Posted by lacktone  12/25/2017 3:33 pm | #71 |
"...inferior moral imagination."
This is probably the most invalid, if not preposterous posit for a defense of a moral posture, or character, as I've ever laid eyes on. Childish is my first reaction.
Inferior - All too grossly relegated in opinion whereby no standard reference is available to qualify such a stance.
Moral - See "Inferior" above.
Imagination - Totally lacking honorable of otherwise stolid principle of universal appeal.
In the context Hart has assembled the three words above as self-defense for his treatment of Feser's and Bessette's book I'm galvanized and cannot put further eyes on his treatise. I'm observing this through a secular filter and not appealing to some moral code yet to lie in plain revelation as some standard any of these three people are resolving themselves in, or with. That's because there isn't one universal code to tap that isn't subject to tangential vectoring away from a core set of principles, aka lost to interpretation.
The death penalty is an odd feature of man's moral tampering whereby the moral of the story is to preserve what's moral through amoral acts. Internally conflicting, the greater good is the goal such that one amoral act against an open source of continued amoral acts is decidedly worthy of sanctioning. But, is death the only measure of relief? No, it isn't. This is where compassion is elicited to take on the task of sorting out which measure is best. The argument lies in the tit-for-tat where compassion is a contrivance in the face of the amoral act under judgement. Remove compassion and the death penalty becomes the obvious choice. Preserve it and the argument for an alternate means remains on the table for sorting out.
When passion and compassion come together in the argument to resolve the disposition of the amoral event, there will be no mutually agreeable resolve. Men will champion the high ground and that will be obvious as the line in the sand between them. This is why a secular form of resolution must be allowed to prevail. It will absorb the impact of any moral assailing from those who would pretend to represent it. The morally armed will be held harmless to enjoy their continued innocence and allowed the freedom of expression to snub their detractors as the penalty is carried out. Those who would effect the penalty would necessarily seek absolution and all sides will ultimately retreat to their normal lives with the deed done and relief from it certain.
There is no resolving amoral acts through morality. Hence the hood over the executioner's head.
|
Posted by GeorgiusThomas 12/26/2017 6:30 am | #72 |
seigneur wrote:
@seigneur
For now I am willing to tolerate your neglect of what is, for all you seem to know, a scriptural binding prescription.Binding prescription for whom?.
For "proper" Christians of your fancy, presumably including yourself, the ones for whom communism, pacifism are also prescribed, not forgetting, of course, the duty to fulfil commands (and, indeed, in excess of what is asked) irrespective of the commander's title to their satisfaction, obtained by parity of reasoning. And for everybody, if everybody has a duty to become Christian, something I think is the case.
I might as well have written "for the same audience that the NT is addressed to", given that we're talking about dominical ethics. You just need to tell me your view on that. Mine is quite common: the NT addresses everybody.
I can for the sake of argument grant you the first bit. What allows you to convert this description into a binding norm?
Binding norm for whom?
For "proper" Christians of your fancy, presumably including yourself, and for everybody, if everybody has a duty to become Christian.
The NT, considered as a historical source, does not treat this as normative, at least not too clearly, nor do the Fathers conscripted by Hart and Feser.
Normative for whom?
For "proper" Christians of your fancy, presumably including yourself, and for everybody, if everybody has a duty to become Christian.
Don't you see that you are neglecting something crucial here? You are speaking in half-sentences.
No, I don't see this, nor do I speak in half-sentences (they make sense to me as complete sentences). It's odd that your apparent preternatural perspicacity failed you here. I suppose my soul is somewhat excessively darkened to be easily read, but surely not so eclipsed by sin and ignorance as to hinder the exercise of such a gift..
So how precisely do you obtain this conversion, and hence at least some of the criteria you think are useful in assessing Christianness?
The meaning of your question depends on what you have left unanswered above.
I fail to see how it does. For example, the "communist" passage of Acts alluded to before is descriptive. You seem to treat this as a norm, ahem, for the audience that the NT is addressed to. Precisely how do you arrive at this understanding?
One other thing: I think that the state, on the hypothetical "pure nature" divine economy, would also be the highest legal authority in matters concerning the exercise of the virtue of religion (and here most cultures in the world seem to agree). Would you deny even the -negative- prescription addressed to the prince by Christianity? Or do you think the state must also establish natural religion?
I have said before and I say again: The state, by virtue of being secular, can do anything. There is no necessity to any particular state action or inaction. In the secular world, everything is possible with the corresponding consequences, good and evil.
Given that you seem to think this secularity is of great explanatory power, please tell me what you mean by "secular". Perhaps you want to denote a mere negation of "spiritual" in the sense of "properly ecclesiastical" in the context of government, but then how exactly does that explain the amoral "absolutism" ("can do anything") of the state? I can't make sense of all of this.
