tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post4795659784695099704..comments2024-03-29T04:46:24.966-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Msgr. Swetland’s confusionsEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger189125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-59471060955661086702018-10-25T10:57:29.786-07:002018-10-25T10:57:29.786-07:00Hi Ed,
Has the argument here changed with "...Hi Ed, <br /><br />Has the argument here changed with "update" to the Catechism? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07523587788528234219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-91448052548250550572017-08-22T11:19:04.972-07:002017-08-22T11:19:04.972-07:00Thank you Dr. Feser for that eloquent and extremel...Thank you Dr. Feser for that eloquent and extremely patient defense of Church doctrinal issues of "intrinsic evil" and "prudential judgment". I detect in the good MSGR's philosophical construct and disingenuous debate style the same old emotional appeal to progressive values confused with relativistic viewpoints. I wonder if he goes back over the debate and realizes his monumental error? Probably not.....Is this what constitutes probing theological thought in the Church today? If it is, we're in big trouble.Seanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16012920623189227706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-32405734330599315772017-08-10T11:06:29.657-07:002017-08-10T11:06:29.657-07:00I think the case that the Church changed course on...I think the case that the Church changed course on slavery is easier to make than that the Church changed course on capital punishment. The former has been the focus when some of my colleagues at a Catholic seminary have discussed the development of doctrine in the Church. Please consider providing some documentation and argumentation against the claim that the Church never affirmed that chattel slavery is not against the natural law.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1067524698028562672017-08-04T19:11:50.096-07:002017-08-04T19:11:50.096-07:00This isn't a disputed point among moral theolo...This isn't a disputed point among moral theologians:<br /><br /><i>However, as a man is not in conscience responsible for damage which he caused inadvertently and by accident, the action which caused the damage must be voluntary, with at least some confused foreknowledge of its probable effects, in order that an obligation in conscience may arise to make compensation for the damage caused. Even though in a particular case there was no theological fault of this kind, as it is called by divines, yet sometimes if the amount of diligence was not used which the law requires in the case, the law imposes the obligation of making compensation to the injured party. There is then said to be juridical fault, and after the sentence of a competent authority has imposed the obligation of making compensation, it will be matter of conscience to obey the sentence</i><br /><br />Catholic Encyclopedia article on restitution<br /><br />Moreover this is plain from a simple logical analysis, to use the door example, why should the one who opened it be liable, and not the victim, or the person who built or the door, or any other number of individuals who were casually involved?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-2340929760581195182017-07-31T22:54:49.080-07:002017-07-31T22:54:49.080-07:00"I think is more important the Greek is it no..."I think is more important the Greek is it not?" Important yes I don't deny that. However, as a catholic and specifically of the Latin rite, I remember what the Council of Trent proclaimed,"Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod taking into consideration that no small benefit can accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which one of all the Latin editions of the sacred books which are in circulation is to be considered authentic, has decided and declares that the said old Vulgate edition, which has been approved by the Church itself through long usage for so many centuries in public lectures, disputations, sermons, and expositions, be considered authentic, and that no one under any pretext whatsoever dare or presume to reject it" (Council of Trent, Session IV). Just to give an example, the Johannine Comma isn't found in the Greek manuscripts (Erasmus tried looking for at least one!) but it has always been preserved in the latin manuscripts. So I'll stick with the Latin Vulgate/Douay-Rheims. Once again, this does not negate the importance of Greek and Hebrew. With respect to your question, I highly encourage you to buy the book. Laudetur Jesus Christus!José F. Apolinarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01938043808633896036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-31564101598716018362017-07-30T23:04:07.180-07:002017-07-30T23:04:07.180-07:00@ NorthCharlton,
