tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post7021050858883241178..comments2024-03-29T04:46:24.966-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Geach on worshipping the right GodEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger74125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-78312458676816064962013-09-10T11:29:28.349-07:002013-09-10T11:29:28.349-07:00CHRIST ALONE
Jesus Christ is the only way to gain...CHRIST ALONE<br /><br />Jesus Christ is the only way to gain salvation, the only way to heaven, the only way to the Father. Do all Christians believe that? All who claim to be Christians do not believe that.<br /><br />A 2007 Pew research forum on Religion found that 57% of the evangelical Christians, who were polled, believed that many religions can lead to eternal life.<br /><br />Those who claim the Bible as God's word do not always use it as their guide for what they believe.<br /><br />CHRIST ALONE ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE<br /><br />Acts 4:10-12 let it be know to all of you and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead--by this name this man stands here before you in good health. 11 He is the stone which was rejected by you, the builders, but which became the chief corner stone. 12 And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved."<br /><br />If 57% of all so-called evangelical Christians believe that there are many ways to heaven, it is not difficult to understand why so many of them reject the words of Jesus when He said "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved..(Mark 16:16). If you do not believe Jesus is the only way to heaven, then, it makes it very easy to deny that water baptism is essential for salvation.<br /><br />Did you ever notice how, well know, so-called Christian preachers will not say that Jesus is the only way to heaven? Billy Graham and Joel Osteen come to mind. They also claim water baptism is not essential for salvation. Is there a connection?<br /><br />YOU EITHER BELIEVE AND PREACH THE TRUTH OR YOU DO NOT. A PARTIAL GOSPEL CANNOT SAVE ANYONE.<br /><br />YOU ARE INVITED TO FOLLOW MY CHRISTIAN BLOG. Google search>>> steve finnell a christian view <br /> <br />Steve Finnellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12863026367048527526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-70505437154464590012013-07-16T09:20:24.622-07:002013-07-16T09:20:24.622-07:00Dianelos,
A clarification, a retraction, an expla...Dianelos,<br /><br />A clarification, a retraction, an explanation, and a general comment--primarily in regard to my response to the following statement:<br /><br /><i>He presented to them ethical truths without argument, expecting them to recognize their truth just by looking at Him.</i><br /><br /><b>1.</b> <i>Clarification:</i> My response was based on an overly broad interpretation of 'them'. That is, I took 'them' as referring to any and all to whom He had attempted to present 'ethical truths'. But there is a problem...<br /><br /><b>2.</b> <i>Retraction:</i> My overly broad interpretation of 'them' is not warranted by the context in which the statement occurs. Indeed, the statement's context makes clear that by 'them' is meant His disciples. And it is quite likely that by 'His disciples' is meant the 12 Apostles.<br /><br />(But even if the lower case 'd' in 'disciples' is taken as an indication that by 'His disciples' is meant not just the 12 Apostles, but <i>any</i> follower of His, my response to the statement still does not qualify as making sense (for it is highly dubious that any follower of His worthy of being genuinely referred to as a disciple, would feel some sort of antagonism at the sight or sound of Him).)<br /><br />So, I retract my response to the statement.<br /><br /><b>3.</b> <i>Explanation:</i> I'm pretty sure what happened is that I had done a copy/paste of the specific statements I had wished to respond to, and then, when eventually getting around to the one above, failed to accurately recall the proper referent of 'them'.<br /><br /><b>4.</b> <i>General comment:</i> Notwithstanding the retraction, I continue to hold that a Christian version of 'est' sometimes is efficacious, and sometimes is not; and that when it is not, there is a something else which may be put to good use.Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-28806896377565406682013-07-14T20:03:11.866-07:002013-07-14T20:03:11.866-07:00Please observe that when God incarnated and lived ...<i>Please observe that when God incarnated and lived among us, He did not write down dogmatic texts nor discussed philosophical arguments with His disciples. Rather He loved them, it was for that love that they followed Him, in that love they recognized Him for what He was, and it was by that love that they were transformed and dedicated their life to the foundation of Christianity.</i><br /><br />Yes.<br /><br />Let it also be observed that in dedicating their life to the foundation of Christianity some original eyewitnesses and participants went so far as to write things down--in order, on occasion, to bolster, support and further solidify the instruction others had already received (e.g., "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed." Luke 1:1-4)<br /><br />Let it be further observed that He told His disciples, "Whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet."<br /><br />And let it be considered that at least some of His subsequent, non-original disciples have done more than leave behind the dust of their feet--they also have left behind bread crumbs in the form of, in some cases, dogmatic texts and clarifications pertaining to philosophical arguments, that those who initially either did not receive or did not hear, might later have something to return to, pick up, nibble on and, perhaps, utilize to the end of seeking out or following the path--and this on the premise, apparently, that responses sometimes are delayed, that sometimes it takes a while for things to sink in and penetrate, and that sometimes it is the way in which something is put which might make a difference in whether that something shall be received or not.