Also, I have to repeat (or rather make explicit) my question: do you think that all people have a duty to profess Christianity (qua the true religion)? If not, why, given that it's true?
Spell out your stance properly: You want to dictate each and every soul their religion.
Alas, your soul-reading virtue failed you again. My stance is that the state is there to help its subjects flourish as human beings, by promoting the true and the good and restraining falsehood and immorality. Human flourishing
includes the exercise of the virtue of religion and the attainment of our final end. In the actual divine economy, so I would argue, the corresponding duties that the state would have under "pure nature" are entrusted to the Church by God. Does this amount to "dictation" or "forcing"? I don't know. Few people seem to think that the ubiquitous "dictation" of the moral truth that stealing is wrong by laws is a bad thing and means "forcing ethics on the soul" (in the sense conducive to an objection of the sort you seem to have), and I do not count myself among them.
I also think that positive law largely is a teacher, and state religious neutrality is either impossible (just like state ethical or philosophic neutrality), or, to the extent it is formally claimed by modern states and acted upon, teaches indifferentism or induces skepticism in religious matters, and these are detrimental to good living.
My stance: No. For many reasons. For one, "true" has many meanings, particularly in "true religion". For another, "true religion", whatever it means, becomes false religiosity when it's forced on people. It's false religiosity even when it's a "naturally" inherited cultural ballast.
Thanks for sharing.
What I mean by "true religion" is something like a body of actually divine prescriptions specifying the means to be employed by humans in giving God His due (broadly understood; in traditional Christianity it also includes revealed truths of per se speculative character, but articles of faith are still prescriptions). Do you think Christianity fits this? If it doesn't, why is it of any practical importance?
This is where the conflict is: under natural law, the common good of civil society is a great concern, so grave in fact, that you should be prepared to die and kill for it, not to mention the practical need for an ordered public life, its utility for survival, education, growth in knowledge and virtue etc.
No, that's not where the conflict is. Both Christians and non-Christians alike can be in harmony with natural law. This is not what makes Christians special, it's not what makes NT special as the scripture for Christians. Non-Christians can be "good" in terms of natural law without NT.
If Christianity is the true religion, then it is binding in virtue of natural law, in as much as obeying God is a natural obligation. So no, ultimately, if Christianity is true, a non-Christian (objectively, "materially") is not in fact in harmony with natural law (irrespective of her guilt).
The conflict is in the contention that natural law, knowledge of it and compliance to it, is somehow a Christian privilege or special to Christians. It isn't.
If Christianity is not the true religion, then no, it isn't, and Christians actually fail to comply to natural law, inasmuch as their belief and practice are based on a falsehood. If it is, non-Christians do. Natural law is not peculiar to Christianity in terms of content, that is true, revelation introduces other considerations. But in terms of success at it, it is, if Christianity is indeed revealed by God as the religion.
In the secular world, there are both good people (e.g. Good Samaritan) and the bad in terms of natural law, but there are no holy people. Only Christians are holy - not of this world.
Partially good people (at least as it concerns the actual demands of God, supposing Christianity is true), viewed objectively (irrespective of guilt, again) - yes, fully good - no, as only Christians are (or rather can be; I am not talking about concrete humans here, rather, 'ideal' agents).
I think the word "holy" when said of humans denotes the supposed likeness to the Divine/proximity to it. Provided 'grace realism' (as held by Catholics, the EOs, OOs and some others) is true, it makes sense to distinguish holiness from moral perfection, but even then not absolutely: no unbeliever can be called (that is, "recognised", not speaking here of invincible ignorance cases) either holy or even, ultimately, good (at the very least according to the Catholic understanding, which I hope my position is faithful to). If we only had 'nature' to worry about, I don't know why, say, a morally upright contemplator and lover of God should be denied this characterisation.
Why you adopt it, I can only guess. The "not of this world" quote doesn't help much, as I don't see how considerations of origin or contrast to the world, understood as a lamentable accidental environmental arrangement preserved and used by satan, the two senses that plausibly recommend themselves, support whatever it is you're defending here.
What do you think it means?
Last edited by GeorgiusThomas (12/26/2017 6:52 am)
|
Posted by seigneur 12/26/2017 10:19 am | #73 |
I might as well have written "for the same audience that the NT is addressed to", given that we're talking about dominical ethics. You just need to tell me your view on that. Mine is quite common: the NT addresses everybody.
Nice to have things stated clearly. Good to know that we are worlds apart.
The NT addresses Christians, a minority in every society. Far from every self-professed Christian is a Christian. Until the end times, the secular world will remain the overwhelming majority of the people, even when the gospel is proclaimed to everyone.