“You do understand that the Chri...@ NorthCharlton,<br /><br />“<i>You do understand that the Christian view of Calvary is that it was an act of redemption, and the establishment of the Church, and not some paradigm case exemplified?</i>”<br /><br />Christ’s incarnation is an act of redemption, and also Christ’s life is a paradigm. Beyond Christ’s last commandment for us to love like He did and thus self-transcentently and universally, the idea that we should strive <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imitation_of_Christ" rel="nofollow">to imitate Christ lies at the center of the Christian faith</a>. <br /><br />By doing what Christ asks of us we confirm the redemption of the world. The idea that Christ died for our sins therefore we don’t have to live like He asks of us makes no sense whatsoever. The incarnation of Christ is a timeless act of creation, an act which connects heaven and earth, an act which opens the path to atonement. Christ is the savior in that He opens the path of salvation; but we must walk on this path. We are not just passive beneficiaries, like pebbles being moved by a stream. Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-40868572610006891662017-07-30T04:53:30.564-07:002017-07-30T04:53:30.564-07:00I recommend reading the above-mentioned article. T...I recommend reading the above-mentioned article. The sense I get from it is that in reaction to the stream of thought that focuses on reason and which Aquinas epitomizes, theologians such as John Duns Scotus, William of Ockham, and Meister Eckhard downplayed reason in favor of experience. In the Renaissance the theology of transcending reason was misinterpreted by the half-educated as a denial of reason. Given the natural use of reason in the physical sciences, by hasty generalization some people concluded that reason is the only or at least the fundamental source of all knowledge. In reaction Reformation theologians focused on reasoning about the Bible alone, and in yet another reaction during the 17th century philosophers such as Descartes, Locke, Leibniz, Berkeley, and Spinoza focused on reason while de-emphasizing scripture in particular and revelation in general – Spinoza to an extreme degree. At the start of modernity in the 18th century Kant, recognizing the limits of reason but also I think the correct nature of our sense of the divine, shifted the discourse about God from “science and facts” towards “ethics and values”. Hegel, the other giant of modern theistic thought, opened yet another approach to the Divine by overcoming the traditional and rather primitive insistence on simplicity, and revealing the perfection of *becoming* beyond that of *being*. I suppose the contemporary Whitehead and John Hick, and Tillich and Barth and Balthasar, walked on the paths opened by Kant and Hegel. They in turn opened space for the growth of the ecumenical movement. <br /><br />So, in conclusion, looking back we see a constant if winding advancement in theistic thought – a long and winding road indeed, but one of great beauty and courage. We see each great mind reacting to perceived errors, and struggling with the sensus divinitatis, present revelation, and the reasoning powers of our mind, in order to in various ways enlarge the window of our understanding of God. The idea that with Aquinas theistic thought reached some kind of apex, and from then on everything went downwards doesn’t hold water. In fact conflicts with our faith in the work of the Holy Spirit who draws people towards the truth. <br />Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-79403442319504420372017-07-30T04:51:16.775-07:002017-07-30T04:51:16.775-07:00By chance I encountered a philosophical article ab...By chance I encountered a philosophical article about <a href="http://www.iep.utm.edu/god-west/" rel="nofollow">the evolution of the concept of God in the West </a>. I was quite interesting to find in one place a record of the historical advancement of thought about God, connecting most great Western philosophers the streams of thought and how the influenced each other. <br /><br />The article starts by noticing that we recognize three sources of knowledge about God: experience, revelation, and reason. Since experience is the basis of all knowledge (for example to reason is an act of experience, we can know revelation only by experience such as reading scripture, etc), I take it that in this context “experience” refers to the experience of the divine, our sense of the divine, our sense of perfection. Incidentally I used to think that the insight that God is the perfect being started with Anselm, but I see that it is much older and is found already in Plato, Aristotle, and Zeno of Citium (as well as in the great Eastern religions). Incidentally Anselm’s formula is an excellent one because it works negatively and thus universally: God is no less than the greatest being one can conceive. Thus the child, the uneducated adult, the educated adult, the mystic, the saint – for all it holds that the best understanding they can have of God is that of the greatest being each one of them can conceive. <br /><br />It seems to me that the article describes how, reacting to the thought of earlier philosophers and struggling with the problem of how to strike a balance between the three sources, great Western minds thought about God. <br /><br />Significantly Aquinas accepts only reason and revelation as sources of knowledge, and rejects experience. Which I think explains some discussions with Thomists in this blog (who consider my references to our sense of the divine as “semintalism”). But as a matter of fact in life of many becoming a Christian is the result of revelation and experience alone. I myself became a conscious Christian after reading the gospels and clearly and powerfully experiencing the divine in them; reason played no role in that initial opening of my eyes. So what is reason good for? I would say that reason modulates our beliefs, and like an insurance policy keeps them from going astray when combined with our natural sense of the divine and with God’s revelation in history. But without the sense of the divine, reason is like an excellent boat on high seas without a compass. Reason and revelation without the light of our sense of the divine may lead us to gross error, for example (in my judgment) that executing people is not intrinsically evil. <br /><br />[continues below]Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-65668149876470260012017-07-28T08:49:25.330-07:002017-07-28T08:49:25.330-07:00"The personal example of Christ expresses Chr..."The personal example of Christ expresses Christian ethics as well as His words. Incidentally, beyond the example of Christ non-resistance to an evil has been ..."<br /><br />You do understand that the Christian view of Calvary is that it was an act of redemption, and the establishment of the Church, and not some paradigm case exemplified?<br /><br />In fact, the human world, cultural and psychological, as well as institutional, was affected and even transformed through that death and resurrection, much of it radically.<br /><br />Ask yourself this: If Christ had not been unjustly brutalized, hung on a cross, and died; only to be said to have risen again; what would have been, do you estimate, the trans-formative effect - merely in the here and now and culturally - historically?<br /><br />In other words, in order to produce the world altering effect, it had to be that ...<br /><br />And this view of sacrifice, or of giving up something in order to achieve an effect, is not even taking into real account, the more and primarily supernatural atonement aspect.NorthCharltonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-59925743233002720352017-07-28T07:56:56.702-07:002017-07-28T07:56:56.702-07:00thanksthanksAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-58618536963627778962017-07-28T05:09:47.718-07:002017-07-28T05:09:47.718-07:00I would agree. The point they make when they delv...I would agree. The point they make when they delve into the detailed look at actual cases of murderers is that there are people upon whom the state needs to exact the severest punishment available, but for whom this is not happening. For reasons of policy, and including practical considerations, some people <i>should</i> be put to death. Like, for example, the murderer who said point blank that he had no compunction whatsoever about killing another if he had the opportunity, as far as he was concerned the only way the state would be safe would be by his death. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-10791306712165260872017-07-28T02:41:12.360-07:002017-07-28T02:41:12.360-07:00@ David T.
“Paul's command that slaves shoul...@ David T. <br /><br />“<i>Paul's command that slaves should obey their masters is not an endorsement of slavery, anymore than Jesus's command to turn the other cheek is an endorsement of physical assault.</i>”<br /><br />Christ’s call is to not resist evil; Christ's call is not to cooperate with it. Thus Christ did not resist His capture, but neither did He cooperate with it. Nor did He cooperate with the unjust court of law in front of Pilate. Finally Christ – God incarnate - did not resist the great evil of His crucifixion, but returned good for evil praying for the forgiveness of those who nailed Him to the wood. The personal example of Christ expresses Christian ethics as well as His words. Incidentally, beyond the example of Christ non-resistance to an evil has been practiced in the struggle for Indian independence, by a Hindu. The power of our will reaches to our fingertips, so that’s also how far our moral responsibility goes. <br /><br />Contemplating Christ’s call to not resist evil is one of the key instances where reason fails and the insight of the divine takes over. Whoever doesn’t see the glory of self-sacrificial non-resistance has not seen the beauty of God. And has not really understood creation; self-sacrificial non-resistance is foundational in it. On the other hand pity those who have seen the beauty of God and do not repent. They are the sorriest fools of all. <br /><br />Coming back to Paul’s sentence to the slaves I feel no great need to interpret it. Perhaps he meant it as a means to keep the social peace which was propitious for the growth of the incipient church. Or perhaps he cared for the physical wellbeing of slaves and knew that remaining in their condition and obeying their master did not at all hinder them from atonement. Perhaps his wording was not the best, or perhaps we fail to understand its meaning, or perhaps that meaning suffers in translation: perhaps he didn’t ask slaves to obey their master “as to Christ” but to consider their condition as a sacrifice to Christ, a heavy injustice that will be light if they bear it for the sake of Christ. <br />Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73538290400035138542017-07-28T02:37:39.244-07:002017-07-28T02:37:39.244-07:00@ VRS,
