That all people are drawn to God is evident in the saying: God is Love. In one way or another, at some time or another, each one of us evidences that they love Love itself. We are the product of Love itself, by our love of things, namely beauty. We are in love with beauty, and at the same time we are attracted to love because of its own beauty. It’s almost become a cliché to say that Love is an action. But love really is a work, the highest expression of human dignity and to negate it is to extinguish a very real part of our humanity in who we are essentially.
One of the greatest temptations in modern society is the temptation to negate work while obtaining its ends. It’s a paradoxical problem, for love in particular, because while it is yet so concomitant to the formal and essential existence of mankind and the individual person we’ve deceived ourselves into thinking that the act of love can be left aside while getting at things such as sexuality which in truth is a beautiful expression of love. In reality, love, while being a labor in itself to various goods and ends, is not merely sought for these ends but for the sake of itself. And here is the proof of it: What is family without love? What is friendship with out love? What is sex without love? What is work without love? What is patriotism, or religion, or anything besides without love? We all know the very simple answer, which is that it is all vain drudgery. There is no enlightening that takes place in any of these apart from love. They become purposeless and base, essentially aimless, when existing only for the sake of themselves. Love alone is that which in existing for itself, exists for all things.
We cannot have things like family, friendship, sex, or vocation, as we really desire them, apart from love. Love itself is essential to the fabric of what we desire as human creatures. Therefore, apart from love, we cannot hope to obtain those things which make us human. It’s really quite profound that we cannot realize our humanity without the presence of love in society and in our own individuality. That’s why we call that which lacks love, inhumane, in the schema of human relations. Just as profound, while realizing our own humanity in love, our individualism and our communal identity bleed into one in the context of love. We are willing to do more than guard the integrity of our individual identity, sacrificing ourselves for that which would sacrifice itself for us, even aside from the knowledge that it is the case. In other words, we are loving before it is requited, when loving purely. This is where the greatest magnanimity of the human spirit is seen: unconditional and selfless love.
Much of man’s pain arises from the fact that he is awash with internal and communal paradoxes. It’s often said that people do the most horrible and senseless acts because they are afraid. That can be a difficult concept to grasp, and at first may not ring completely true. However, upon examination, we can unravel a perhaps a more articulate exposition of this truth, which is that man is in a state of seemingly hopeless despair. His despair comes from his inability to reconcile these paradoxes with each other and with what he knows and believes to be right and true. His despair comes from his quest to find himself, as he really is and to provide for that real man in accordance with his real needs. As stated early, man cannot realize himself as he truly is apart from love as it truly is.
Imagine the great psychosis we are all under to some degree. How often does time reveal our needs to only have been wants? How many things have we and do we view as essential that later prove only to be ancillary? In the course of life, how often do we cast ourselves upon fashion hoping to find ourselves therein, only to realize as we get older how shallow of a substitute those fashions were to something more real? This species of bewilderment and beguilement which man labors under also stems to greater things, such as ideology, politics, and economical systems. In a great irony, we begin to see clearly how hardly man sees at all. We are suddenly inclined to say with Socrates,” I am only [truly] aware of the fact of my own ignorance.”
There is one paradox in which man can hope to be lost in addition to the knowledge of his own ignorance, however, and that is his ability to while receiving divine love and attempting to share it in its fullness as he receives it, to give something genuinely to activate that participation; that ‘something’ is his very self. Participation with this divine love must be more than active, just as it must be more than an emotion. It must be active as an extension of something real within him. That is to say, love acted out in the form of charity and compassion, must be love from man’s inner intention finding extension in the world.
Herein, we see that practiced love is only half the matter. No amount of self giving or communal giving for the temporal and psychological needs of our neighbor could ever replace the true intention of the inner man. This is where love becomes hard. Man co-suffers with his neighbor when he truly loves, and he obtains this schematic from God who is Love. For this reason, it could not have been any other way, except that God override his justice with his mercy, to fulfill love, to co-suffer with his beloved, mankind. So, just as he as Love itself was called to co-suffering with his beloved, we are required by love to co-suffer. This engages our whole being, which is why Christ commands us,” You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength. And you shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Naturally, we put at the disposal of our own pursuit of happiness all of our faculties. If we are to belong to God, we admit that we belong to love, and in belonging to love it is incumbent upon us to obey this command of co-suffering.
It is an arduous path to choose to love, over and over, because in light of our concern for self, which is ever present, it does not appear to us initially as the choice to love. On the contrary! This choice appears to us as the choice to suffer, and in such a fashion that it is to someone else’ good, or perhaps more pertinently that we do not suffer to our good. Similarly, we see ourselves suffering if we are selfish. This, however, is at least to what our own psychosis esteems as our pleasure and our good. Therefore, essentially the decision to act becomes the decision to suffer for someone else’ good or our own.
Much of mans inner dialogue centers around this very choice of preferment. In reality the choice is to suffer for the real good of others or the imagined good of ourselves. The only real good we can hope to achieve for ourselves comes from suffering for others. It’s a great mystery, but a very present and clear one. It’s a part of the paradox man may rightly hope to lose himself in. The conversation between mans passions and his conscience is evidence of his great nobility and dignity, and wherever his conscience is rightly informed and wins out he is noble and dignified. However, wherever his conscience surrenders to his passions he experiences degradation, while inflicting degradation upon his community as well, because at least in himself he is a part thereof.
In many ways, modern society has compounded mans proclivity to find the easiest route to pleasure and success. His genius, intellect and cleverness are part of his identity, and when in conjunction with his conscience and selfless love, do manifest the most noble of paradigms. But when out of the context of morality and conscience his genius loses its inherent nobility. It is important to note that the nobility of mans genius is inherent to its goodness, and that the divine meaning of his genius is more important than the genius itself. We see that love is the source of life, and not only, but good and abundant life. The nobility of genius, which it gets in the context of conscience and morality, subordinates it to love. Apart from love, the ends of genius become the bait of proverbial rat traps.
Without love, genius is dehumanized. If we look back to a time when the field of psychology had no substantive ethics, we see human genius misguided. In the attempt to understand himself and to gain knowledge that would be advantageous for mankind, we see psychologists engaging with some frequency and notoriety in positively atrocious experiments which degraded human beings into mere objects of experimentation. We see these victims of inhumane genius offered up, as it were, to so-called progress. We see the same sort of depraved medical experimentation, even more dramatically and horrifically, carried out by Nazi doctors in concentrations camps. In the attempt to obtain scientific and medical progress, these intellectuals who represent the apex of society made shipwreck of conscience in the name of society’s welfare.
We do the same thing as individuals when we choose to degrade other human being for our own pleasure, profit, and welfare. For instance, abortion, pornography, child labor, and unjust wages to name a few prime examples. The love which we owe our fellow man, the love which is incumbent upon us to give to our neighbor, our family, is negated in these. Humans are very adept at identifying goods, and I use that term not only in a tangible sense, but also psychosocially and metaphysically. These goods drive us, as an incentive to participate in the excellence of love. One of the most exemplary models of love, sex itself, is one such good. In the modern time, when man has been lead to believe that through various means he may obtain the ends of work, the goods, without work he is particularly susceptible in his sexuality. He is prone to believe that apart from the work of love, sex can be his. It’s the cheese on the rat trap, a trap that can only contribute to the destruction of who he really is, because who he really is can only be realized through the work of love.
Hitherto, we seem reaffirmed in the notion that the arduous path of love in which man realizes his true self is a choice. Not only, but that it is the highest expression of his dignity and that all things pertaining to him are concomitant to it. The only way to love, then, is in the context of this notion that all things are subordinate to love, making all life subordinate to love. How sad then that love has been turned into a game, that people, the young especially, are encouraged to treat it like a game. Even worse that they are given license by modern society to love with gravity as many as they see fit, capitulating the most sacred part of themselves in dating. Herein, whether or not sex is present, a confusion and obfuscation of love, of an immense order, is fomented. All this under the pretense that some how they will learn how to love, or the true meaning of love, through exercising their sexuality in perennial relationships with members of the sex to which they are attracted.
Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim. ~Aristotle~
Showing posts with label Happiness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Happiness. Show all posts
Wednesday, 4 April 2012
Thursday, 10 February 2011
Deliver Me, O Jesus "Blessed Mother Teresa"
Deliver me, O Jesus,
From the desire of being loved,
From the desire of being extolled,
From the desire to being honored,
From the desire of being praised,
From the desire of being preferred,
From the desire of being consulted,
From the desire of being approved,
From the desire of being popular,
From the fear of being humiliated,
From the fear of being despised,
From the fear of suffering rebukes,
From the fear of being calumniated,
From the fear of being forgotten,
From the fear of being wronged,
From the fear of being ridiculed,
From the fear of being suspected.
Amen.
~ Blessed Teresa of Calcutta~
"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~
From the desire of being loved,
From the desire of being extolled,
From the desire to being honored,
From the desire of being praised,
From the desire of being preferred,
From the desire of being consulted,
From the desire of being approved,
From the desire of being popular,
From the fear of being humiliated,
From the fear of being despised,
From the fear of suffering rebukes,
From the fear of being calumniated,
From the fear of being forgotten,
From the fear of being wronged,
From the fear of being ridiculed,
From the fear of being suspected.
Amen.
~ Blessed Teresa of Calcutta~
"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~
Wednesday, 19 January 2011
Humanity
Humanity is something that we all have; human is what we are. Our humanity is the "image" of God spoken of in Genesis. If we are totally depraved as the Calvinists say, then it follows necessarily that we are not human. If the image we were created in is totally depraved, there remains nothing left to call human. Christ is called the "kinsman redeemer." It was St. Gregory of Nazianzus who said that, that which is not assumed is not redeemed. Christ redeems humanity and if there is no humanity to redeem, then there is no redemption. The heretical doctrine of Total Depravity seeks to nullify the Incarnation.
Man is certainly depraved by concupiscence; that is not doubted or disputed. However, can one human be more human than another? By all means and this is the work of Christ. Let us begin a discussion of forms. Imagine before you there are two knives. One is dull on the point and on its edge, also corroded and dirty; the other knife is sharp on the point and on it's edge, clean and shinning. Further, imagine that the dull knife has a worn handle that is falling apart and dry rotted. And suppose that the sharp knife's handle is sturdy and sound. If necessity was upon you, which knife would you choose? Certainly, you would choose the sharper, cleaner, and sturdier knife over the dull, decaying knife.
Each of them are knives, no doubt. Yet, you would choose the good knife to the one in disrepair, because the good knife is more like a knife. That is to say, if we define as knife a tool of utility meant for the cutting of food and cloth and other things of a similar sort, then, it is evident to us that the good knife is truer in form to what a knife is than the shoddy knife. The good knife has more knifeness than the bad knife. So, it follows that while they are both knives, the good knife is more of a knife than the bad knife.
Again, let us examine a fruit, a plant. Imagine, that before you are two apple trees; one of them is blotched and cancerous, while the other is healthy and sound. Suppose that the desire to eat an apple came upon you, which tree would you extend your hand to? Would you choose the malformed and blotched, hard fruit of the cancerous apple tree? Or would you not be more likely to reach out and take an apple from the healthful tree, which is succulent, ripe, and shinning? To be sure, you would prefer the wholesome apple to the depraved apple for the very reason that it is more like an apple. It is better for eating and is without blemish or malformation, and is more like an apple than the diseased permutation. Therefore, the good apple and the bad are both apples, yet the good apple has more appleness than the bad apple.
Once more, let us examine animals. Imagine a bitch gave birth to a litter of pups and one of them was mutated, with a malformed jaw and sealed eyes, while it's siblings were sound in form. Suppose further that you were interested in obtaining a pup for breeding other dogs, so as to carry on a pure breed. Which would you choose for this venue? A sound animal or the mutant? Certainly, you would choose one of the sound offspring over the mutant, because it is more like it's own species and breed. Therefore, while all are certainly being dogs, the mutant is less of a dog than its siblings who are sound in form.
We could go on this way with angels as well, and any other species of plant, animal, or object ad infinitum, but there is no need. Therefore, it is rightly said that whatever is more like unto itself is truer. Here we digress to the issue of humanity.
Original Sin deformed mankind so that humanity became less like itself. As a means of remedy, Christ came as a man. In fact, as we can readily discern from our experiment, Christ was more human than the humans he lived amongst and came to die for. Thus, St. Paul was right in calling Him the Second Adam in that He had in His person undelimited humanity. Comparatively, if we use ourselves as the definition of what human means, Christ was superhuman. Yet, in point of fact, Christ alone is the definition of what a human is; He is completely human and it is we who are deficient in humanity.
The Eucharist, which may only be found in the Churches of the Apostles, is given unto us to strengthen us. By receiving the Eucharist, we not only obtain divine graces and mercy, but also become more human by virtue of Christ's humanity which we receive into ourselves. When we look at what God said to Adam in the Garden, we know that Adam was without death. Then, we look at what Christ, Who is God, says to us in the Gospel," Whoever does not eat of My Flesh and drink of My Blood has no life in Him."
This is the truth and we can go to no one else, for as the apostles said, who else has the words of Life? The more human we become, the more like God we become, because our humanity is being restored to its full glory, the true image of God. But this is not the end of Christ's work, for we are brought into God by receiving the Holy Spirit into us. But here, I've committed to only speaking to you about humanity and must digress from theosis and divinity, though admittedly they are intertwined.
Hitherto, those who faithfully receive the Eucharist and continue in it are becoming more human; they are attaining to Christ's humanity. This is why it is so important to be in a Church with VALID sacraments. This is the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism. This is why one should be a Catholic, and why being a "Bible Christian" is not enough. This is only part of what the Most Blessed Sacrament does for us. It is the power of God to put our souls into order. It is the power of God to place our bodies in subjection to the soul. It is the power of God, to literally undo the Gordian Knot of sin and restore our nature. This is how God returns us to being a true microcosm of the Macrocosm, as discussed in my previous note Ecclesiasticus.
And everything on top of this is working out our salvation, attaining to and obtaining the promises of Christ, becoming joint heirs with Christ. How wonderful that we are not only set in order, having our humanity restored to us, but that we have separate graces so as to participate in the righteousness of God. This is eternal life, the Eucharist, the source and summit of our faith.
"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~
Man is certainly depraved by concupiscence; that is not doubted or disputed. However, can one human be more human than another? By all means and this is the work of Christ. Let us begin a discussion of forms. Imagine before you there are two knives. One is dull on the point and on its edge, also corroded and dirty; the other knife is sharp on the point and on it's edge, clean and shinning. Further, imagine that the dull knife has a worn handle that is falling apart and dry rotted. And suppose that the sharp knife's handle is sturdy and sound. If necessity was upon you, which knife would you choose? Certainly, you would choose the sharper, cleaner, and sturdier knife over the dull, decaying knife.
Each of them are knives, no doubt. Yet, you would choose the good knife to the one in disrepair, because the good knife is more like a knife. That is to say, if we define as knife a tool of utility meant for the cutting of food and cloth and other things of a similar sort, then, it is evident to us that the good knife is truer in form to what a knife is than the shoddy knife. The good knife has more knifeness than the bad knife. So, it follows that while they are both knives, the good knife is more of a knife than the bad knife.
Again, let us examine a fruit, a plant. Imagine, that before you are two apple trees; one of them is blotched and cancerous, while the other is healthy and sound. Suppose that the desire to eat an apple came upon you, which tree would you extend your hand to? Would you choose the malformed and blotched, hard fruit of the cancerous apple tree? Or would you not be more likely to reach out and take an apple from the healthful tree, which is succulent, ripe, and shinning? To be sure, you would prefer the wholesome apple to the depraved apple for the very reason that it is more like an apple. It is better for eating and is without blemish or malformation, and is more like an apple than the diseased permutation. Therefore, the good apple and the bad are both apples, yet the good apple has more appleness than the bad apple.
Once more, let us examine animals. Imagine a bitch gave birth to a litter of pups and one of them was mutated, with a malformed jaw and sealed eyes, while it's siblings were sound in form. Suppose further that you were interested in obtaining a pup for breeding other dogs, so as to carry on a pure breed. Which would you choose for this venue? A sound animal or the mutant? Certainly, you would choose one of the sound offspring over the mutant, because it is more like it's own species and breed. Therefore, while all are certainly being dogs, the mutant is less of a dog than its siblings who are sound in form.
We could go on this way with angels as well, and any other species of plant, animal, or object ad infinitum, but there is no need. Therefore, it is rightly said that whatever is more like unto itself is truer. Here we digress to the issue of humanity.
Original Sin deformed mankind so that humanity became less like itself. As a means of remedy, Christ came as a man. In fact, as we can readily discern from our experiment, Christ was more human than the humans he lived amongst and came to die for. Thus, St. Paul was right in calling Him the Second Adam in that He had in His person undelimited humanity. Comparatively, if we use ourselves as the definition of what human means, Christ was superhuman. Yet, in point of fact, Christ alone is the definition of what a human is; He is completely human and it is we who are deficient in humanity.
The Eucharist, which may only be found in the Churches of the Apostles, is given unto us to strengthen us. By receiving the Eucharist, we not only obtain divine graces and mercy, but also become more human by virtue of Christ's humanity which we receive into ourselves. When we look at what God said to Adam in the Garden, we know that Adam was without death. Then, we look at what Christ, Who is God, says to us in the Gospel," Whoever does not eat of My Flesh and drink of My Blood has no life in Him."
This is the truth and we can go to no one else, for as the apostles said, who else has the words of Life? The more human we become, the more like God we become, because our humanity is being restored to its full glory, the true image of God. But this is not the end of Christ's work, for we are brought into God by receiving the Holy Spirit into us. But here, I've committed to only speaking to you about humanity and must digress from theosis and divinity, though admittedly they are intertwined.
Hitherto, those who faithfully receive the Eucharist and continue in it are becoming more human; they are attaining to Christ's humanity. This is why it is so important to be in a Church with VALID sacraments. This is the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism. This is why one should be a Catholic, and why being a "Bible Christian" is not enough. This is only part of what the Most Blessed Sacrament does for us. It is the power of God to put our souls into order. It is the power of God to place our bodies in subjection to the soul. It is the power of God, to literally undo the Gordian Knot of sin and restore our nature. This is how God returns us to being a true microcosm of the Macrocosm, as discussed in my previous note Ecclesiasticus.
And everything on top of this is working out our salvation, attaining to and obtaining the promises of Christ, becoming joint heirs with Christ. How wonderful that we are not only set in order, having our humanity restored to us, but that we have separate graces so as to participate in the righteousness of God. This is eternal life, the Eucharist, the source and summit of our faith.
"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~
Tuesday, 11 January 2011
Ecclesiasticus
Ecclesiasticus 18: 1-5
"He that liveth forever created all things together. God only shall be justified, and he remaineth an invincible king forever. Who is able to declare his works? For who shall search out his glorious acts? And who shall shew forth the power of his majesty? Or who shall be able to declare his mercy? Nothing may be taken away, nor added, neither is it possible to find out the glorious works of God..."
What a great passage! Let's dissect this shall we? Here we have a perfectly ordered idea before us. First we are presented by the Author with the infinite nature of the Creator and then the infinite nature of His works. Just as man is created and therefore creates out of that which is created, here we see that God Who is uncreated creates out of that which is uncreated. This is what Paul was talking about when we access the wonders and power of God in Christ through faith,"... calling those thing that were not as though they be."
To prove God's infinite nature, he does not address His person. Rather, he points out the nature of His works, at the same time showing man his finite nature. He does this so that man will first acknowledge his own nature so that he can begin to recognize God's nature. Being fully aware of his own limitations, man begins to be aware of God's boundless nature. For it is self-evident to all rational creatures that they're limited by their natures. Hence, by this scripture we are made to know that just as God's nature is not delimited, neither is His person and we are sure hereby that He is God.
And who is able to declare His works? Being thusly convinced of his own finite nature and God's infinite nature, man is made to know that he is a microcosm in a macrocosm. His understanding is limited by his own nature. If man knows anything beyond himself it is because the macrocosm of God condescends knowledge to him. And if a man knows anything about himself, then it is only because the Macrocosm caused him to be. In this way man is convinced that all things must come from God and that man can neither add to or take away from their sum. He may know with certainty that even the sum of created things is too excellent for him and learns true humility. Understanding the nobility he has over other creations, man begins to know his order in creation and begins to understand God's love for him.
Man is a microcosm of a macrocosm. God cannot but love man, because he is the image of Himself. And if man is disordered, God is motivated by primal love of Himself to restore the microcosm to homeostasis. The macrocosm will make the microcosm anew. Like from like, and we are convinced of the Incarnation, knowing that God had to become man to make us anew.
When the Blessed Trinity looked down on man's fallen state, the three Persons of the Holy Trinity each were moved to compassion. This is because the Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father. Together they love the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit loves Them; one God, pure, unadulterated love. In looking on man, each Person of the Holy Trinity saw the other two Persons explicit in man's nature. It was the love of God that caused the salvation of mankind primarily. Their love of each Other necessitated the Incarnation. That same divine love is why Christ endured all things.
The only way than man can show anything about God is by being a perfect microcosm, to do more than this not in man's power. But by being perfect, man becomes one with the Macrocosm. In becoming one with God he begins to participate in superhuman activities. His love becomes God's love, his thoughts become God's thoughts because he is taught of God, his motives become God's motives. Man when rightly ordered is absorbed into the macrocosm of God, maintaining his own unique person, yet uniting in fact with the Person of God. And we've seen these people, who God put in order and brought into His bosom and they are the saints.
But who shall search out his glorious acts? And who shall shew forth the power of his majesty? Or who shall be able to declare his mercy? None, except God, because it is written that we shall no longer say to one another,"Know God!" but rather that we shall be, each of us, taught of God ourselves. It is God who shows forth His glorious acts and the power of His majesty. It is God who declares His mercy. But having been united with God, man may begin to know and do those things that were too great for his nature. This is the work of Christ, and for this purpose it is written," You shall be as gods to the Egyptians." the Egyptians not only being themselves, but also representing a type of fallen man, a microcosm cut off from the Macrocosm.
We cannot comprehend the gift of God and that is why it is the most that we can do, by the very limit of our natures, to adore Him. That is why our adoration of Him is the meaning and purpose of life; it is incumbent upon us. It is the sacrifice due to Him; it was why we were made. Our adoration must be total and complete; we must love as He loves. This is why Christ said," I give you a new commandment: love one another as I have loved you... This is how all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one." It must extend to all things: what we do, what we do not do, our intentions, our actions, our thoughts, all things. And this is why we are exhorted by the holy apostle St. Paul to,"...work out our salvation." and the holy apostle St. James says," Faith without works is dead." This is how we are to know full well that the "once saved, always saved" doctrine is a heresy and a lie designed to make us lazy and rob us of our blessings and salvation. Strive to workout your salvation.
Just as St. Paul says, you were foreknown, predestined to salvation by God. Therefore, seek to make your calling and election sure through good works, as though you could justify your own election. Be blessed, all of you and pray for me a sinner.
"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~
"He that liveth forever created all things together. God only shall be justified, and he remaineth an invincible king forever. Who is able to declare his works? For who shall search out his glorious acts? And who shall shew forth the power of his majesty? Or who shall be able to declare his mercy? Nothing may be taken away, nor added, neither is it possible to find out the glorious works of God..."
What a great passage! Let's dissect this shall we? Here we have a perfectly ordered idea before us. First we are presented by the Author with the infinite nature of the Creator and then the infinite nature of His works. Just as man is created and therefore creates out of that which is created, here we see that God Who is uncreated creates out of that which is uncreated. This is what Paul was talking about when we access the wonders and power of God in Christ through faith,"... calling those thing that were not as though they be."
To prove God's infinite nature, he does not address His person. Rather, he points out the nature of His works, at the same time showing man his finite nature. He does this so that man will first acknowledge his own nature so that he can begin to recognize God's nature. Being fully aware of his own limitations, man begins to be aware of God's boundless nature. For it is self-evident to all rational creatures that they're limited by their natures. Hence, by this scripture we are made to know that just as God's nature is not delimited, neither is His person and we are sure hereby that He is God.
And who is able to declare His works? Being thusly convinced of his own finite nature and God's infinite nature, man is made to know that he is a microcosm in a macrocosm. His understanding is limited by his own nature. If man knows anything beyond himself it is because the macrocosm of God condescends knowledge to him. And if a man knows anything about himself, then it is only because the Macrocosm caused him to be. In this way man is convinced that all things must come from God and that man can neither add to or take away from their sum. He may know with certainty that even the sum of created things is too excellent for him and learns true humility. Understanding the nobility he has over other creations, man begins to know his order in creation and begins to understand God's love for him.
Man is a microcosm of a macrocosm. God cannot but love man, because he is the image of Himself. And if man is disordered, God is motivated by primal love of Himself to restore the microcosm to homeostasis. The macrocosm will make the microcosm anew. Like from like, and we are convinced of the Incarnation, knowing that God had to become man to make us anew.
When the Blessed Trinity looked down on man's fallen state, the three Persons of the Holy Trinity each were moved to compassion. This is because the Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father. Together they love the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit loves Them; one God, pure, unadulterated love. In looking on man, each Person of the Holy Trinity saw the other two Persons explicit in man's nature. It was the love of God that caused the salvation of mankind primarily. Their love of each Other necessitated the Incarnation. That same divine love is why Christ endured all things.
The only way than man can show anything about God is by being a perfect microcosm, to do more than this not in man's power. But by being perfect, man becomes one with the Macrocosm. In becoming one with God he begins to participate in superhuman activities. His love becomes God's love, his thoughts become God's thoughts because he is taught of God, his motives become God's motives. Man when rightly ordered is absorbed into the macrocosm of God, maintaining his own unique person, yet uniting in fact with the Person of God. And we've seen these people, who God put in order and brought into His bosom and they are the saints.
But who shall search out his glorious acts? And who shall shew forth the power of his majesty? Or who shall be able to declare his mercy? None, except God, because it is written that we shall no longer say to one another,"Know God!" but rather that we shall be, each of us, taught of God ourselves. It is God who shows forth His glorious acts and the power of His majesty. It is God who declares His mercy. But having been united with God, man may begin to know and do those things that were too great for his nature. This is the work of Christ, and for this purpose it is written," You shall be as gods to the Egyptians." the Egyptians not only being themselves, but also representing a type of fallen man, a microcosm cut off from the Macrocosm.
We cannot comprehend the gift of God and that is why it is the most that we can do, by the very limit of our natures, to adore Him. That is why our adoration of Him is the meaning and purpose of life; it is incumbent upon us. It is the sacrifice due to Him; it was why we were made. Our adoration must be total and complete; we must love as He loves. This is why Christ said," I give you a new commandment: love one another as I have loved you... This is how all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one." It must extend to all things: what we do, what we do not do, our intentions, our actions, our thoughts, all things. And this is why we are exhorted by the holy apostle St. Paul to,"...work out our salvation." and the holy apostle St. James says," Faith without works is dead." This is how we are to know full well that the "once saved, always saved" doctrine is a heresy and a lie designed to make us lazy and rob us of our blessings and salvation. Strive to workout your salvation.
Just as St. Paul says, you were foreknown, predestined to salvation by God. Therefore, seek to make your calling and election sure through good works, as though you could justify your own election. Be blessed, all of you and pray for me a sinner.
"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~
Monday, 3 January 2011
Theodicy - The Problem of Evil
I was commenting recently to an Atheist friend; the eminent Richard Dawkins had come up on her page. I was wondering what Richard Dawkins would do with a guy like Ken Miller, a well published molecular and cell biologist who gives assent to evolution and does his own debates against American Evangelical Creationism. Ken Miller is Roman Catholic and says that he is a theist in the broadest sense. Admittedly, that can only mean one thing... he doesn't give much attention to his faith.
A little while later it dawned on me," You know... that probably wouldn't be that great of a debate." The reason being is that the only thing they would have to argue about is the cosmological argument, which is the issue of whether or not the universe has a cause and what that might be. The other thing they might argue about is theodicy, which addresses the problem of evil.
These are the two pitfalls of such debates. It's one thing to watch an atheist scientist beat up on a theist rhetorician who parrots second hand Creationist arguments, to watch an atheist scientist and a theist scientist shrug in agreement, but quite another to watch them wade into a mire of philosophical issues they don't have the credentials to discuss.
So often people watch these epic clashes, bedazzled by the scientific jargon, sitting on the edge of their seats, mesmerized by the simultaneous embarrassment and verbal glory of the debaters. We forget that these men are usually specialists, or at least pretend to be. They are either theologians, scientists, philosophers, or mere rhetoricians. Too often, the rhetorician plays the menace and it must be admitted that most often in the matters of science it's a theist. A creationist rhetorician will hide behind a mass of unfinished, ill-quoted, misinformed, assumptions and subjective arguments. We even catch them holding up completely discredited and disproved theories like the infamous "irreducible complexity of the eye" and the "irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum." If the creationist initiates a question on science and the atheist responds with a line of science, he will follow a line of so-called morality, and visa versa, evading the issue.
Too often theists in general get represented by meddling rhetoricians who aren't qualified to teach a high school biology class. But on the other hand, Atheists are just as guilty. Such is the case with Dawkins. Dawkins is a Biologist; that's what he is. But you see him attempting to speak authoritatively on philosophy, morality, history, ethics, virtue, etc. He's not qualified to comment on any of those things and usually he ends up hackneying out arguments from Kant, Hegel, and Hume with shaky form and questionable understanding. Even if he did possess a good understanding of such philosophies, which has not been evidenced, he does not have the ability to defend these philosophies systematically, nor can he explain their intricacies. It's cocktail party knowledge; they don't really even know what they are talking about.
Because of this, Dawkins and other atheists often come out strong with tricky and hard ethical questions, but end up feebly retiring prematurely, feigning a noble profession of ignorance in an attempt to make their opponents look arrogant. That's not to say that such atheist debaters don't exist, those who are philosophers and anthropologist, etc. Rather, most often apologetics debates are completely mismatched. In fact, I've never seen one that was well matched. I've observed a team of atheists versus a team of creationists. But what if such a panel existed where you had the best of the best? The atheist team having an anthropologist, a biologist, a philosopher, and a physicist; and the theist side had a theologian, a biologist, a philosopher, and a physicist? Only then I think would such a debate be worthy of note; a debate where another two could continue where the former two left off.
Anyway, as stated, most apologetics debates disintegrate once the issue of philosophy and theodicy arise. The debate turns into a defamation of ideas, a verbal slug-fest, and all sides deteriorate into ridiculous non sequiturs and random scenarios designed not to reveal the truth, but rather into trap the opponent in his words or trick him into admitting something as if character assassination was the point of the debate. This of course usually takes place at the end of the debate once both sides are fatigued after having tried to their utmost to make eloquent arguments and eloquent refutations. It becomes nothing more than a show of vanity by the end, very often.
Leaving aside the venue of apologetics and focusing on theodicy, I think the subject deserves some treatment. It's a fair question the atheist asks," If there is a God, then why is there so much suffering and what we might call evil in the world?" The thing is, most atheists would be talking out both sides of their mouth by even saying this. Atheist don't believe in a universal morality, they don't believe in objective ethics and virtues. In fact, most of them would staunchly defend the notion that these are conventional, man-made, subjective concepts. So, in essence, if we take their assertion as just stated, then that would be like asking an Alaskan native to account for culture of the Bushmen of Africa. Subjective is subjective right?
But far from attempting to wiggle out of answering, like the rhetorician does, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy there, and I'll go a little further. The atheist asks the question because the theist is stating that there is an objective morality and that there is a universal right. So, the atheist is basically putting a ball in the theists court that he's pretty sure the theist can't possibly dribble. That's fair; the atheist shouldn't have to argue the theists side of the argument for him. But supposing that the atheist is right, what then? What do we make of evil? What can we possibly say? There's only one thing we can say: there is no real evil, there is no real morality. What then? If there's no tangible, objective moral difference between giving a person a hug and giving them poison, then there is no problem of evil. It simply doesn't exist.
This is where the atheist hypocrisy usually rears it's ugly head and we have a full on, uncompromising endorsement of morals from the atheist, which is exactly what they atheist was refusing to tolerate from the theist. Except, instead of the theist's morals, the atheist pushes post-modern humanism down everyone's throat. So, the atheist only condemns the theist so they can turn around and do the same exact thing, and that as we all know, whether you're a theist or an atheist, is pure hypocrisy.
Theodicy can seem like a tough nut to crack, but in reality the only thing that makes it a tough subject is that people apply strawmen to the people arguing the issue. For some reason, the theist isn't allowed to make an argument unless he defends the Calvinist double-predestination, where God controls everything and everyone and micromanages the universe with supreme impeccability, right down to the tiniest quirk. That's kinda like the atheist saying to the theist," Hey, let's race, but you have to drive in the car I give you." Huh?
In a universe where God and man are both described according to the Catholic schematic, answering theodicy isn't problematic at all. The universe works in the same pattern as we observe everyday. Parents make a child, the child once grown has choices to make. It can make good choices or bad choices. In short, freewill is the answer to theodicy. At the bottom of each of my blogs I have my favorite quote from Aristotle, perhaps from all philosophy," Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim."
God is the good; the good is certainly something anyone can give assent to and at the same time know that it is immeasurable. Here we have a reasonable argument concerning God, I think.. Everyone does what they do for a reason, even when accidents happen, they did certain things which set the accident in motion. A woman procures an abortion so that she will not be encumbered with a child, aiming at the good of freedom. A man steals to satisfy a desire, aiming at the good of happiness. People rape to satisfy sexual urges and to establish dominance, aiming at the goods of power and pleasure. All of them fail miserably. In the end, however, they prove Aristotle correct, that all things do in fact aim at the Good.
So, the problem of evil is exactly what Christians have been saying it is all along: a conflict between man's ability and desire to obtain the good. It comes down to free will. Man must take responsibility for the problem of evil, because he causes it and eliminates it, by both action an inaction. This has nothing to do with God being malevolent and everything to do with His sovereignty. As the Greek philosophers were so fond of saying," The sun, too, peers into privies and is not contaminated by them." That evil exists has not to do with God. In fact, evil is a kind of vacuum, seeing as how God is the Good and evil is chiefly a lack of good, as we have just demonstrated with the rapist, the thief, and the murderer. The Christian schematic isn't problematic at all, like the Atheist suggested it was. It's only problematic if Christianity is forced in such a debate to defend a heresy and a non-God. There, theodicy solved.
"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~
A little while later it dawned on me," You know... that probably wouldn't be that great of a debate." The reason being is that the only thing they would have to argue about is the cosmological argument, which is the issue of whether or not the universe has a cause and what that might be. The other thing they might argue about is theodicy, which addresses the problem of evil.
These are the two pitfalls of such debates. It's one thing to watch an atheist scientist beat up on a theist rhetorician who parrots second hand Creationist arguments, to watch an atheist scientist and a theist scientist shrug in agreement, but quite another to watch them wade into a mire of philosophical issues they don't have the credentials to discuss.
So often people watch these epic clashes, bedazzled by the scientific jargon, sitting on the edge of their seats, mesmerized by the simultaneous embarrassment and verbal glory of the debaters. We forget that these men are usually specialists, or at least pretend to be. They are either theologians, scientists, philosophers, or mere rhetoricians. Too often, the rhetorician plays the menace and it must be admitted that most often in the matters of science it's a theist. A creationist rhetorician will hide behind a mass of unfinished, ill-quoted, misinformed, assumptions and subjective arguments. We even catch them holding up completely discredited and disproved theories like the infamous "irreducible complexity of the eye" and the "irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum." If the creationist initiates a question on science and the atheist responds with a line of science, he will follow a line of so-called morality, and visa versa, evading the issue.
Too often theists in general get represented by meddling rhetoricians who aren't qualified to teach a high school biology class. But on the other hand, Atheists are just as guilty. Such is the case with Dawkins. Dawkins is a Biologist; that's what he is. But you see him attempting to speak authoritatively on philosophy, morality, history, ethics, virtue, etc. He's not qualified to comment on any of those things and usually he ends up hackneying out arguments from Kant, Hegel, and Hume with shaky form and questionable understanding. Even if he did possess a good understanding of such philosophies, which has not been evidenced, he does not have the ability to defend these philosophies systematically, nor can he explain their intricacies. It's cocktail party knowledge; they don't really even know what they are talking about.
Because of this, Dawkins and other atheists often come out strong with tricky and hard ethical questions, but end up feebly retiring prematurely, feigning a noble profession of ignorance in an attempt to make their opponents look arrogant. That's not to say that such atheist debaters don't exist, those who are philosophers and anthropologist, etc. Rather, most often apologetics debates are completely mismatched. In fact, I've never seen one that was well matched. I've observed a team of atheists versus a team of creationists. But what if such a panel existed where you had the best of the best? The atheist team having an anthropologist, a biologist, a philosopher, and a physicist; and the theist side had a theologian, a biologist, a philosopher, and a physicist? Only then I think would such a debate be worthy of note; a debate where another two could continue where the former two left off.
Anyway, as stated, most apologetics debates disintegrate once the issue of philosophy and theodicy arise. The debate turns into a defamation of ideas, a verbal slug-fest, and all sides deteriorate into ridiculous non sequiturs and random scenarios designed not to reveal the truth, but rather into trap the opponent in his words or trick him into admitting something as if character assassination was the point of the debate. This of course usually takes place at the end of the debate once both sides are fatigued after having tried to their utmost to make eloquent arguments and eloquent refutations. It becomes nothing more than a show of vanity by the end, very often.
Leaving aside the venue of apologetics and focusing on theodicy, I think the subject deserves some treatment. It's a fair question the atheist asks," If there is a God, then why is there so much suffering and what we might call evil in the world?" The thing is, most atheists would be talking out both sides of their mouth by even saying this. Atheist don't believe in a universal morality, they don't believe in objective ethics and virtues. In fact, most of them would staunchly defend the notion that these are conventional, man-made, subjective concepts. So, in essence, if we take their assertion as just stated, then that would be like asking an Alaskan native to account for culture of the Bushmen of Africa. Subjective is subjective right?
But far from attempting to wiggle out of answering, like the rhetorician does, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy there, and I'll go a little further. The atheist asks the question because the theist is stating that there is an objective morality and that there is a universal right. So, the atheist is basically putting a ball in the theists court that he's pretty sure the theist can't possibly dribble. That's fair; the atheist shouldn't have to argue the theists side of the argument for him. But supposing that the atheist is right, what then? What do we make of evil? What can we possibly say? There's only one thing we can say: there is no real evil, there is no real morality. What then? If there's no tangible, objective moral difference between giving a person a hug and giving them poison, then there is no problem of evil. It simply doesn't exist.
This is where the atheist hypocrisy usually rears it's ugly head and we have a full on, uncompromising endorsement of morals from the atheist, which is exactly what they atheist was refusing to tolerate from the theist. Except, instead of the theist's morals, the atheist pushes post-modern humanism down everyone's throat. So, the atheist only condemns the theist so they can turn around and do the same exact thing, and that as we all know, whether you're a theist or an atheist, is pure hypocrisy.
Theodicy can seem like a tough nut to crack, but in reality the only thing that makes it a tough subject is that people apply strawmen to the people arguing the issue. For some reason, the theist isn't allowed to make an argument unless he defends the Calvinist double-predestination, where God controls everything and everyone and micromanages the universe with supreme impeccability, right down to the tiniest quirk. That's kinda like the atheist saying to the theist," Hey, let's race, but you have to drive in the car I give you." Huh?
In a universe where God and man are both described according to the Catholic schematic, answering theodicy isn't problematic at all. The universe works in the same pattern as we observe everyday. Parents make a child, the child once grown has choices to make. It can make good choices or bad choices. In short, freewill is the answer to theodicy. At the bottom of each of my blogs I have my favorite quote from Aristotle, perhaps from all philosophy," Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim."
God is the good; the good is certainly something anyone can give assent to and at the same time know that it is immeasurable. Here we have a reasonable argument concerning God, I think.. Everyone does what they do for a reason, even when accidents happen, they did certain things which set the accident in motion. A woman procures an abortion so that she will not be encumbered with a child, aiming at the good of freedom. A man steals to satisfy a desire, aiming at the good of happiness. People rape to satisfy sexual urges and to establish dominance, aiming at the goods of power and pleasure. All of them fail miserably. In the end, however, they prove Aristotle correct, that all things do in fact aim at the Good.
So, the problem of evil is exactly what Christians have been saying it is all along: a conflict between man's ability and desire to obtain the good. It comes down to free will. Man must take responsibility for the problem of evil, because he causes it and eliminates it, by both action an inaction. This has nothing to do with God being malevolent and everything to do with His sovereignty. As the Greek philosophers were so fond of saying," The sun, too, peers into privies and is not contaminated by them." That evil exists has not to do with God. In fact, evil is a kind of vacuum, seeing as how God is the Good and evil is chiefly a lack of good, as we have just demonstrated with the rapist, the thief, and the murderer. The Christian schematic isn't problematic at all, like the Atheist suggested it was. It's only problematic if Christianity is forced in such a debate to defend a heresy and a non-God. There, theodicy solved.
"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~
Monday, 27 December 2010
The End of Education
The value of a college education depends on what you do with it and what sort of person you are. Summarily, however, education in itself, if educated in the truth can only have a positive effect on the whole of the person. As Juvenal the Roman poet said,” A healthy mind in a healthy body.”
In the beginning of higher education, as we are familiar with it, we see it as a means of bettering both the society around us and ourselves, it was a pious activity designed to enlighten one and all in antiquity. This seems to have changed, however, and while the benefit of college education is evident everywhere, it has popularly become a tool to be used only in becoming richer. In this case, we see that what was meant to free mankind, emancipate his soul, and move us forward as a society has become a means with which to exacerbate objectification.
If our education only serves to enable our various base impulses, then all we see is the continual waxing of “blindness” to the truth, which only brings about unhappiness. The positions we earn via education become a yoke and do not help us. If a person gets educational honors in a process they loathed, so that they can do a job that is loathsome, simply so they can have a bigger house and more money… they are miserable. They are constantly tortured by their own wantonness, which they have enabled and inflamed, to do what they don’t want to do so that they can have what they want. When they finally get what they want they are concerned with keeping it, and the savor they should have enjoyed the thing with is marginalized by the excessive bitterness whereby they acquired it! This cycle is repeated indefinitely. The person is worse off than a slave, because a slave at least gets to do what he wants to sometimes, this person never does.
In this instance, it is far better that a man, simply do good and be good and not go to college, lest he glut his passions and ruin his life. After all, Diogenes was right," Content is the wealth of nature." and," Whoever is content with the least, has the most."
"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)