<br /><br />I would hazard a guess, too, that those bread crumbs may have come in handy even for some of those who may never have had an initial opportunity to directly receive or hear.<br /><br /><i>He presented to them ethical truths without argument, expecting them to recognize their truth just by looking at Him.</i><br /><br />And sometimes it worked, and sometimes it didn't.<br /><br />And when it didn't, some were inflamed, enraged and resorted to violence just by the sight or sound of Him.<br /><br />It thus may be concluded that our Christian version of 'est' sometimes is efficacious, and sometimes is counterproductive.<br /><br />And for those cases where it is or may be counterproductive (or is merely not efficacious), there is a something else which may be put to good use.Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80808018502222792682013-07-14T20:00:29.203-07:002013-07-14T20:00:29.203-07:00Suppose someone was to say, "Jesus told us to...Suppose someone was to say, "Jesus told us to become like children. Paul said that not many wise and not many philosophers are chosen."<br /><br />Well, the intended implication seems clear--woe unto the wise and the philosophers.<br /><br />And there seems to be no reason, none whatsoever, for me not to sign the petition--with 'sign the petition' here meaning to relegate the wise and the philosophers to the periphery.<br /><br />"Don't worry guys; the world isn't flat, and you won't fall off. It's just that the rest of us would be better off without you guys hanging around mucking things up with your slicing and dicing, and without your nauseating assignment of things to one category or another."<br /><br />But suppose instead of signing the petition, I ask, not "Who is Paul?", but "Where did Paul say that about the wise and the philosophers?"<br /><br />And suppose in pursuing an answer to that question I were to find the following in 1 Corinthians 1: "Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?"<br /><br />Well, I would conclude that Paul had engaged in some slicing and dicing of his own, and that he too assigned things to different categories--for I would see that he cleaved the class of "the wise and philosophers" in two, and assigned to one half those whose wisdom and philosophy have to do with things of this world, and, by default, left to the other half those whose wisdom and philosophy have to do with things not of this world.<br /><br />I would further conclude that if I should feel inclined to disparage the wise and philosophers, that it would perhaps be best for me to not do so in a manner which is indiscriminate.<br /><br />For why should I include in the target of my disparagement those of the wise and philosophers whose wisdom and philosophy has not to do with things of this world? <br /><br />And why should I include in the target of that disparagement those whose wisdom and philosophy appear to have to do only with things of this world, when yet they in fact may be well-grounded in, and thus informed by, wisdom and philosophy having to do with things not of this world?<br /><br />(cont)Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-84638282430313159742013-07-14T19:57:19.827-07:002013-07-14T19:57:19.827-07:00There is reason to believe that saints, mystics, m...<i>There is reason to believe that saints, mystics, monks, experience life in a way which is radically different from ours. But let’s focus on the common human condition only, the rest 99% of us....</i><br /><br /><i>Other true beliefs do not refer to our actual experience and relationship with God, but to God as a being. Not only metaphysically (say God’s fundamental attributes, Trinitarian nature, etc), but also on such levels as understanding God’s purpose in creating the human condition the way it is (i.e. theodicy), eschatology, etc. These are the kinds of beliefs the philosopher likes to think about. They are not unimportant, in that they help us rebuff deceiving spirits, they help remove obstacles which hide God’s great beauty from us, etc. Not to mention that the very act of thinking about God is a kind of prayer. But, it seems to me, they are far less important than philosophers and dogmatic theologians judge them to be.</i><br /><br />It may well be the case that some philosophers and dogmatic theologians over-estimate the value of their contributions to the community at large. <br /><br />Yet, if it is true that 99% of us are stuck in the common human condition (with the other 1%--comprised of saints, mystics and monks--being a breed apart), and if it is also true that "The foundation of the world is moral, and therefore the safest way to judge truth is an ethical one," then perhaps it would behoove us to not under-estimate the value of the contributions of all philosophers and dogmatic theologians. <br /><br />To acknowledge that their contributions are not unimportant is a good thing; but to acknowledge them in such a way as to seemingly imply that they are <i>merely</i> not unimportant may be to under-estimate the value of those contributions.<br /><br />(cont)Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73747334795962386182013-07-14T19:56:09.246-07:002013-07-14T19:56:09.246-07:00Dianelos,
A prefatory anecdote:
Several days ago...Dianelos,<br /><br />A prefatory anecdote:<br /><br />Several days ago I was walking down the street on my way to lunch. About thirty yards in front of me was a guy standing on the sidewalk with a clipboard in his hands. As soon as I saw him, I knew two things: <i>a)</i> the guy was going to either approach me or snag me as I walked by; and, <i>b)</i> I'd have to make a decision as to whether to give my support to one thing or another.<br /><br />It turned out that he was collecting signatures for a petition to put someone on a ballot. The would-be candidate's name was, we shall say, Wanna B. A. Candidate.<br /><br />As I had never heard of Wanna B. A. Candidate, I asked, "Who is he?" And the response was, "He's a good guy." <br /><br />Well, that settled that. Since he is a good guy, there is no reason, none whatsoever, for me not to sign the petition. Or so the signature collector, apparently, wanted me to think.<br /><br />Instead of signing, I said, "Yes, but <i>who</i> is he?" And the response was, "He's running for ----, and needs just --- signatures to get on the ballot. He's a <i>really</i> good guy, and you'll like him."<br /><br />Oh ye of little faith.<br /><br />Since he is a <i>really</i> good guy, and I'm going to like him, there now <i>really</i> is no reason, none whatsoever, for me not to sign the petition. Or so the signature collector, apparently, wanted me to think.<br /><br />But instead of signing, I said, "I still don't know anything about him. Who <b>is</b> he?" And the guy said, "He's a Libertarian, and he's in favor of the legalization of marijuana."<br /><br />Aha. With the dissipation of unhelpful if not misleading generalities, relevant facts emerge.<br /><br />And now in possession of some relevant facts, I said, "Oh," as I put the pen down on the clipboard, and then, handing back the clipboard, said, "No thank you."<br /><br />(cont)Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-28561018900039790882013-07-13T00:55:49.882-07:002013-07-13T00:55:49.882-07:00Dianelos,
Is God everywhere and in everything?
T...Dianelos,<br /><br />Is God everywhere and in everything?<br /><br />This isn't a trick question, but it is a set up, so be cautious in how you frame your answer. Or, better yet, refrain from posting any answer to the question.Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-18021437723916952792013-07-13T00:51:07.275-07:002013-07-13T00:51:07.275-07:00Dianelos,
>> “If A loves B for B's mone...Dianelos,<br /><br />>> “If A loves B for B's money, then it is B's money which is<br />>> the object of A's love.”<br /><br />> I don’t think that follows. If I love God for God’s beauty,<br />> it does not follow that it’s God’s beauty and not God<br />> that I love.<br /><br />I agree with the second statement itself, but disagree with its contextual implication (for if God's beauty is like a person's money, then it would seem to follow that the love of beauty is the root of all evil).<br /><br /><i>It is true that one’s experience of a person is strongly influenced by that person’s attributes or properties - be it beauty, intelligence, or money.</i><br /><br />If money is no less an attribute or property of a person than is beauty or intelligence, what is there to prevent our saying the same thing of, e.g., a person's real estate holdings?<br /><br /><i>Please remember where this discussion started, namely with the idea that if one loves a person while holding many false beliefs about her then, after some point, it’s not that person one loves but somebody else. I disagreed with that, and I still don’t see how it makes sense.</i><br /><br />Let it also be recalled that the very first thing I had said in response to your statement (that it makes no sense to you) was, "I can't say that it ought to make sense to you, for I don't know that it ought to." I'm going to leave it at this.<br /><br /><i>I must say that Rev. George Mastrantonis’s talk about “other gods” is very misleading. There are no other gods.</i><br /><br />Rev. G. M. specifically states that idols and superstitions are the "other gods". To say that there are no other gods, then, is to say that there aren't any idols or superstitions.<br /><br /><i>...as a matter of fact, if one responds to that call with a humble and longing heart then God responds one way or the other. And God responds no matter how mistaken one’s beliefs about the One who is calling might be. It is in this sense that I wrote that anyone who cries ‘God’ (or ‘Brahman’ or ‘gods’ for that matter) is directed towards God.</i><br /><br />Since I had said, "Unless and until it is clarified otherwise...," I should thank you for clarifying. Thank you.<br /><br /><i>Come to think of it, Christ did use a kind of argument for His ethical teaching</i><br /><br />He also employed reasoned arguments for other purposes. Consider, e.g., John 10:31-36:<br /><br />"Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.<br /><br />"Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?<br /><br />"The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.<br /><br />"Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"<br /><br />(Sidebar: Apparently, Jesus was referring to Psalm 82:6--"I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High." (But even if He wasn't, the existence of Psalm 82:6 in Scripture may be taken as a convenient rationale for the fact that other parts of Scripture explicitly state that we are not to have other gods before the most High, i.e., before God Himself.))Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-24521402048105725702013-07-12T00:54:40.985-07:002013-07-12T00:54:40.985-07:00Now true beliefs about God are also of many kinds....Now true beliefs about God are also of many kinds. <br /><br />Obviously there are many truths about our experience of God, and these are important beliefs. On the other hand people do not experience God in a uniform way. If the human condition is such that physical objects such as a mountain or the sea can be experienced and described in a million different ways, it’s not surprising that so too one’s experience of God. Only contrary to the case of the sea or the mountain God is not an object one may point one’s finger at when speaking with other people. Thus it is natural that different people have different experiences, hold different true beliefs about them, and express these in different ways. The communal worship of God plays a major role too, in that it establishes specific symbols, narratives, ceremonies, art forms. Contrary to what naturalists think, the variety of peoples’ communal response to the divine is what one would expect to be the case if theism is true. For the greatest conceivable being is clearly not such that there is only one way in which a community may respond to it. On the other hand, on theism there is only one path towards atonement, and here indeed one observes that the moral message of all great religions in the last 3.000 years are virtually identical. (They all focus on self-transcendence, love for all, peace, charity, simplicity, poverty.) <br /><br />Other true beliefs do not refer to our actual experience and relationship with God, but to God as a being. Not only metaphysically (say God’s fundamental attributes, Trinitarian nature, etc), but also on such levels as understanding God’s purpose in creating the human condition the way it is (i.e. theodicy), eschatology, etc. These are the kinds of beliefs the philosopher likes to think about. They are not unimportant, in that they help us rebuff deceiving spirits, they help remove obstacles which hide God’s great beauty from us, etc. Not to mention that the very act of thinking about God is a kind of prayer. But, it seems to me, they are far less important than philosophers and dogmatic theologians judge them to be. Please observe that when God incarnated and lived among us, He did not write down dogmatic texts nor discussed philosophical arguments with His disciples. Rather He loved them, it was for that love that they followed Him, in that love they recognized Him for what He was, and it was by that love that they were transformed and dedicated their life to the foundation of Christianity. And to the degree that He taught to them, He spoke in commands or in parables about the path towards God, the good life (or the natural life as a Thomist might put it), i.e. He presented to them ethical truths without argument, expecting them to recognize their truth just by looking at Him. On theism truth is ultimately a personal reality, a way a person is – and truth can best be expounded by realizing it in one’s own person through repentance. (Come to think of it, Christ did use a kind of argument for His ethical teaching: That we being made by God in God’s image should strive to be as perfect as God in heaven is. That as God sends rain to the just and to the unjust, so too should we forgive everybody.)Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-7455910466986133612013-07-12T00:50:43.904-07:002013-07-12T00:50:43.904-07:00Going back to the basics, the only possible warran...Going back to the basics, the only possible warrant for beliefs is the human condition, that is the whole of our experience of life. For there is nothing else on which a belief can be grounded. Now the human condition is not a constant. There is reason to believe that saints, mystics, monks, experience life in a way which is radically different from ours. But let’s focus on the common human condition only, the rest 99% of us. What grounds belief in God in our case? I myself became a self-aware Christian after reading the Gospels, for in them I recognized my master’s voice as it were. Others may recognize God’s voice in other writings. Or in a religious community. Or in the beauty of nature. Or in hard work. The point is that God is present in our experience of life, but in a way which is not obvious but can become apparent in many different ways. But it is not uncommon for people to pass through life without becoming *aware* of the presence of God, while at the same time responding to the presence of God as all normal people do. <br /><br />[continues]<br />Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-5601792629711974182013-07-12T00:42:38.342-07:002013-07-12T00:42:38.342-07:00Glenn,
“If A loves B for B's money, then it ...Glenn, <br /><br />“<i>If A loves B for B's money, then it is B's money which is the object of A's love.</i>”<br /><br />I don’t think that follows. If I love God for God’s beauty, it does not follow that it’s God’s beauty and not God that I love. It is true that one’s experience of a person is strongly influenced by that person’s attributes or properties - be it beauty, intelligence, or money. In turn that experience affects the kind or value of one’s love. But it’s always the actual person one loves. Please remember where this discussion started, namely with the idea that if one loves a person while holding many false beliefs about her then, after some point, it’s not that person one loves but somebody else. I disagreed with that, and I still don’t see how it makes sense. One doesn’t love the concept; one loves the person. <br /><br />Incidentally, I wonder sometimes whether the greatest kind of love really has an “object”. Self-transcending love tends to be universal and in this sense object-less. Or one could say that the object of self-transcending love is all there is, reality itself. <br /><br />“<i>We'll soon find out.</i>”<br /><br />True enough. Perhaps not very soon though. <br /><br />“<i>Yet you say, allegedly without any conflict, that there is no other to be directed at.</i>”<br /><br />Right, and I must say that Rev. George Mastrantonis’s talk about “other gods” is very misleading. There are no other gods. <br /><br />What I am trying to say is simple, and what I claim are factual descriptions of the human condition. Thus, a major dimension of the human condition is the call of the transcendent. We all hear that call, albeit naturalists imagine they are imagining things. Now, also as a matter of fact, if one responds to that call with a humble and longing heart then God responds one way or the other. And God responds no matter how mistaken one’s beliefs about the One who is calling might be. It is in this sense that I wrote that anyone who cries ‘God’ (or ‘Brahman’ or ‘gods’ for that matter) is directed towards God. <br /><br />Having said that, we also hear the call of deceiving spirits. The ontology of such spirits is a difficult matter. (I hold that they are an expression of the fallen nature of the world and have no independent subjective existence. They exist only in that they deceive us, so there are no actual spirits out there to respond to our calls. Indeed the deceiving spirit of pride is a major player here.) And there are many other factors that may lead us into holding false beliefs about God. Indeed we may safely assume that we all hold some false beliefs about God. Now which practices help one avoid being deceived is another matter, on which apparently Mastrantonis, and certainly the Philokalia, have specific things to say. For us Christians I think the matter is rather straightforward: Any call we hear and any belief we hold that move us to follow the path and commandments of Christ come from the truth; any other call or belief come from deception. The foundation of the world is moral, and therefore the safest way to judge truth is an ethical one. <br /><br />[continues]<br />Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-78041950562863966012013-07-08T11:10:44.620-07:002013-07-08T11:10:44.620-07:00(to be it loosely s/b "to put it loosely"...(<i>to be it loosely</i> s/b "to put it loosely")Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-35024196615898810552013-07-08T11:08:10.501-07:002013-07-08T11:08:10.501-07:00Now,
1. A wordy consociation from Vol. I of the P...Now,<br /><br /><b>1.</b> A wordy consociation from Vol. I of the <a href="http://www.prudencetrue.com/images/Philokalia-Complete-Text.pdf" rel="nofollow">Philokalia</a>: <i>[We should not] try to evade our conscience when it speaks to us of things conducive to salvation that we ought to do, and constantly tells us what is right and what is our duty. This it does especially when purified through active, applied, and meticulous watchfulness of intellect; for then, owing to its pure state, the judgments of the conscience tend to be all-embracing, to the point, and indisputable. So it should not be evaded, since it tells us inwardly how to live in conformity to God's will, and by severely censuring the soul when the mind has been infected by sins, and by admonishing the erring heart to repent, it provides welcome counsel as to how our defective state can be cured.</i> (Note that it is not being said that it is the intellect which provides the 'welcome counsel', but the conscience--<i>especially when</i> purified through active, applied, and meticulous watchfulness of intellect.)<br /><br /><b>2.</b> A less wordy consociation from the same: <i>If a monk submits his will to the law of God, then his intellect will govern in accordance with this law all that is subordinate to itself. It will direct as it should all the soul's impulses, especially its incensive power and desire, for these are subordinate to it.</i><br /><br /><b>3.</b> Yet another consociation (which, despite being more wordy than the prior two, is grounded in something rather practical): <i>Suppose, for instance, that a thought full of avarice is suggested to you. Distinguish between the component elements: the intellect which has accepted the thought, the intellection of gold, gold itself, and the passion of avarice. Then ask: in which of these does the sin consist? Is it the intellect? But how then can the intellect be the image of God? Is it the intellection of gold? But what sensible person would ever say that? Then is gold itself the sin? In that case, why was it created? It follows, then, that the cause of the sin is the fourth element, which is neither an objective reality, nor the intellection of something real, but is a certain noxious pleasure which, once it is freely chosen, compels the intellect to misuse what God has created. It is this pleasure that the law of God commands us to cut off. Now as you investigate the thought in this way and analyze it into its components, it will be destroyed; and the demon will take to flight once your mind is raised to a higher level by this spiritual knowledge.</i><br /><br /><b>4.</b> So, it would seem that running through (at least some parts of) the Philokalia, is a background knowledge and awareness of the hierarchal ascendancy of the human intellect over the human will. Granted, the usages of 'intellect' by Aquinas and the Philokalia are not necessarily fully homogenous; but they don't seem to be fully heterogeneous either.Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-47007242816943014182013-07-08T11:00:38.083-07:002013-07-08T11:00:38.083-07:00It is helpful to first mention that Aquinas addres...It is helpful to first mention that Aquinas addresses the question of whether man has free-will (see <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1083.htm" rel="nofollow"><i>ST</i> I q83 a1</a>), and, in support of a negative response, several objections are raised.<br /><br />One of the objections--the 5th objection--is, <i>[It would seem than man has not free-will, for] the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 5): "According as each one is, such does the end seem to him." But it is not in our power to be of one quality or another; for this comes to us from nature. Therefore it is natural to us to follow some particular end, and therefore we are not free in so doing.</i><br /><br />Aquinas subsequently counters this objection, however. And he does so by saying, in part, that, <i>[S]uch as a man is by virtue of a corporeal quality, such also does his end seem to him, because from such a disposition a man is inclined to choose or reject something. But these inclinations are subject to the judgment of reason... Wherefore this is in no way prejudicial to free-will.</i><br /><br />The important thing here, with respect to what follows, is not that some particular objection against man having free-will has been disarmed, but that a particular something had been alluded to in the disarming of that objection. And the particular something alluded to in the disarming of that objection is, to be it loosely, the hierarchal ascendancy of the human intellect over the human will ("these inclinations are subject to the judgment of reason").<br /><br />(cont)Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73502949111223961632013-07-08T10:58:58.764-07:002013-07-08T10:58:58.764-07:00Meanwhile, back at the ranch...
I've been pa...Meanwhile, back at the ranch... <br /><br />I've been partly busying myself with the Philokalia. And here is something which has stood out:<br /><br />(cont)Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80109368147484048252013-07-08T10:37:31.840-07:002013-07-08T10:37:31.840-07:00Dianelos,
I am thinking...
!
'tis a friend...Dianelos,<br /><br /><i>I am thinking...</i><br /><br /> !<br /><br />'tis a friendly '!', it is.<br /><br />More relevantly, I appreciate that you prefer to be patient rather than to hurry.Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-64811669089141115482013-07-08T04:21:01.251-07:002013-07-08T04:21:01.251-07:00Glenn,
Sorry for the delay in responding. I am t...Glenn, <br /><br />Sorry for the delay in responding. I am thinking and I don’t want to hurry.Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-77139038790897416082013-07-07T18:24:55.089-07:002013-07-07T18:24:55.089-07:00Well, I suppose it would have been better to have ...Well, I suppose it would have been better to have simply said this:<br /><br />- - - - -<br /><br />If each of the following three statements is true...<br /><br /><i>a) It cannot be denied that true beliefs help and false beliefs hinder;<br /><br />b) One of the wisest bits in the New Testament is about how to test the truth of beliefs; </i>and,<i><br /><br />c) Beliefs which help one to follow Christ's commands are from the truth, the others come from deceiving spirits...</i><br /><br />...then there seems little reason to seriously doubt that it may be possible that,<br /><br />"Errors in one's conception of God can be extensive enough and/or serious enough that one's worship ends up (inadvertently of course) being directed at [deceiving spirits rather] than [at] the true God."Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-7065327471200155842013-07-04T18:51:24.438-07:002013-07-04T18:51:24.438-07:00PS In addition to agreeing with each of your other...PS In addition to agreeing with each of your other points, I'm glad you made them. I like reading the truth; it's the next best thing to hearing it.Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-91027610431291233472013-07-04T18:21:13.047-07:002013-07-04T18:21:13.047-07:00Ben,
>> Unless and until it is clarified ot...Ben,<br /><br />>> Unless and until it is clarified otherwise, the 'anyone' in <br />>> Dianelos' "Anyone who cries 'God' is directed towards God"<br />>> includes, via the definition of 'anyone', those who are not<br />>> amongst 'the gentiles who have not the law', i.e., it includes<br />>> those non-gentiles who, notwithstanding that they have or<br />>> have had the law, worship "false gods".<br /><br />> Christian charity assumes he was merely speaking generally<br />> & meant it in an orthodox fashion. Even God speaks<br />> generally when God's Word tells us "all have sinned"<br />> surely we don't take "all" to include the Deity as well. <br /><br />Re your second statement, of course not. <br /><br />Re your first statement, I would suggest that Christian charity does not mandate that the content of a statement alone be paid attention to, and that the context of its utterance be ignored. <br /><br />Given the context of the statement's utterance, it seemed not unreasonable to surmise that (okay, honestly, it seemed clear to me that), however much the utterer was speaking generally, and may have meant it in an orthodox fashion, the statement served, whether by accident or design, to rebut a particular something said in the OP, or at least to indicate that that particular something needn't be taken as worthy of consideration. <br /><br />I didn't get technical for the heck of it, to amuse myself, out of some misunderstanding of what it means to speak generally or due to a failure to appreciate that leeway is to be given when another is speaking generally, but in order to rebut (what I took to be) the rebuttal, or at least to counter (what I took to be) the indication.<br /><br />Here is what was said in the OP: "Errors in one's conception of God can be extensive enough and/or serious enough that one's worship ends up (inadvertently of course) being directed at something other than the true God."<br /><br />And here is what was said explicitly in response to it: "But there is no other to be directed at. Anyone who cries 'God' is directed towards God."<br /><br />Given the context, it seemed to me that there was an implicit preface to the explicit response, so that what was being said, in effect, was, "Actually, the truth of the matter is that errors in one's conception of God are both meaningless and irrelevant. And this is so for the reasons that: <i>a)</i> there is no other to be directed at; and, <i>b)</i> anyone who cries 'God' is directed towards God."<br /><br />If I'm wrong, off-base or out of line regarding what I was responding to or how I responded to it, then I'll stand corrected.<br /><br />As for each of the other points you make... I agree (and trust that I haven't said anything previously which might have indicated that I might not).Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-7908347231298988932013-07-04T12:31:48.880-07:002013-07-04T12:31:48.880-07:00continue:
>And if by 'gentle folk' is ...continue:<br /><br />>And if by 'gentle folk' is meant only, solely and nothing but 'the gentiles who have not the law', then there still must be--in some sense and on some level--some danger involved in their, as I said earlier, "failing to properly distinguish between the One True God on the one hand, and idols and superstitions on the other hand". <br /><br />Of course! Hypothetically I could if I was homeless eat solely out of dumpsters my whole life & manage to only eat the relatively fresh bites & avoid the confected ones. But there is still risk of eating something bad that will make me sick and die. Morally if you knew of a soup kitchen I could go too you would be obligated to tell me. Some among the heathen may be saved under the usual conditions of extra-ordinary grace but there might be others who can only be saved if they hear the gospel and convert.<br /><br />We don't know who is who as believers we only know what we must do. We do out job and let God do His and we don't try to do God's job nor expect Him to do ours.<br /><br />There is a difference between Christian inclusiveism which is orthodox that tells us God gives all men sufficient grace and provides a way for them to be saved even those who don't know Him threw no fault of their own on the one hand vs the heresy of religious indifferentism which says God saves the heathen because he really doesn't care of they believe in him or not or what they believe or not.<br /><br />God will save who He wants to save & we have no say in it & we are obligated as believers to preach his word. Pius XII said even if you could somehow impossibly know a particular heathen was a mere material idolator & received extra-ordinary Grace you would still via the divine command have to preach the word to him. If only because you would be giving him more then he has presently.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-17831936690827397742013-07-04T12:31:05.995-07:002013-07-04T12:31:05.995-07:00>Altering the tense... if the heathen's wor...>Altering the tense... if the heathen's worship isn't right in its intention, however reasonable, Christian and charitable it may be to suppose that it is, supposing that it is won't make it so--only God truly knows.<br /><br />Yes only God knows & only God may judge who among the heathen is objectively a formal idolator & is thus culpable for his idolatry vs who is truly ignorant threw no fault of their own & thus a mere material idolator. Of course believers who cannot claim invincible ignorance are still morally obligated to correct even the material idolator. But the mere presence of material idolatry & absence of the malice associated with formal idolatry, plus any extra-ordinary Divine Grace granted by Providence and divine mercy would make fertile ground for the conversion of such a heathen. Of course Pius IX said we mere human beings can't know who among the heathen are true formal idolators & we are not allowed to use the possible presence of mere material idolatry as a pretense not to preach the gospel. <br /><br />>The suppositions, therefore, do not constitute a guaranty that any heathen worshipping "false gods" necessarily and most assuredly is doing so from a right intention--rather, they are meant to guide our attitude towards and treatment of the heathen (in the direction of being reasonable, Christian and charitable).<br /><br />Correct we cannot know who is a possible anonymous believer vs who is not, we are not meant to know and we may not cite the possibility as a pretense to disobey the divine mandate to preach the gospel.<br /><br />>Okay, fine. But what have I or anyone else said in opposition to this? Unless and until it is clarified otherwise, the 'anyone' in Dianelos' "Anyone who cries 'God' is directed towards God" includes, via the definition of 'anyone', those who are not amongst 'the gentiles who have not the law', i.e., it includes those non-gentiles who, notwithstanding that they have or have had the law, worship "false gods".<br /><br />Christian charity assumes he was merely speaking generally & meant it in an orthodox fashion. <br />Even God speaks generally when God's Word tells us "all have sinned" surely we don't take "all" to include the Deity as well. <br /> <br />Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-7759163386545167932013-07-04T10:17:35.065-07:002013-07-04T10:17:35.065-07:00Surfing the internet without using anti-virus soft...Surfing the internet without using anti-virus software won't cause one's computer to become infected with a computer virus. Nonetheless, one's computer is less likely to become infected with a computer virus while one is surfing the internet if one is using anti-virus software while doing so. Therefore, a right conception of God is, in a sense, 'anti-prince-of-the-world software'. And while it may not be a guaranty against infiltration, a strong case can be made in favor of the notion that it does indeed reduce the risk of being infiltrated.<br /><br />At any rate, and to quote the concluding statement of the OP, <i>The point is that, as Geach says, “we dare not be complacent” about the question.</i>Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-75095660278912897602013-07-04T10:07:54.051-07:002013-07-04T10:07:54.051-07:00Ben,
1. It is reasonable, Christian, and charitab...Ben,<br /><br /><b>1.</b> <i>It is reasonable, Christian, and charitable to suppose that the "false gods" of the heathen were, in their conscience, the only true God they knew, and that their worship being right in its intention, went up to the one true God with that of Jews and Christians to whom He had revealed Himself.</i><br /><br />Altering the tense... if the heathen's worship isn't right in its intention, however reasonable, Christian and charitable it may be to suppose that it is, supposing that it is won't make it so--only God truly knows. The suppositions, therefore, do not constitute a guaranty that any heathen worshipping "false gods" necessarily and most assuredly is doing so from a right intention--rather, they are meant to guide our attitude towards and treatment of the heathen (in the direction of being reasonable, Christian and charitable).<br /><br /><b>2.</b> <i>"In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ . . . . . the gentiles who have not the law, shall be judged by their conscience" (Romans 2:14-16).</i><br /><br />Okay, fine. But what have I or anyone else said in opposition to this? Unless and until it is clarified otherwise, the 'anyone' in Dianelos' "Anyone who cries 'God' is directed towards God" includes, via the definition of 'anyone', those who are not amongst 'the gentiles who have not the law', i.e., it includes those non-gentiles who, notwithstanding that they have or have had the law, worship "false gods".<br /><br />And if by 'gentle folk' is meant only, solely and nothing but 'the gentiles who have not the law', then there still must be--in some sense and on some level--some danger involved in their, as I said earlier, "failing to properly distinguish between the One True God on the one hand, and idols and superstitions on the other hand". <br /><br />Why? <br /><br />Consider the alternative, i.e., suppose that there isn't any danger, none whatsoever, in idolatry in and of itself (for the gentile who has not the law). Now consider that <i>God, who wishes all men to be saved, and Christ, who died for all who sinned in Adam, would be frustrated in their merciful designs if the prince of this world were to carry off all idolaters</i> (from the same article you quoted from).<br /><br />If there isn't any danger, none whatsoever, failing to properly distinguish between the One True God on the one hand, and idols and superstitions on the other hand, then any idolater who has carried off by the prince of this world <i>would not</i> have been carried off <i>specifically because of</i> his idolatry.<br /><br />However, mightn't it be the case that it might have been--not necessarily would have been, but might have been--more difficult for him to have been carried off by the prince of the world had he, the former, been correctly worshipping the true God?<br /><br />The nearest fire department happens to be right around the corner from where I live, so firefighters will be here in no time at all if a fire breaks out. But if I live in the wilderness, say, thirty miles from the nearest town, and a fire breaks out in my house, all may well be ashes and rumble by the time the firefighters show up. Now, if I'm busy deflecting the true God via worship of false gods, the time it takes in some spiritual emergency to relinquish my dedication to the false gods, and cease deflecting the true God, may be more than enough time for the prince of the world to close the deal (so to speak (and to mix metaphors)).<br /><br />(cont)<br /><br />Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-30526012750524774192013-07-03T15:21:25.862-07:002013-07-03T15:21:25.862-07:00Glenn, why is it all or nothing?
Idolatry:
http:/...Glenn, why is it all or nothing?<br /><br />Idolatry:<br />http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07636a.htm<br /><br />Moral aspect<br /><br />Considered in itself, idolatry is the greatest of mortal sins. For it is, by definition, an inroad on God's sovereignty over the world, an attempt on His Divine majesty, a rebellious setting up of a creature on the throne that belongs to Him alone. Even the simulation of idolatry, in order to escape death during persecution, is a mortal sin, because of the pernicious falsehood it involves and the scandal it causes. Of Seneca who, against his better knowledge, took part in idolatrous worship, St. Augustine says: "He was the more to be condemned for doing mendaciously what people believed him to do sincerely". <b>The guilt of idolatry, however, is not to be estimated by its abstract nature alone; the concrete form it assumes in the conscience of the sinner is the all-important element. No sin is mortal — i.e. debars man from attaining the end for which he was created — that is not committed with clear knowledge and free determination.</b> But how many, or how few, of the countless millions of idolaters are, or have been, able to distinguish between the one Creator of all things and His creatures? and, having made the distinction, how many have been perverse enough to worship the creature in preference to the Creator? — It is reasonable, Christian, and charitable to suppose that the "false gods" of the heathen were, in their conscience, the only true God they knew, and that their worship being right in its intention, went up to the one true God with that of Jews and Christians to whom He had revealed Himself. "In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ . . . . . the gentiles who have not the law, shall be judged by their conscience" (Romans 2:14-16). God, who wishes all men to be saved, and Christ, who died for all who sinned in Adam, would be frustrated in their merciful designs if the prince of this world were to carry off all idolaters.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.com