For "proper" Christians of your fancy, presumably including yourself, and for everybody, if everybody has a duty to become Christian.
What sort of duty is it that everyone should become Christian? Is it the sort of duty that will somehow eventually be fulfilled for everyone or will many (most) fail at it?
I fail to see how it does. For example, the "communist" passage of Acts alluded to before is descriptive. You seem to treat this as a norm, ahem, for the audience that the NT is addressed to. Precisely how do you arrive at this understanding?
It may be descriptive, but failure to observe it was miraculously punished by death. Conversely, what other mode of economic life has been described/prescribed for Christians in NT, so that we could/should follow it? If we don't need to follow what's in NT, why should we follow what is not there?
Given that you seem to think this secularity is of great explanatory power, please tell me what you mean by "secular". Perhaps you want to denote a mere negation of "spiritual" in the sense of "properly ecclesiastical" in the context of government, but then how exactly does that explain the amoral "absolutism" ("can do anything") of the state? I can't make sense of all of this.
Amoral absolutism? Looks like you are misunderstanding the "can" in "can do anything". It's a descriptive "can", not a prescriptive one.
My stance is that the state is there to help its subjects flourish as human beings, by promoting the true and the good and restraining falsehood and immorality.
Oh, so the state representatives don't lie and in general cannot do any wrong? Woefully unrealistic stance.
Funny how you find NT merely descriptive for Christians, but at the same time you propose to be prescriptive to the state. Different from you, I don't prescribe things to the state. I only describe.
Human flourishing includes the exercise of the virtue of religion and the attainment of our final end. In the actual divine economy so I would argue, the corresponding duties that the state would have under "pure nature" are entrusted to the Church by God.
Well, my accusation to you has been on spot all along. You are saying that the state must be subservient to the church, that at best the current world order is a sort of proto-theocracy. Whereas I hold that the secular world is ever-doomed, just like it was at all times. It has no capacity to transform itself into the divine order, except through the fire of end times.
We will never find common ground.
|
Posted by Johannes 12/26/2017 1:37 pm | #74 |
I fail to see how it does. For example, the "communist" passage of Acts alluded to before is descriptive. You seem to treat this as a norm, ahem, for the audience that the NT is addressed to. Precisely how do you arrive at this understanding?
It may be descriptive, but failure to observe it was miraculously punished by death.
Hey, no. What was miraculously punished by death was pretending to observe it while not actually observing it. I.e. not the lack of observance but the faking of it.
But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God." (Acts 5:3-4)
If the couple had gone out and told everybody in the Church, "We are selling and giving away only half of our possessions because we remember that the Lord Jesus did not object when a rich guy Zacchaeus told Him that he would do just that (Lk 19:8), and moreover that guy was richer than us and we are not tax collectors like him.", everything would have been fine.
Last edited by Johannes (12/26/2017 1:45 pm)
|
Posted by Johannes 12/26/2017 4:42 pm | #75 |
In the secular world, there are both good people (e.g. Good Samaritan) and the bad in terms of natural law, but there are no holy people. Only Christians are holy - not of this world.
Partially good people (at least as it concerns the actual demands of God, supposing Christianity is true), viewed objectively (irrespective of guilt, again) - yes, fully good - no, as only Christians are (or rather can be; I am not talking about concrete humans here, rather, 'ideal' agents).
I think the word "holy" when said of humans denotes the supposed likeness to the Divine/proximity to it. Provided 'grace realism' (as held by Catholics, the EOs, OOs and some others) is true, it makes sense to distinguish holiness from moral perfection, but even then not absolutely: no unbeliever can be called (that is, "recognised", not speaking here of invincible ignorance cases) either holy or even, ultimately, good (at the very least according to the Catholic understanding, which I hope my position is faithful to). If we only had 'nature' to worry about, I don't know why, say, a morally upright contemplator and lover of God should be denied this characterisation.
We can also speak in terms of ontic (or ontological) holiness (partaking of divine nature) versus moral holiness. RCs and EOs agree that a baptized baby has ontic/ontological holiness but clearly not moral holiness, since he/she does not have moral life. In adults, the conservation of ontic holiness requires a minimum of moral holiness.
Of course, RCs and EOs disagree about "the internals" of how God makes us partakers of His nature (RCs: through infusion of created sanctifying grace and charity; EOs, particularly Palamist: through infusion of uncreated divine energies).
Now, to state that it is impossible in principle for a good-willed non-Christian in a state of invincible ignorance regarding Christ and his Church to receive sanctifying grace is not the RC position. See CV_II's LG 16 and GS 22, in the passages quoted by CCC 847-848 and 1260 respectively.
|
Posted by GeorgiusThomas 12/27/2017 2:47 am | #76 |
@ Johannes
Yes, I suppose the terms you suggest are clearer. Were we engaged in a discussion with an EO, I would probably put it similarly. I think I stand vindicated, however, in my assessment that presuming common understanding of holiness and grace with seigneur wouldn't be reasonable.
