to that
quote:
seekingsister: In sum - I believe the homeless drug addict and Gandhi will be seen EQUALLY by God.
Yes of course.
quote:
seekingsister: I do not accept that Gandhi (...) is going to be more pleasing to God
Who said anything about being more pleasing? This is you introducing a competition here. "Your good deed pleases me" doesn't mean "You please me more than someone else".
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Yes they are.
I'm not much into proofreading, but I have to say your position is very unbiblical. There's plenty of stuff in the Bible about "Treating the orphans and widows well pleases Me"
quote:
James 1:27
Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.
That awful "epistle of straw" according to Martin Luther ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Who said anything about being more pleasing? This is you introducing a competition here. "Your good deed pleases me" doesn't mean "You please me more than someone else".
I was trying to use an example of someone who perhaps due to circumstance does no good works in their life at all, versus someone that everyone thinks did a lot of good works.
If your position is that God sees the non-faith having non-good work doing person as pleasing, then it's neither works nor faith that please God but just our being humans period. This seems to be the case as you identify as a universalist.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It's not the case that God did it reduces our role to a sock puppet, any more than thanking God at grace reduces the farmer to a stage show.
Does the reverse hold true for the Devil and human evil?
No. The Devil in orthodox Christian theology is another creature. Therefore, the devil is in genuine competition for ontological space with us. Either the devil did it or we did it, but not both.
So technically, if our good works only come from God, our bad works could theoretically come from the Devil?
( I realise this isn't Augustine's position necessarily, but it does raise the more eternal question that the scholastic's seemed to raise in that evil is merely the absence of God ( e.g. Aquinas) )
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
seekingsister: I was trying to use an example of someone who perhaps due to circumstance does no good works in their life at all, versus someone that everyone thinks did a lot of good works.
I understand that. Both people would be pleasing to God.
quote:
seekingsister: If your position is that God sees the non-faith having non-good work doing person as pleasing, then it's neither works nor faith that please God but just our being humans period.
You seem to have difficulty distinguishing between people being pleasing to God and deeds being pleasing to God.
Suppose I were parent of two children. Would they be pleasing to me? Yes of course. I'd love them both unconditionally, no matter what they did or what they thought about me.
Suppose one of these children did a good deed. Would that be pleasing to me? Yes, it would. Would that mean that I'd love this child more than the other one? No, it wouldn't.
Now suppose that one of the children was so handicapped that (s)he was bedridden and couldn't do much of anything. Would I still be pleased with a good deed of the "healthy' child? Yes, I would. Would this mean I'd love it more than the child who was handicapped? No, of course it wouldn't. Both children would be pleasing to me.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
You seem to have difficulty distinguishing between people being pleasing to God and deeds being pleasing to God.
I'm not having difficulty distinguishing these two things, but working from the theological framework as in Article 13 from the 39 Articles and from Augustine's statement - the acts that we do when outside of God's grace have the nature of sin because we have a sinful nature. It's as if God can't see what we are doing - good, bad, or otherwise - because we are not in a relationship with Him at that point.
You are talking about something else - a god who is like "cool look at those kids sharing toys, wait now that guy is giving money to someone homeless, ooh someone fed a poor person." Maybe God enjoys seeing these things but that is neither what Augustine nor the 39 Articles (nor myself) means.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Therefore, the devil is in genuine competition for ontological space with us. Either the devil did it or we did it, but not both.
So technically, if our good works only come from God, our bad works could theoretically come from the Devil?
Dafyd: This is black.
Evensong: So technically, this is white?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Therefore, the devil is in genuine competition for ontological space with us. Either the devil did it or we did it, but not both.
So technically, if our good works only come from God, our bad works could theoretically come from the Devil?
Dafyd: This is black.
Evensong: So technically, this is white?
If it's not in divine order, it's in some other (dis)order. There are not many choices available. If the focus is on the divine order, then all falls into place quite nicely. If the focus is on disorder, or fear of what disorder might imply, or trying to work out the disorder in detail, then that just leads to more disorder.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
seekingsister: I'm not having difficulty distinguishing these two things, but working from the theological framework as in Article 13 from the 39 Articles and from Augustine's statement - the acts that we do when outside of God's grace have the nature of sin because we have a sinful nature.
An abhorrent doctrine.
quote:
seekingsister: It's as if God can't see what we are doing - good, bad, or otherwise - because we are not in a relationship with Him at that point.
But He is in a relationship with us.
quote:
seekingsister: You are talking about something else - a god who is like "cool look at those kids sharing toys, wait now that guy is giving money to someone homeless, ooh someone fed a poor person."
You're being very dismissive about this. "Oh yeah cool, whatever." Sharing toys, giving money, feeding the poor are good things. These things matter.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
seekingsister: I was trying to use an example of someone who perhaps due to circumstance does no good works in their life at all, versus someone that everyone thinks did a lot of good works.
I understand that. Both people would be pleasing to God.
quote:
seekingsister: If your position is that God sees the non-faith having non-good work doing person as pleasing, then it's neither works nor faith that please God but just our being humans period.
You seem to have difficulty distinguishing between people being pleasing to God and deeds being pleasing to God.
Suppose I were parent of two children. Would they be pleasing to me? Yes of course. I'd love them both unconditionally, no matter what they did or what they thought about me.
Suppose one of these children did a good deed. Would that be pleasing to me? Yes, it would. Would that mean that I'd love this child more than the other one? No, it wouldn't.
Now suppose that one of the children was so handicapped that (s)he was bedridden and couldn't do much of anything. Would I still be pleased with a good deed of the "healthy' child? Yes, I would. Would this mean I'd love it more than the child who was handicapped? No, of course it wouldn't. Both children would be pleasing to me.
Brilliant analogy. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Therefore, the devil is in genuine competition for ontological space with us. Either the devil did it or we did it, but not both.
So technically, if our good works only come from God, our bad works could theoretically come from the Devil?
Dafyd: This is black.
Evensong: So technically, this is white?
Yes. That's how opposites work.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Suppose I were parent of two children. Would they be pleasing to me? Yes of course. I'd love them both unconditionally, no matter what they did or what they thought about me.
Suppose one of these children did a good deed. Would that be pleasing to me? Yes, it would. Would that mean that I'd love this child more than the other one? No, it wouldn't.
Now suppose that one of the children was so handicapped that (s)he was bedridden and couldn't do much of anything. Would I still be pleased with a good deed of the "healthy' child? Yes, I would. Would this mean I'd love it more than the child who was handicapped? No, of course it wouldn't. Both children would be pleasing to me.
Some Christian positions on this go even further than this, I think. Everything about us and God is often boiled down to being about Whether We Get To Heaven Or Not. Which to me is kind of like saying everything your children do is all about working their way into your last will and testament. A child can delight their parent without the parent going away afterwards to rewrite their will. So, surely, we can delight God without us then saying "So do I get to heaven now? Huh? Do I? Do I?" A good parent isn't always thinking of divvying up the inheritance: surely they're more interested simply in their children being the best human beings they can be.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Nice way of putting it, Adeodatus.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Yes. That's how opposites work.
The devil is not the opposite of God in any orthodox Christian theology.
If you believe the devil can go around possessing people, then when the devil possesses somebody you can say that the devil did it and not that person. Otherwise, if you believe the devil goes around tempting people, then the devil no more makes somebody do things than any human being can make somebody do something. Iago can manipulate Othello into killing Desdemona, but he doesn't make Othello do it.
God's relationship to us (and to the devil) is entirely different. It's more like Shakespeare's relationship to Othello and Iago than like Iago's relationship to Othello.
(If we have free will in relationship to God, it's in the way that an author finds that her characters would do something in the situation they find themselves in other than the author had planned. God, except in some ultra-Calvinist theologies, doesn't intend us to sin in the way Shakespeare sets out to tell the story of Iago manipulating Othello into killing his wife.)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
I think the free will is only practically correct if we realise that we have a conscious choice, Dafyd, and enough will (or more ideally. heart) to carry that out. On a spiritual level - maybe, yes, either we do something or we do not - it becomes fairly absolute as to what our actions have arisen from. Being fully conscious is, I'm finding, something of a lives work.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
An abhorrent doctrine.
Again - your opinion. I observe a world in which man does not behave as if naturally good, but rather as if naturally sinful and predominantly self-interested. I do not know if the Anglican understanding of original sin is true, but I believe it is true and. I am not forcing you to accept my beliefs, but simply to provide a stronger opposition to it than "I find it personally distasteful."
quote:
But He is in a relationship with us.
And yet there are many places in the New Testament where God appears not to be in a relationship with people who do not reach out to Him - the prodigal son (the father did not know what the son was up to while away), the ten virgins (the bridegroom only picks up those who are waiting for him), multiple parables and sermons about asking/seeking/knocking to find God.
quote:
You're being very dismissive about this. "Oh yeah cool, whatever." Sharing toys, giving money, feeding the poor are good things. These things matter.
I've said multiple times that good works matter to us humans on Earth, and can even have a positive spiritual effect. It's bordering on offensive that you are mischaracterizing my position just for the sake of argument.
[ 04. September 2014, 14:56: Message edited by: seekingsister ]
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
seekingsister: I've said multiple times that good works matter to us humans on Earth, and can even have a positive spiritual effect.
They matter to God too.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
They matter to God too.
Can you provide a basis for this position?
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
They matter to God too.
Can you provide a basis for this position?
I refer you to the recorded sayings of a Mr J H Christ, c. 4BC-30AD, who hardly ever shut up about it.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
seekingsister: Can you provide a basis for this position?
The Bible is full of God instructing us to help the widows and the orphans. Some verses were already quoted on this thread. Why would he give us these instructions if these things didn't please Him? He litterally said that these things please Him, more than sacrifices and saying "Lord, Lord!"
Jesus did the same thing. He explicitly told a Parable where an unbeliever (a Samaritan) did a good thing, and He recommended him for it.
The church history and tradition are full of recommendations of doing good things. In my church, we bring the gifts to the altar because they please God.
The evidence is overwhelming.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I refer you to the recorded sayings of a Mr J H Christ, c. 4BC-30AD, who hardly ever shut up about it.
The same guy who told those parables I referenced a few posts above?
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
seekingsister: Can you provide a basis for this position?
The Bible is full of God instructing us to help the widows and the orphans. Some verses were already quoted on this thread. Why would he give us these instructions if these things didn't please Him? He litterally said that these things please Him, more than sacrifices and saying "Lord, Lord!"
Jesus did the same thing. He explicitly told a Parable where an unbeliever (a Samaritan) did a good thing, and He recommended him for it.
The church history and tradition are full of recommendations of doing good things. In my church, we bring the gifts to the altar because they please God.
The evidence is overwhelming.
None of this shows that God is pleased with works WITHOUT faith.
Samaritans shared many of the same religious texts and beliefs as the Jews, as I'm sure you are aware.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
In fact having thought about it - Jesus' ministry was primarily focused on showing that those who did good works but lacked faith (the Phariseees) were displeasing to God, while people who were outcasts, poor, criminals (i.e. doing bad works) but were open to a real relationship with God were pleasing.
[ 04. September 2014, 15:57: Message edited by: seekingsister ]
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
seekingsister: Samaritans shared many of the same religious texts and beliefs as the Jews, as I'm sure you are aware.
By the Jews of that time (Jesus' listeners) they were very much seen as unbelievers.
quote:
seekingsister: In fact having thought about it - Jesus' ministry was primarily focused on showing that those who did good works but lacked faith (the Phariseees) were displeasing to God, while people who were outcasts, poor, criminals (i.e. doing bad works) but were open to a real relationship with God were pleasing.
IIRC, Jesus never chided the Pharisees for lacking faith or even for not wanting a relationship with Him. He chided them for being ostentative about their deeds, for using their compliance with the Law as a means to gain status and power. Neither did He commend the lepers and the tax-collectors for having faith. The faith or lack of it of these two groups doesn't come into play here, I think it's rarely even mentioned (if at all).
C'mon, read the Gospels. They're full of Jesus instructing us to do good things. Why did He do that? Because they matter to Him. If all that mattered to Him was us having a good relationship with Him then He wouldn't be talking about these things. Case closed.
[ 04. September 2014, 16:19: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
IIRC, Jesus never chided the Pharisees for lacking faith or even for not wanting a relationship with Him. He chided them for being ostentative about their deeds, for using their compliance with the Law as a means to gain status and power. Neither did He commend the lepers and the tax-collectors for having faith. The faith or lack of it of these two groups doesn't come into play here, I think it's rarely even mentioned (if at all).
C'mon, read the Gospels. They're full of Jesus instructing us to do good things. Why did He do that? Because they matter to Him. If all that mattered to Him was us having a good relationship with Him then He wouldn't be talking about these things. Case closed.
Not so fast...
Yes, the Gospels are full of Jesus talking about good works and exhorting the people to do them. But if Jesus had only come to tell people to do good things because that pleased God, there's no way he'd have got nailed to the cross (unless it was to shut him up saying things that were patently obvious) - that wouldn't have been remotely controversial. Similarly, if Jesus had said that the people's relationship with God wasn't important, they'd have ignored him or thought he was weird: he was speaking in the first place to God's people, who were wondering why on earth God had allowed them to be taken into captivity centuries ago and, even though they were back in the land, he was still allowing them to be under Roman occupation - if God was their god and they were his people, why had the relationship broken down so much that they were in this state? If Jesus had done nothing to talk about that question, no one would've listened to him because he would've been irrelevant.
Also, in the gospels there's a parable Jesus tells of a son who abandons his father, writing him off as dead, and then comes back when the going gets tough (quite possibly out of nothing more than a desire for self-preservation). He has done no good works, at least none that we're told about, yet the father welcomes him back with open arms and treats him with honour and love. Not a word is said about doing good things, the whole thing is about restoring the relationship between father and son. You may have heard of it.
That parable comes in a series of 3 all about things and people being found and restored to the ones they belong to without any mention of good works. And that comes in response to people objecting to Jesus welcoming sinners and eating with them, something that was a hallmark of Jesus' ministry and mission. No talk of telling the sinners to do good works (if he did, the Gospel writers didn't see it as particularly important). ISTM that Jesus in that incident and those like it and especially in that parable is saying that's what he's going to do, to restore those who'd wandered away from God back to him, to find what had been lost and bring them back to God. He even says it at the end of his encounter with Zacchaeus. The sinners don't flock to Jesus because he's telling them to do good things - the Pharisees could've (and would've) done that. They flocked to him because he welcomed them and extended God's welcome to them.
Then there's all those times when Jesus heals someone on the basis of their faith. There's the whole of John's Gospel which is entirely about the absolutely crucial importance of faith in Jesus, of understanding and believing who Jesus is and trusting him. The gospels are not just exhortations by Jesus to do good things - they are fundamentally about Jesus restoring God's people, and ultimately God's world, to God.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
"And he will say to those on his right hand, 'You lot can go for everlasting punishment, too.' And they will say unto him, 'Whoa, hang on a sec. What about when you were hungry and we fed you? Thirsty, and gave you drink? What about when you were a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and cared for you?' And he will say to them, 'Oh, you thought that was you doing that? You poor silly blind creatures, that was me. Everything that's of your doing is displeasing to me. Now sod off.'"
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
"And he will say to those on his right hand, 'You lot can go for everlasting punishment, too.' And they will say unto him, 'Whoa, hang on a sec. What about when you were hungry and we fed you? Thirsty, and gave you drink? What about when you were a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and cared for you?' And he will say to them, 'Oh, you thought that was you doing that? You poor silly blind creatures, that was me. Everything that's of your doing is displeasing to me. Now sod off.'"
OK - why does he say that we should clothe the naked or care for the sick?
Because any of them could have been Jesus himself. Or as said elsewhere, if we show kindness to strangers we may be caring for angels.
It's a broader theological point about the fact that the nature of God is in there mixed in with our human nature. When we come into relationship with God, we are called to see the God in the people around us and love them like he loves us. "Forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us." There's always that directional imperative - we love as He loves.
I understand that you instinctively reject the idea that the good in us is from God and the bad in us is from our human nature. But it's taught throughout Scripture, from the start to the finish.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Stejjie: But if Jesus had only come to tell people to do good things because that pleased God, there's no way he'd have got nailed to the cross (unless it was to shut him up saying things that were patently obvious) - that wouldn't have been remotely controversial.
I didn't say that "God is pleased when we do good things" is the only thing that Jesus said.
quote:
Stejjie: Similarly, if Jesus had said that the people's relationship with God wasn't important
I haven't said our relationship with God wasn't important.
quote:
Stejjie: He has done no good works, at least none that we're told about, yet the father welcomes him back with open arms and treats him with honour and love.
Yes, God will also love us if we don't do good things. I've said that before.
The same about the other Parables you mentioned: you don't understand my point. My statement is "Our good deeds please God". It isn't "Only our good deeds please God", neither is it "The only thing Jesus said is that our good deeds please God." It's not about exclusivity. Leave out the word 'only' and you're fine.
quote:
seekingsister: OK - why does he say that we should clothe the naked or care for the sick?
Because any of them could have been Jesus himself. Or as said elsewhere, if we show kindness to strangers we may be caring for angels.
So, what Jesus is saying here is: our good deeds please God. Just what I've been arguing all along.
quote:
seekingsister: I understand that you instinctively reject the idea that the good in us is from God and the bad in us is from our human nature.
Well, then you understand me wrong, at least in the first part. I embrace the idea that the good in us is from God. Our human nature is also from God.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Yes. That's how opposites work.
The devil is not the opposite of God in any orthodox Christian theology.
If you believe the devil can go around possessing people, then when the devil possesses somebody you can say that the devil did it and not that person. Otherwise, if you believe the devil goes around tempting people, then the devil no more makes somebody do things than any human being can make somebody do something. Iago can manipulate Othello into killing Desdemona, but he doesn't make Othello do it.
God's relationship to us (and to the devil) is entirely different. It's more like Shakespeare's relationship to Othello and Iago than like Iago's relationship to Othello.
(If we have free will in relationship to God, it's in the way that an author finds that her characters would do something in the situation they find themselves in other than the author had planned. God, except in some ultra-Calvinist theologies, doesn't intend us to sin in the way Shakespeare sets out to tell the story of Iago manipulating Othello into killing his wife.)
I'm not familiar with Shakespeare's Othello I'm afraid so the analogy is wasted on me. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I think I'm objecting to this posted by IngoB on the first page:
quote:
The traditional picture is that every good act is initiated by God's grace and carried out by going along with God's grace. Whereas every evil act is initiated by us and carried out in resistance to God's grace.
If every good act is initiated by God's grace and we have to respond to that to carry out the act then it seems sensible that the reverse must be true for bad acts. There must be some external initiating factor in the bad acts, just as there are in the good acts.
It seems to deny a human being any intrinsic ability to initiate and discern a good or bad act.
You wrote:
quote:
Otherwise, if you believe the devil goes around tempting people, then the devil no more makes somebody do things than any human being can make somebody do something.
In this case, the devil is the initiator of bad as God's grace is the initiator of good.
So ultimate responsibility for good and bad lies outside human control.
To say God's grace is the only true initiator of good seems problematic to me.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
So, what Jesus is saying here is: our good deeds please God. Just what I've been arguing all along.
No - you are arguing that good works with or without faith are pleasing to God.
I am arguing that God is pleased when we have faith and pleased with the good works that flow as a result of said faith. No one without faith is going to be pleasing God simply by doing good works. Whatever God finds pleasing in that person is as a result of his grace, and that grace can be bestowed on anyone regardless of the works they do.
Your argument really is that God is pleased with humankind. I'm not sure why you are hanging your hat on works because you think God is pleased if we do them, if we don't do them, if we believe in him, or if we don't. It's a universalist position and therefore works are completely irrelevant.
[ 05. September 2014, 10:55: Message edited by: seekingsister ]
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
LeRoc,
Thank you for clarifying and correcting me and many apologies for misunderstanding what you were saying. FWIW, I do think good works, whether done from belief or not, please God: as Lamb Chopped said, there's plenty in the Bible that suggests that and if God is good then, even if you don't agree that they happen because of God's grace working through us, they do reflect God's goodness into the world. I just don't think that's all that needs to happen.
Which is where I think I might not have been clear enough in my post, esp. about the prodigal son (and apologies for any snarkiness there!). In our last conversation on this thread, we had this exchange:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Stejjie: My point is that our standing before God is important and is at the root of the problem
I don't believe it is.
My point with the Prodigal Son parable wasn't just to say that I believe God loves us if we don't do good things (though of course I believe that to be true). What I think Jesus was pointing to this as the root of the problem: Israel & humanity in general had left God behind, but God was welcoming them back with open arms before they'd done anything good. That was what Jesus was symbolising by eating with the sinners and tax collectors and that was what, ultimately, Jesus had come to do.
So their/our relationship with God is more than just "important", it's absolutely crucial, the most important thing there is. The loss of it, I think, is what's caused the problems in our world and recovering it is what I think Jesus came to do above and beyond his (necessary) talk of good works.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
God's relationship to us (and to the devil) is entirely different. It's more like Shakespeare's relationship to Othello and Iago than like Iago's relationship to Othello.
I'm not familiar with Shakespeare's Othello I'm afraid so the analogy is wasted on me.
Iago and Othello are characters in the same play. Iago manipulates Othello into killing his wife. Go see.
quote:
I think I'm objecting to this posted by IngoB on the first page:
quote:
The traditional picture is that every good act is initiated by God's grace and carried out by going along with God's grace. Whereas every evil act is initiated by us and carried out in resistance to God's grace.
If every good act is initiated by God's grace and we have to respond to that to carry out the act then it seems sensible that the reverse must be true for bad acts. There must be some external initiating factor in the bad acts, just as there are in the good acts.
Firstly, God is not an external factor to us. God is within us as they say.
Secondly, in Augustinian theology good and evil are not equivalent. They're like light and darkness or heat and cold. Light is the presence of photons. Darkness is not the presence of un-photons; it's just what happens when you have no light. Cold isn't the opposite of heat, but the absence of heat. Evil isn't the opposite of good, but the absence of good.
Thirdly, in Augustinian theology goodness just is participation in the being of God. To be good, or to exist even, is to be the result of God's free enabling sharing of God's goodness.
quote:
It seems to deny a human being any intrinsic ability to initiate and discern a good or bad act.
The thing is that God is not irrelevant to what makes an act good or bad. To be good just is to be closer to God. To be good is to rise towards God, pulled towards God by God's goodness. Whereas to be bad is to fall apart away from that.
quote:
quote:
Otherwise, if you believe the devil goes around tempting people, then the devil no more makes somebody do things than any human being can make somebody do something.
In this case, the devil is the initiator of bad as God's grace is the initiator of good.
That's pretty much the opposite of what I said.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
It seems that so many knots can be tied over such tiny but far-reaching details. The one source on this that I trust - Bruno Groening - stated that Good and Evil are very similar to two radio stations, the medium that they broadcast in is that of thoughts, and we have a choice which thoughts to accept or not. And we also have an inbuilt arbiter - that is, how we feel when we allow those thoughts in, or how we feel when we think about putting them into action. I hand't realised until watching this conversation quite how many layered all this is. Underlying it all is, as Dafyd says, Good, very much like photons (and so there can also be an absence of light) which is inherent in Nature - and we are supposed to be part of that Nature. When we are dominated by Evil thoughts, or our radio has lost its tuning to Divine thoughts, then our actions may be good or evil - in the end it all one way or another works out to good, but "in the end" can have a lot of pain and take a long time (aeons) if no discrimination is exercised.
[ 05. September 2014, 14:26: Message edited by: itsarumdo ]
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
So, what Jesus is saying here is: our good deeds please God. Just what I've been arguing all along.
No - you are arguing that good works with or without faith are pleasing to God.
Exactly. That's what I was saying in the piece you quoted, you just repeated me there.
Jesus said that if we clothe the naked and feed the hungry, we are clothing and feeding Him. This doesn't mean "Clothing the naked and feeding the hungry is only pleasing to me when you're in a relationship with me first." Being in a relationship with Him isn't being put as a precondition here. It is put here much more as a consequence: if we clothe the naked and feed the hungry, then we're in a relationship with Him. Which is exactly what I believe.
(Note that the implication doesn't work both ways. I didn't say if and only if we clothe the naked and feed the hungry, then we're in a relationship with Him. In terms of mathematical logic, it's a sufficient condition, not a necessary one.)
So, what if an atheist clothes the naked and feeds the hungry? Well, then (s)he is in a relationship with God. Even if (s)he doesn't know it or actively denies it. As a matter of fact, I believe that all of us are in a relationship with God.
quote:
seekingsister: I am arguing that God is pleased when we have faith and pleased with the good works that flow as a result of said faith.
Until here I agree.
quote:
seekingsister: No one without faith is going to be pleasing God simply by doing good works.
This is were we part ways, and here it is important to make a distinction between works and people:- These works are going to be pleasing God, simply because good works please Him.
- These people are also going to be pleasing to Him, not because of their works but because God loves people. Call it Grace if you want.
quote:
seekingsister: Whatever God finds pleasing in that person is as a result of his grace, and that grace can be bestowed on anyone regardless of the works they do.
With this I agree too. In fact, this is exactly my argument.
quote:
seekingsister: Your argument really is that God is pleased with humankind.
Yes, and isn't this wonderful?
quote:
seekingsister: I'm not sure why you are hanging your hat on works because you think God is pleased if we do them, if we don't do them, if we believe in him, or if we don't. It's a universalist position and therefore works are completely irrelevant.
I'm not hanging my hat anywhere, in fact it's firmly planted on my head (it's an original Panama hat that I bought in Ecuador; I'm rather fond of it). In this thread I'm answering a question about whether good deeds please God, so of course I'm going to talk about good deeds.
In a universalist position, works aren't irrelevant. They're irrelevant to the question of whether we'll go to Heaven or not. Yes we will, all of us. They're also irrelevant to the question of whether God loves us or not. Yes He does, all of us.
But our good deeds matter. First, they matter to the people we do these good deeds to. That's something. And these good deeds also please God. Even if He already loves us and we can already be sure that we'll go to Heaven. These deeds still please Him.
quote:
Stejjie: Thank you for clarifying and correcting me and many apologies for misunderstanding what you were saying. FWIW, I do think good works, whether done from belief or not, please God: as Lamb Chopped said, there's plenty in the Bible that suggests that and if God is good then, even if you don't agree that they happen because of God's grace working through us, they do reflect God's goodness into the world.
Thank you, I agree with everything you said here. And I do believe that our good deeds happen because of God's Grace working through us.
quote:
Stejjie: What I think Jesus was pointing to this as the root of the problem: Israel & humanity in general had left God behind, but God was welcoming them back with open arms before they'd done anything good.
No problem here, this is more or less how I interpret the Parable too. In fact, it doesn't have a lot to say about "what if someone leaves God behind, but still does good things?" There's no such character in this Parable.
quote:
Stejjie: So their/our relationship with God is more than just "important", it's absolutely crucial, the most important thing there is. The loss of it, I think, is what's caused the problems in our world and recovering it is what I think Jesus came to do above and beyond his (necessary) talk of good works.
I think the root of our difference is: I don't believe our relationship with God is lost. He still loves us, unconditionally, whatever we do. Even if we deny this love, yes even if we actively refuse it, He still loves us. In the Parable of the prodigal son, when the son left, his father still had a relationship with him, even if the son denied it or actively fled it. And the Good Shepherd still had a relationship with the lost sheep.
That's not saying that our relationship with Him is perfect. It's definitely not an easy marriage at times. That's why Jesus came, not to start a new relationship where one was lost, but to improve one that was already there.
And I think a He gave us a very big clue on how we can improve this relationship: having a relationship with God is having a relationship with our neighbour. That's what He was saying in the text seekingsister quoted about clothing the naked and feeding the hungry. And that's what He said in the Great Commandment.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Suppose I were parent of two children. Would they be pleasing to me? Yes of course. I'd love them both unconditionally, no matter what they did or what they thought about me.
Suppose one of these children did a good deed. Would that be pleasing to me? Yes, it would. Would that mean that I'd love this child more than the other one? No, it wouldn't.
Now suppose that one of the children was so handicapped that (s)he was bedridden and couldn't do much of anything. Would I still be pleased with a good deed of the "healthy' child? Yes, I would. Would this mean I'd love it more than the child who was handicapped? No, of course it wouldn't. Both children would be pleasing to me.
Some Christian positions on this go even further than this, I think. Everything about us and God is often boiled down to being about Whether We Get To Heaven Or Not. Which to me is kind of like saying everything your children do is all about working their way into your last will and testament. A child can delight their parent without the parent going away afterwards to rewrite their will. So, surely, we can delight God without us then saying "So do I get to heaven now? Huh? Do I? Do I?" A good parent isn't always thinking of divvying up the inheritance: surely they're more interested simply in their children being the best human beings they can be.
I think this is perhaps the problem. Anything that equates "pleasing God" with "being saved" is wrong in my view, as is anything that says that something only 'matters' to God if it's about ensuring our salvation.
I won't claim any kind of knowledge of Augustine. I had one encounter some years ago which involved an analogy in one of his works that I found completely ridiculous, and that didn't inspire me to investigate further. So I certainly won't attempt to decide whether or not an English version of what he's supposed to have said is an accurate description of what he meant.
I will say this, though: when Jesus' disciples got upset about an 'unauthorised' person driving out demons, Jesus told them to leave him alone. I find that a little hard to reconcile with a notion that it's completely impossible to please God independently.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But this is absurd. Of course it's beneficial to them. Having a roof over one's head and food in one's belly is beneficial. Having a crappy relationship with them doesn't change that.
OK, maybe I was over-egging the pudding by suggesting there'd be no benefit for anyone - yes, those things are beneficial. But the relationships would suffer and it may be that that might counteract and undo the good that was being done by the good things I was doing.
But I'd say, Stejjie, your example is just one, and you have added badness to it that is not necessarily there. The atheist who contributes $1000 per month to some food bank that feeds the poor isn't harming the poor the way a bad father harms his family. There's only good here, not evil, unless you believe a priori that atheists cannot do good without also doing evil. And so much so that their good is completely wiped out by the evil they do. Which appears to be what Augustine is saying, at least as interpreted in the OP.
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I am arguing that God is pleased when we have faith and pleased with the good works that flow as a result of said faith.
Where is that said in Matthew 25? In that vision of the Great Judgment, Christ says nothing at all about faith, only about works. And further, not only did the people who did the works not do them out of faith, they didn't even do them to be pleasing to Christ.
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Your argument really is that God is pleased with humankind.
He isn't? What would it mean to say God is or is not pleased with humankind? Can She be pleased with us but not with the mess we've made of ourselves? I love my daughter even when she does things that are rebellious and rude and sinful and so forth. Again this comes down to inability to tell the difference between being pleased with a person and being pleased with their deeds. Which I think springs ultimately from one's soteriology.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
or between loving them and being pleased with them
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
George Macdonald said that God is easy to please and hard to satisfy. He is pleased at our efforts to do right, but he isn't satisfied until we meet his standards.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Moo: George Macdonald said that God is easy to please and hard to satisfy. He is pleased at our efforts to do right, but he isn't satisfied until we meet his standards.
I don't think I like this very much. What does it mean if He isn't satisfied? And how does that relate to Grace? I don't think Grace means "I'm not really satisfied with you but alright, here you go."
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Moo: George Macdonald said that God is easy to please and hard to satisfy. He is pleased at our efforts to do right, but he isn't satisfied until we meet his standards.
I don't think I like this very much. What does it mean if He isn't satisfied? And how does that relate to Grace? I don't think Grace means "I'm not really satisfied with you but alright, here you go."
But isn't it just how parents are in the real world? If my child plays a new piece of music through - mistakes and all - I am pleased. But I am not satisfied until he nails it without mistakes.
As a dad, I hope that attitude imbues itself in their characters as they grow up.
I want them to enjoy the pleasure they feel at doing something for the first time, but not letting themselves stop doing it until they are satisfied they are doing it to the best of their own ability.
Hard work and perseverance turn pleasure into satisfaction.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
deano: But isn't it just how parents are in the real world? If my child plays a new piece of music through - mistakes and all - I am pleased. But I am not satisfied until he nails it without mistakes.
Okay yeah, I can sort of see it this way. I think that for me it helps to formulate it in a positive instead of in a negative way. While the child is still practicing, a good parent wouldn't say "I'm pleased, but I'm not satisfied." If anything, that wouldn't be good pedagogics.
But looking at it more positively, when the child does get the piece right, the parent can say something like "I'm really satisfied!" I guess it can be this way with God too.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
FWIW, when I say that God is a Person, I am asserting the philosophical definition of Boethius, as it was understood by Aquinas:
A person is a complete substance of rational nature subsisting of itself and separate from all else. (ST IIIa q16 a12 ad 2,3)
This is explained further in the
quote:
Catholic Encyclopedia...
(d) separata ab aliis - this excludes the universal, substantia secunda, which has no existence apart from the individual; (e) rationalis naturae - excludes all non-intellectual supposita.
Could you explain (d) a little, Ingo?
I probably don't entirely understand this definition, but it sounds too much like John Zizioulas's description of "an individual" as opposed to "a person"-- his point being that personhood involves relationships with other persons. Individualism, to him, is an unfortunate product of peculiarly Western thought.
Dafyd writes:
"Augustine... does believe that without grace it is impossible to act out of love. So, for example, he believed that the pagan justice of the Roman Empire was simply a conspiracy of thieves not to rob each other."
Sometimes American justice seems to be headed in the same direction. ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Be that as it may-- according to the Jews, establishing courts of justice is part of the Noahchic Covenant, incumbent on the entire human race well before Abraham or Moses, let alone Christ. It looks to me as though this implies a degree of faith on God's part in man's ability to
perceive justice-- not at all perfectly, to be sure, yet well enough to make the world better off than if they did not try. I can't believe that a sincere attempt to follow such a commandment were displeasing to God.
[ 12. September 2014, 11:15: Message edited by: Alogon ]
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
I probably don't entirely understand this definition, but it sounds too much like John Zizioulas's description of "an individual" as opposed to "a person"-- his point being that personhood involves relationships with other persons. Individualism, to him, is an unfortunate product of peculiarly Western thought.
I don't particularly care for Zizioulas' opinion, at least as you relate it, but in fact the quoted example for "separation from others" - given already in my previous post - sort of works for it rather than against it: "Lastly the Divine Essence, though subsisting per se, is so communicated to the Three Persons that it does not exist apart from them; it is therefore not a person." The Divine Essence is not a Person, because it cannot be identified as a separate entity, says the definition I prefer, but that also means in Zizioulas' terms that it cannot have a relationship by and in itself.
If I can illustrate this:
A <---> B
Basically, my quoted definition says that A and B are persons because they are seen to be separated, whereas Zizioulas says they are persons because there is that (relationship) double-headed arrow between them. It's sort of the saying the same thing in this case, because it is the double-headed arrow that separates them.
I don't care for what Zizioulas says (according to you), because it seems to say that this
A B C <---> D E F
indicates that only C and D are persons, because they have a relationship, whereas all the others are not, because they don't. In practical terms, this sort of nonsense can only be maintained by stretching the definition of "relationship". For example, one has to claim that a hermit somehow maintains "virtual" relationships, or one would have to say that he is a non-person.
It's also frankly annoying to get the usual Orthodox blather about Western theological failings on this very topic! As it happens, it is Western theology which strongly emphasises the importance of relationships for personhood in the Divine. It is Thomistic standard teaching that in God it is the real relationships of origin, and those alone, which establish the Three Persons of the Trinity as Persons. And the Orthodox bloody well oppose this teaching, because they know that this establishes the validity of the "filioque" unassailably.
So as far as I am concerned, the one entity where what Zizioulas says (according to you) holds without caveats is God, and there it also establishes what Zizioulas probably denies.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And the Orthodox bloody well oppose this teaching, because they know that this establishes the validity of the "filioque" unassailably.
Maybe they actually oppose this teaching because they don't believe it's true.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And the Orthodox bloody well oppose this teaching, because they know that this establishes the validity of the "filioque" unassailably.
Maybe they actually oppose this teaching because they don't believe it's true.
Tut, tut! If we believe anything it must be because we hate Catholics, not because we think it's true.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Yes. It seems far more likely that Orthodox oppose the filioque because they don't believe the teaching, rather than opposing the teaching to avoid the filioque.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