I didn't use Anselm's argument bu...@ VRS, <br /><br />I didn't use Anselm's argument but Anselm's definition of God, which is the definite expression of age-old philosophical understanding. Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-40235520956311709222017-07-28T00:10:57.011-07:002017-07-28T00:10:57.011-07:00@ Greg,
“Anyway, this will be my last post on th...@ Greg, <br /><br />“<i>Anyway, this will be my last post on the matter.</i>”<br /><br />Thanks for the stimulating discussion. It gave me much food for thought. <br /><br />I was thinking about the wisdom of the OT’s “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven images” and how that wisdom reaches far beyond the usual understanding. So a “graven image” is not only a statue or painting one takes to stand in for God, to be worshiped and valued as divine. A graven image is any idol which one holds possesses God’s attributes. And to make or take idols unto oneself is a sin because it obscures God to the eyes of the soul and thus obstructs the soul from approaching God. So, when read incorrectly as the literal Word of God the Bible becomes an idol, since the Word of God is Christ and the Bible is a book about the Word of God. When one misses out on the metaphorical use and thinks that there are holy objects or holy people or holy institutions then, again, one is making an idol. Our discussion led me to realize that to think of ethical commands as absolute is also a case of building an idol of God, for only God is absolute. All knowledge and all understanding are true only when they are grounded in one’s knowledge and understanding of God. <br /><br />But, you may ask, aren’t there absolute truths such as 2+2=4? Isn’t that proposition intrinsically true, necessarily true, true everywhere and always? It is, but *only* in the sense that it refers to the order of God’s will in creation. Or, if you prefer, to how all that exists is an expression of God’s will. All propositions ultimately refer to the absolute ground of all which is God. What I think is wrong to say is that the proposition 2+2=4 is true by itself. On theism there is nothing that exists by itself or is true by itself. All true propositions refer to some being, and all being is grounded in God’s being. Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-53631703029106320762017-07-28T00:02:46.865-07:002017-07-28T00:02:46.865-07:00@ Greg,
“If you think that there are no absolute...@ Greg, <br /><br />“<i>If you think that there are no absolute ethical principle, then I don't understand what you mean by saying that capital punishment is intrinsically evil.</i>”<br /><br />I mean that in all states of affairs I can conceive it is evil. <br /><br />(Not to mention it conflicts with Christ’s call to self-transcending love for all. And to Christ’s call to forgive those who harm us. And to not resist evil but return evil with good.)<br /><br />“<i>I also don't understand the sense in which Christ's call to self-transcendent love is less than absolute.</i>”<br /><br />Well, “absolute” has a precise sense. In our context only what grounds ethical truth (the goodness of God, or God’s character if you prefer) is absolute. The truth of ethical precepts depends on their place in relation to that ground. Now Christ’s last commandment, His call to self-transcendent and universal love, is probably the closest an ethical proposition may come to God’s character. That’s what I meant. In all states of affairs I can conceive a choice moved by self-transcendent and universal love will be ethical.<br /><br />Philosophers have wondered about the connection between “is” and “ought”. On theism, and in particular on soteriology, I think the answer is clear: The ethical choice is that which transforms one’s soul more into the likeness of Christ, and thus brings the soul closer to God in spirit (or, in other words, what increases the charity in our soul). That’s the metaphysical connection between “ought” and “is”. <br /><br />Coming back to our disagreement: Do you believe the act of carrying out capital punishment may increase the charity of anybody involved with it? That somebody involved may become more like Christ? If you don’t believe that then you don’t believe that capital punishment may be an ethical act. <br /><br />“<i>The unargued assertion that this principle is only the "closest" to absolute seems suspiciously like an attempt to dissuade your readers from thinking about an obvious counterexample to your claim.</i>”<br /><br />Here you lost me. Please speak plainly because getting one’s meaning across is difficult in the best of conditions. Are you perhaps suggesting that you can think of some counterexample: of a state of affairs where self-transcendent and universal love moves a person to an unethical act? (Incidentally I find that the self-transcendent love will by its nature be universal too.)<br /><br />“<i>We should first observe that your two statements do not contradict each other, because "you" is an indexical, so there is no prima facie need to relativize objectivity.</i>”<br /><br />Well, the surgeon’s patient may be her child, but that’s neither here nor there. As your own examples demonstrate propositions including ethical propositions (at least in many cases) refer to particular states of affairs. So it is possible that two ethical propositions appear to contradict each other when in fact they don’t. When one understands the different contexts in which they were given all tension disappears. In contrast, if one assumes that these ethical propositions are absolute then confusion may issue. So in the case of the OT “an eye for an eye” and the NT “do not return evil” - there is no tension whatsoever once one understands that they are given to different people at different times. The former was given in the context of preparing society for the coming Christ, the later in the fulfillment. <br />Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-21680586566591163952017-07-27T14:15:25.827-07:002017-07-27T14:15:25.827-07:00I don't know why anyone bothers talking with t...I don't know why anyone bothers talking with this guy. We all know his position by now. He judges everything, including scripture and the church, by his blend of sentimentalism and liberalism. It is deeply simplistic and tedious, and causes him to engage in the rankest sophistries to make it all fit together. He is only one step up from the likes of SP.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-81710150488467954232017-07-27T10:04:01.845-07:002017-07-27T10:04:01.845-07:00@Danielos
I have no idea why you are talking abou...@Danielos<br /><br />I have no idea why you are talking about Anselm, and I don't care to put in the effort to try to understand, not only because Anselm's argument doesn't work (see STh I q. 2 a. 1), but also because I see no point in trying to continue this conversation.<br /><br />In the words of the great Marshall Mathers, "I'm outtie."<br /><br />-VRSCRShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00718816249512853346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-27527442218904799152017-07-27T08:46:40.538-07:002017-07-27T08:46:40.538-07:00@ Dianelos
Well, a surgeon will say to her child ...@ Dianelos<br /><br /><i>Well, a surgeon will say to her child “you should eat” and to her patient “you should not eat”. When I am at this spot the best way to reach the peak of the mountain may be to turn right; when I am at that spot the best way may be to turn left. Ethical truths are always objective, but objective to the present state of affairs. Thus to think that ethical principles are absolute and hold always and everywhere is misleading; what is absolute is the ground of ethics which is the goodness of God. The closest one may come to an absolute ethical principle is Christ’s call to self-transcendent love.</i><br /><br />If you think that there are no absolute ethical principle, then I don't understand what you mean by saying that capital punishment is intrinsically evil. I also don't understand the sense in which Christ's call to self-transcendent love is less than absolute. (The unargued assertion that this principle is only the "closest" to absolute seems suspiciously like an attempt to dissuade your readers from thinking about an obvious counterexample to your claim.)<br /><br />I mean, you seem to want to say "you should not execute those charged with capital crimes." But if the objectivity of this claim is on a par with that of "you should eat"--if the objectivity is just objectivity to the present state of affairs--then it is not even possible for you to state general opposition to capital punishment. If you were to say that you can give a general description of states of affairs in which the principle holds, then the same problem will arise, until your description is sufficiently determinate that you have an absolute ethical principle.<br /><br />Your position is simply--and as usual--deeply confused and post hoc.<br /><br />Now, what are we to think about "you should not eat" and "you should not eat"? You take this example to support a decidedly less than trivial philosophical claim: "<i>Thus</i> to think that ethical principles are absolute and hold always and everywhere is misleading...."<br /><br />That we are obliged to draw this lesson is far from clear. We should first observe that your two statements do not contradict each other, because "you" is an indexical, so there is no prima facie need to relativize objectivity.<br /><br />You could bring them closer to objectivity if you were to stipulate that they were both said to the same person at different times; at one time, a mother tells her daughter to eat, at another, not to eat. But then the tension between the statements will be no more than the tension between<br />- "You are 4' tall", spoken to the daughter at one date, and<br />- "You are 5' tall", spoken to the daughter at another.<br />Philosophers will have different ways of accommodating this in their theories, and your example gives us no reason to think that the ethical case is different.<br /><br />I think that there may be some legitimate differences in ethics, since more than one incompossible actions may be permissible, though still, I don't think there will ever be a need to say that ethical principles are objective only to the present state of affairs.<br /><br />Anyway, this will be my last post on the matter. The lack of probity of bald claims like yours is very evident, and it is not worth showing it every time you open your mouth.Gregnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-79399595502966514852017-07-27T04:12:28.968-07:002017-07-27T04:12:28.968-07:00@ VRS,
But I don’t deny the principle of non-con...@ VRS, <br /><br />But I don’t deny the principle of non-contradiction. Please read again what I wrote. I said that this is a principle of propositional logic with its proper use and field of application. Propositions about God are a case where we must be very careful, since God transcends either-or categories which are present when we discuss other matters. <br /><br />Our case though is simpler. Consider if you will the following propositions: <br /><br />1. God is the metaphysical ultimate.<br />2. The metaphysical ultimate is simple.<br />3. God is simple.<br />4. God is nothing but simple.<br /><br />(1) is the basic metaphysical premise of theism and moreover an implication of Anselm’s definition. No theist can disagree with it.<br />(2) follows from age-old arguments which I find to be extremely convincing. All classical theists agree with it.<br />(3) directly follows from (1) and (2)<br /><br />Now consider (4). It strikes one as kind of arbitrary, isn’t it? Why assume that God being simple must also be nothing but simple? As an analogy consider a spinning sphere. The sphere moves, but from this it does not follow that the whole of the sphere moves; indeed its center doesn’t. <br /><br />To justify (4) we need: <br /><br />(5) God is nothing but the metaphysical ultimate.<br /><br />But (5) clearly contradicts Anselm’s definition that God is the greatest conceivable being. Being only, and nothing but, the metaphysical ultimate is far less – far less – than the greatest being we can conceive. Don’t you agree? <br />Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1662445723135511752017-07-27T02:48:17.610-07:002017-07-27T02:48:17.610-07:00@ Greg,
“But you are not merely saying that God s...@ Greg,<br /><br />“<i>But you are not merely saying that God speaks through A in language M about topic X at one time and place, and speaks through B in language N about topic Y at another time and place. You are saying that what God says in one historical context contradicts what he says in another.</i>”<br /><br />Well, a surgeon will say to her child “you should eat” and to her patient “you should not eat”. When I am at this spot the best way to reach the peak of the mountain may be to turn right; when I am at that spot the best way may be to turn left. Ethical truths are always objective, but objective to the present state of affairs. Thus to think that ethical principles are absolute and hold always and everywhere is misleading; what is absolute is the ground of ethics which is the goodness of God. The closest one may come to an absolute ethical principle is Christ’s call to self-transcendent love. A memorable example for this insight is the gospel story where Judas chastized Mary for wasting the precious perfume to wash Christ’s feet. Judas was right by the light of reason; but was wrong in the eyes of God. For it was self-transcending love which moved Mary. <br /><br />Let us consider what I think is the matter of our current disagreement, the tension between “an eye for an eye” in the OT and the “do not return evil” in the NT. The former was written at a time where it was considered good to return an evil multiple times over (like - somebody from the other village killed one of ours and in response we should kill everybody in that village). In this state of affairs the teaching “you should not return more evil than you suffered” was a good message; a push towards the right direction; the best possible message considering. Christ’s later “do not return evil” (for evil by its nature is never justified) is a much more advanced ethical message. Why should we be bothered that it contradicts the previous message? When Christ came to us in bodily form we were ready for a greater understanding. <br /><br />Now come to think of it in the matter under discussion it’s not like scripture “errs”. It is we who err by assuming that ethical teachings once written down in scripture are absolute. And for lack of faith it is we who fear that should we say that they are not absolute then the whole authority of scripture will come tumbling down. I say the authority of scripture in the eyes of the many rests on the example of the life of the faithful. And in the eyes of the educated rests on the proper interpretation of it, which requires more than superficial lawyerly reading. To understand and take into account the historical and cultural context is necessary – but is not sufficient: <br /><br />I trust we agree that the end of revelation is to move humanity towards atonement. Then the first principle in understanding scripture as a work of revelation (which it is not exclusively) is to interpret it under the light of Christ’s atoning message and work. Christ is the light. To try to understand the OT or even the NT epistles without using Christ’s message of atonement as guiding light may and probably will lead to error. <br /><br />Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80915251347949611012017-07-26T12:07:23.624-07:002017-07-26T12:07:23.624-07:00@Danielos
If you deny the PNC you deny the abilit...@Danielos<br /><br />If you deny the PNC you deny the ability to know anything at all. Which you seem to.<br /><br />Aren't you also the one who supports abortion? If so, riddle me that... No execution of mass murderers, but unborn life is not so lucky...CRShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00718816249512853346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-34590725175844640042017-07-26T10:37:08.268-07:002017-07-26T10:37:08.268-07:00@ Ivan Knezović,
Principles of reason such as th...@ Ivan Knezović, <br /><br />Principles of reason such as the principle of non-contradiction are tools, and as is the case with any tool should be used wisely and not unreflectively. In particular they should be used only in the contexts where their use is appropriate. Now even when reasoning about everyday objects the context is relevant. Thus when one approaches an object in one way it may have properties it will lack when approached from another. Even in lowly physical realism the electron has the properties of a wave if approached in one way and not the properties of a wave when approached in another. <br /><br />Reasoning about the Absolute in an unreflective way (in a kind of automatic or formal way) is insufficient and may lead one astray. Consider for example the propositions “God’s distinct attributes are identical to each other” or “The Trinity is simple”. Such propositions are incoherent if one is not willing to transcend the common modes of thinking. God in one approach is simple but in another isn’t; God in one approach is personal but in another is not personal. Trying to put the Ultimate in conceptual categories of either-or is not fruitful. This much is known for millennia. The way I like to put it that “God is X but not only X”. Thus to say that God is simple does not entail that God is nothing but simple. To think that God is necessarily subject to such either-or categories because of the principle of non-contradiction would be too limited indeed; like putting logic above God :-) On the contrary, necessarily, perfection often and naturally transcends such distinctions. <br /><br />Logic and reason in general are just properties of God’s will as expressed in nature – thus both fundamental and irrelevant depending on the context. They are certainly not a limiting factor to God. Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-4519713979261220622017-07-26T09:35:53.582-07:002017-07-26T09:35:53.582-07:00@Danielos
Adding on the other responses, your int...@Danielos<br /><br />Adding on the other responses, your interpretation would be plausible if that speaking led to action which does not contradict another action - in this case, capital punishment. The speech leads to action, and therefore it is quite easy to understand what is meant. Beyond this, it just goes to show you why it is necessary to have the living Tradition protected by an accessible and adaptable authority, viz., the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium.<br /><br />On top of all of the other problems here, what you say is swinging close to Marcionism - as unfortunately my friend Msgr. Swetland did as well. "The Old Testament gets it wrong." Then we have two gods, or two truths, or deceit on the part of one God. Take your pick.CRShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00718816249512853346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-76876243169076078372017-07-26T06:14:12.362-07:002017-07-26T06:14:12.362-07:00@ Dianelos
No, I am saying exactly the opposite: ...@ Dianelos<br /><br /><i>No, I am saying exactly the opposite: Since God does not deceive (“cheat” was the word I used), God speaks with different voices and different ideas in different historical contexts, and even in different personal contexts. If God didn’t do that then people would be utterly confused and thus deceived.</i><br /><br />But you are not merely saying that God speaks through A in language M about topic X at one time and place, and speaks through B in language N about topic Y at another time and place. You are saying that what God says in one historical context contradicts what he says in another.Gregnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-86105550885984260242017-07-26T06:08:14.253-07:002017-07-26T06:08:14.253-07:00Yes, part of the motivation is (as they say here) ...Yes, part of the motivation is (as they say here) to correct the imbalance in the theological discussion, but part of the motivation is also that they think capital punishment is good public policy.Gregnoreply@blogger.com