As to invincible ignorance, yes, it is also my belief (that I hold as a Catholic) that it is possible in principle for a bona fide non-Catholic to receive sanctifying grace/be in the state of grace. In fact, I tried to prevent misunderstandings by repeated qualifications (such as "can be recognised as" instead of "can be thought to be"), but thank you for providing the occasion to clear possible ambiguities.
|
Posted by Timocrates 12/27/2017 2:09 pm | #77 |
I might as well have written "for the same audience that the NT is addressed to", given that we're talking about dominical ethics. You just need to tell me your view on that. Mine is quite common: the NT addresses everybody.
Nice to have things stated clearly. Good to know that we are worlds apart.
The NT addresses Christians, a minority in every society. Far from every self-professed Christian is a Christian. Until the end times, the secular world will remain the overwhelming majority of the people, even when the gospel is proclaimed to everyone.
This is problematic. Whole nations and societies were made and are being made into disciples of the Church. The Church triumphed over the pagan Roman Empire, by far and away the largest, most advanced and most powerful nation and society in the world at that time. There is no reason to think a specific form of religion could not predominate as even today religion predominates generally over the overwhelming mass of mankind.
Furthermore, many of the prophets describe (in the Christian interpretation) the proclamation of the gospel as taking universal effect: indeed, Christianity always has an effect on a society, causing a reaction that can be pivotal to the determination of itself. We just finished Christmas: name the carol that doesn't imply the gospel can embrace the whole of mankind? There is a triumphant undertone in all the messianic prophecies.
Secularism holds sway absolutely only over a very small portion of the human population; where it is generally determinant and powerful requires incredible violence to maintain; e.g., in totalitarian communist regimes and societies. But this requires active repression of religion; hence, not long ago, communist China dramatically increased its persecution of Christians in order to suppress them, on top of the almost innumerable artificial disadvantages they already suffered from, which evidently were still not enough! In the words of a certain well-known man, "Sad!"
Last edited by Timocrates (12/27/2017 2:33 pm)
"The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 16 (3).
Defend your Family. Join the U.N. Family Rights Caucus.
|
Posted by seigneur 12/28/2017 3:08 am | #78 |
This is problematic. Whole nations and societies were made and are being made into disciples of the Church. The Church triumphed over the pagan Roman Empire, by far and away the largest, most advanced and most powerful nation and society in the world at that time. There is no reason to think a specific form of religion could not predominate as even today religion predominates generally over the overwhelming mass of mankind.
You are right about one thing: This is problematic. Entirely.
When exactly did the Church triumph over Roman Empire and what did the triumph consist in? Was there no persecution of Christians after Constantine?
How should one understand the statement "Whole nations and societies were made and are being made into disciples of the Church"? Please name a nation that is a disciple of the Church right now? Maybe Vatican? Anything else? Was Roman Empire under Constantine and thenceforth a disciple of the Church? And why disciple of the Church rather than of Christ? Are these two the same thing or different things? Why?
My own view is as follows. The Church never triumphed over Roman Empire or any other nation. Rather, the established nominal Christendom struck a deal and compromised with the state. The compromise was fatal and resulted in the corruption of the Church. The tables were turned and Christians began persecuting pagans with the support of state authority, i.e. Christian morality reduced to the level of pagan and secular morality.
Furthermore, many of the prophets describe (in the Christian interpretation) the proclamation of the gospel as taking universal effect: indeed, Christianity always has an effect on a society, causing a reaction that can be pivotal to the determination of itself.
Is "an effect" the same thing as "triumph" above? I quite agree with "an effect", but not with "triumph" or "disciple of Church".
We just finished Christmas: name the carol that doesn't imply the gospel can embrace the whole of mankind? There is a triumphant undertone in all the messianic prophecies.
From my point of view, Christmas is a prime example of "an effect" that Christianity may have on society at large along with the corruption of the gospel message.
|
Posted by seigneur 12/28/2017 3:54 am | #79 |
We can also speak in terms of ontic (or ontological) holiness (partaking of divine nature) versus moral holiness.
Yes, we can, but why should we? What is the relevance? The relevant distinction for the current purposes is secular (the world) versus divine (heaven, other world, everlasting life).
RCs and EOs agree that a baptized baby has ontic/ontological holiness but clearly not moral holiness, since he/she does not have moral life. In adults, the conservation of ontic holiness requires a minimum of moral holiness.
I'm sure both RCs and EOs agree also that NT says nothing about baptizing babies.
Page: