Theology III

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

preceed the body? Exist beyond it?

Eh?

Originally Posted by Lief

I'm fairly sure I don't understand what you're saying here.

It's Aristotle's definition of the soul. A naturally organized body means a body which comes equipped with 'tools', so to speak, by nature, and not by artifice. This basically boils down to animals and plants. Actuality is contrasted with potency, which basically boils down to the power of a thing to be, so that actuality is the thing being so in reality. For instance, a six-year old is in potency an adult man, because he is able to become so; however, in actuality, he is a small child.

I find that the best way to distinguish between first and second actuality is by an analogy. First actuality can be considered to be like having knowledge, and second actuality can be considered to be like contemplating that knowledge. So, first actuality is like having something in actuality, while second actuality is like actually using it.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Gwai quoted Aristotle
He believed the first thing a body needs to become alive, is a soul.

He went a bit further than that, and said that being ensouled was the distinguishing characteristic of living things. The soul is not just the first, but the only thing a body needs to be alive.

Originally Posted by Lief

Gwaimir, does Catholicism have much in the way of internal divisions and subgroups?

Lief, the response is simply mind-boggling. Are you talking along the lines of official divisions, or ideological/factional divisions?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Eh?

The source and identity of the soul.

That's a good topic, isn't it?

Does the soul exist before the body?

Does the soul persist beyond death?

If the soul is the thing that 'animates', as it were, a body, sets it apart from dinner, does it have an identity of its own?

Analogy. Deep Space Nine, lol.

There's an alien race known as the Trill that "inhabit hosts." The predominant identity of that mixed creature is as the Trill, who give their name to the host.

This might be seen as an analogy for the soul. If so, what life does the soul have outside its current 'host"?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

The soul does not exist before the body.

The soul as a whole does not exist after body; the intellect, which is a part of a soul, does exist separately after the body, however.

That is, of course, until the resurrection, at which point the naturally organized body is actualized again. This explains why we Catholics are keen on the resurrection of the dead; we don't much like the idea of a disembodied intellect separate from the physical.

The soul does not really have an identity of its own; it, together with the body, go together to make one whole being. The identity of either own is as a part of the whole. Even when the intellect is hovering around after death, it is not something altogether cut off from what it was before, but is a part of a whole, that whole having been broken up.

There you have it; my 2 cents.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Soul, body, and mind?

Is that third one doctrinal to Catholicism, or just a personal preference. (and I'm asking sincerely, although I know it sounds snotty, lol. )

[Rían]

Originally Posted by sis

But a return to the specifically religious thread here would be nice, and I think everyone wants to hear the rest of Rian's story.

and here it is


I held my son still so the man could get at him better.

And that's the truth.




But it's not the whole truth.

The rest of the truth is that I was at an emergency room, where I had taken my son, who had developed a post-operative infection after hernia surgery, and the man's name was Dr. Hansen, and he had anesthetized the infection site, and by cutting into my son with that sharp knife, he let the infected stuff out (really yucky! I had to sit down afterwards - it made me a bit green about the gills!) so that my son could heal.

The reason I thought of that story was that I felt that this free-will discussion, though an interesting one (I love to discuss just about anything!) was just part of the truth, and the part that was left out completed the picture, just like in my story.

I think the whole picture is that God made us such incredible beings, with amazing abilities to do great and marvellous things (or terrible things ), and with the ability to make choices every day, as far as we can tell, and we need to act on that. And one of the choices God offers to us, because he loves us so much, is to be restored to a right relationship with him - the guy that made the whole darn business in the first place! And in that restoration is life and truth and fulness of joy - and lots of fun!

I don't know, it just seems ... I just wanted to yell out, "so what if we DON'T have free will? What do you suggest - to do nothing? We have so much opportunity to do good - to right wrongs, to enjoy beauty and love - does it even matter if we have free will or just think we do?

Anyway, maybe that story was off-topic, but hey, look at my title! (Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails) And even if it was off-topic, I think it teaches an important lesson - that the whole truth is important, and also that it matters a great deal WHO is holding the sharp knife.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I don't know, it just seems ... I just wanted to yell out, "so what if we DON'T have free will? What do you suggest - to do nothing? We have so much opportunity to do good - to right wrongs, to enjoy beauty and love - does it even matter if we have free will or just think we do?

Or even if we don't think we do?

And, on this, I totally agree.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Lief, the response is simply mind-boggling. Are you talking along the lines of official divisions, or ideological/factional divisions?

Yes to both.

And if there are, do they at all resemble the ideological differences between the Protestant denominations?

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

and here it is


I held my son still so the man could get at him better.

And that's the truth.

Lol!

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

The reason I thought of that story was that I felt that this free-will discussion, though an interesting one (I love to discuss just about anything!) was just part of the truth, and the part that was left out completed the picture, just like in my story.

I think the whole picture is that God made us such incredible beings, with amazing abilities to do great and marvellous things (or terrible things ), and with the ability to make choices every day, as far as we can tell, and we need to act on that. And one of the choices God offers to us, because he loves us so much, is to be restored to a right relationship with him - the guy that made the whole darn business in the first place! And in that restoration is life and truth and fulness of joy - and lots of fun!

If "as far as we can tell," is interchangable to you with "from our perspectives," then I agree.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I don't know, it just seems ... I just wanted to yell out, "so what if we DON'T have free will? What do you suggest - to do nothing? We have so much opportunity to do good - to right wrongs, to enjoy beauty and love - does it even matter if we have free will or just think we do?

I agree with your yell and its content .

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Anyway, maybe that story was off-topic, but hey, look at my title! (Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails) And even if it was off-topic, I think it teaches an important lesson - that the whole truth is important, and also that it matters a great deal WHO is holding the sharp knife.

Very good point.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

You think its more ethical to leave your baby to an attacker with a knife then attempt to protect them?

I wouldn't, and didn't, say "more ethical." I did say it shouldn't be considered unethical for the person to do nothing if her chance of success is very low.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Why would a burglar break in to attack me? If he was stealing stuff (which is what burglars do) I wouldn’t want ANYONE to intervene. Because the likelihood is he wouldn’t attempt to hurt us anyway. Just take stuff.

Forget burglar- that was a poor word choice. "Thug" would probably be a better one.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

But if some lunatic randomly broke in to attack me then I would want my kids to call 911. And yeah the girlfriend would come at him with a meat cleaver whether I wanted her to or not. Not cower in the corner reciting prayers.

First of all, I'd say I very much agree with you about the kids calling 911. That's different from them actually getting involved in the physical fighting, though.

Second is about the girlfriend. First of all, you see what you've done? You've given her a deadly weapon. That changes the dynamics of the situation significantly. Would you want her to fight alone against a physically more powerful and armed man, with her unarmed and trying to protect her child? That is a situation where I don't feel she should feel ethically compelled to attempt it. Most situations of woman against man, which is what I referred to when I said I didn't think she should feel ethically compelled to involve herself in situations "like that," are going to take place with the woman having small chance of beating the man. That's just the fact of the difference of male and female physical and psychological development.

Secondly, you've presented a scenario where it's therefore two on one, you and your girlfriend against one thug. That's a scenario where the girlfriend could help a good deal by her presence, and I myself said in my post that I'd particularly rather the woman run if her presence wouldn't even the odds.

My point was about odds. Any randomly selected woman is not likely to be as physically strong as a randomly selected man. She also is not likely to be as aggressive, as I demonstrated with statistics in the Gender Issues Thread. So this means that mentally and physically, she's not likely to be that huge a help. If, on the other hand, she's armed with a deadly weapon, then that changes the odds, and her being involved in the fighting is more likely to do good.

I didn't receive any information from RÃ*an that she was armed with a deadly weapon. What I heard was that it was her, alone, against an armed man. To me, the odds there of her being successful (unless she relied on Christ and intervened, which dramatically improves the likelihood of her succeeding) are therefore minimal. And I wouldn't want two lives thrown away instead of one.

I expect that your position and mine on this issue aren't actually all that different. But if you want to continue this discussion, let's do it in the Gender Issues Thread, shall we?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

.That is, of course, until the resurrection, at which point the naturally organized body is actualized again.

Where does it hang out when it's not working?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And yeah the girlfriend would come at him with a meat cleaver whether I wanted her to or not. Not cower in the corner reciting prayers.

My kinda gal.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lief Erikson
The meaning will die with you, though, or at least with humanity, so it's strictly temporary. So in the long run, it's meaningless. It only has meaning to you and in the short term.


Just because something is temporary does not mean that it is meaningless. In fact, I'd argue that the very temporary nature of life makes it all that much more precious. In my mind, this one brief chance at existence is all I have, and I'm going to make the most of it.

But the most you make of it comes to nothing. It might make a difference to some people around you, and in that sense have a temporary immortality, though its impact will be steadily diluted with succeeding generations.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

On the flipside, looking too much towards the eternity of afterlife seems to lead to the kind of Jihadish mentality that has little or no concern for the here and now, as long as one is convinced that they are following a path that will lead them to eternal glory. A path which is, by the nature of the questions involved, completely relative to the individual, and thus promotes the "us and them" over "all of us".

A Jihad mentality is one way that looking toward eternity can result in. And tyranny is a way that government can result in. That doesn't mean that government is bad, and neither does it mean that looking toward eternity is bad.

Though actually, Christian meaning is found in the here and now as well as in eternity. Its permanence guarantees its meaning. A meaning that doesn't last is like a dream one wakes up from and doesn't remember. It's as if it never happened, and so is not, ultimately, meaningful. If one enjoys the dream though, and the dream continues forever, then the meaning remains and exists.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

That's all fine and well (though a bit depressing ),

I actually find it a huge relief. To know that I don't have to rely on my choosing the right course with my "free will," to get to heaven or remain close to God, but to know instead that I can rely upon God's infinite wisdom, power and love, to bring me to his kingdom, and that I can just trust him to take me there rather than relying on myself and him to get me there . . . I can't tell you how relieved that makes me feel. Human abilities aren't to be trusted. God is to be trusted. Hence, that I don't have to rely on myself, and that I don't have to feel as though I'm going to get myself to heaven by refusing sin always by my free choice, is an absolutely tremendous freedom from burden, for me.

I used to worry that ten years from now, I might choose evil, come to hate God for whatever reason and so lose my place in God's kingdom. Now, though, as I know that I'm in God's hands ALONE and not also in my own hands AT ALL, I can relax and enjoy life and my relationship with God, without concern for my destiny. That's a matter of trust.

I'll move on to the bigger, more important part of your post a little later.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Or even if we don't think we do?

That too

And, on this, I totally agree.

Yay!

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

We come and go.

[Rían]

*high-fives sis*

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Soul, body, and mind?

Is that third one doctrinal to Catholicism, or just a personal preference. (and I'm asking sincerely, although I know it sounds snotty, lol. )

What is generally called the 'mind' can be considered to roughly correspond to the Aristotelian intellect, I should say, and thus would be part of the soul. So, Body, Mind, and Soul is sort of like saying Soul, Big Toe, and Body. One in contained in another.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Yes to both.

And if there are, do they at all resemble the ideological differences between the Protestant denominations?

They don't really correspond to the ideological differences in the Protestant denominations. But first things first:

Hierarchically, the Catholic Church is divided into the Roman Catholic Church and some 21 different Eastern Catholic Churches. All hold the same dogmas, all are in communion with each other and in submission to the Pope. The differences lies in the particular approach of the different Churches to Christianity, though they all come to the same conclusions (not to say that all individuals of all the Churches hold to the dogmas of the Faith, but they are officially taught, and generally held), which is most noticeable in the liturgical and spiritual practices of the different churches. Also, each Church is organized under a different hierarchy, though all are subject ultimately to the Pope.

As for ideological, there are definitely different factions. I suppose you could say that there are three main factions, though of course to truly capture the truth of the matter in all its shades of grey would require a hell of a lot more time than I can offer. There are the liberals, who tend to align themselves more with the secular world than with the Church when it comes to matters of points of view. There are the neocons, who generally reject the heresies common amongst the liberals, but also sometimes have a tendency to disagree with the Vatican on non-dogmatic issues, such as death penalty and war; both of these groups tend to regard the Catholic Church to have sprung into existence after the Second Vatican Council, particularly the former. There are also Catholics who are called traditional, preferring traditional forms of theological expression and of liturgy to more modern ones, and tending to study closely the ancient Fathers and Doctors of the Church. There is a tendency among this last group to be quite excessively conservative sometimes, and they sometimes share some beliefs with the neocons, which Rome disagrees with.

There is of course much more nuance to it than that, but that's all I have time for!

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Where does it hang out when it's not working?

Which?

[Lief Erikson]

Thanks for the explanation, Gwaimir .

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Between being joined with the body and being rejoined, where is it?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

What is generally called the 'mind' can be considered to roughly correspond to the Aristotelian intellect, I should say, and thus would be part of the soul. So, Body, Mind, and Soul is sort of like saying Soul, Big Toe, and Body. One in contained in another.

just checking.

[Tessar]

I never studied that part much, but as I recall the 'rejoining' (at least as I was taught it) is with a new body, not your old one.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Tessar

I never studied that part much, but as I recall the 'rejoining' (at least as I was taught it) is with a new body, not your old one.

Soul storage? Heaven?

I'm seeing one of those long storage units. lol

[Lief Erikson]

Brownjenkins, I responded to the other parts of your post in post 170, and am now continuing .

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

That's all fine and well (though a bit depressing ), but it doesn't address my main point that it is crazy to assign any real "responsibility" to god's creations in such a universe, unless you decide to come up with your own definition of responsibility, like you did for free will.

I think that you'll find the place where I might twist things a bit from the way you're used to thinking of them is not in my use of the word "responsibility," but rather in the word "judgment." I'm going to give you a couple definitions of judgment that are very, very Christian. The point I'm trying to argue is that predestination makes sense in the context of Christianity, so using Christian definitions is fully valid in the accomplishing of my goal. My most important definition of "freedom," submission to God, is actually also exceedingly Christian. I think RÃ*an and C.S. Lewis and lots of others agree with the definitions of judgments I'm about to offer. These definitions are mainstream Christianity, and quite appropriate.


I know of two key definitions of judgment, in Christianity. Neither of them is simply punitive. Perhaps the Final Judgment will be strictly punitive, but even if it is, I don't believe that it is everlasting torture. I could get into the scriptural reasons for that, if you wish.

1) Judgment, according to C.S. Lewis (and the Bible ) is God's loudspeaker to mankind. It is God's way of calling people to repentance. Even when it means killing large numbers of people, the scripture says that sometimes, people are judged in the body that they might be saved in the spirit. Not that this will always be successful, but judgment from God, such as is seen in the terrifying apocalyptic dooms predicted in Revelation, in the Flood with Noah, in the invasion of Canaan, etc., these and many lesser punishments are instructive, seeking through pain to bring the person back to righteousness, just as, on an incredibly blown up scale, a father will spank his child Fred to bring him back to doing what is best for Fred and what is right.

2) Judgment comes in the form of the natural consequences for a sinner's sin. For example, if I'm greedy, that greed will turn me away from activities that are holy and focus me on sating my own desires. Being turned inward and away from things that bring true happiness and joy will by nature prove its own judgment. The sin is self-destructive.

This actually gets to the roots of my beliefs about hell, the temporary hell where Satan and the damned dwell before the Final Judgment. I think both heaven and hell start here on Earth, in the souls of man, and continue in the afterlife. If a person carries sin about with him throughout life in his soul, it gains a place in his life and he becomes a slave to it. His physical death doesn't change that fact. He carried hell around in his soul in life, and he does too in death, for heaven and hell are in the soul.

Jesus actually said in the scripture that heaven is in people's souls. It only makes intuitive sense that the converse, that hell is in men's souls, would also be true. The book Foust, along with a gift of discernment of spirits that the Lord has given me, combined with this scripture and with simple logical reasoning, helped me in coming to the view I now have of hell.

Foust simply took it the next logical step. Heaven is in people's hearts; so is hell.

Thinking about it with reason alone, if God were to take the good people out of society and unite them with him, and let those who love sin go ahead and live together in it, the evil people who are now clumped together would destroy one another. I don't need to go and throw tons of outside tortures on them as a punitive judgment, even if I did want to (which God makes clear he doesn't, in Ezekiel). They'll torture one another and destroy one another, simply because that is the kind of people they are. Sin is self-destructive and so creates hell.

Here's where I finally get to my points about responsibility.

As I have shown, judgment is not punitive. I think I agree with you that the person is not responsible. However, the fact that the person is not responsible doesn't mean that the person is being unjustly judged. It is the person's nature that is condemned. It is self-condemned and self-destroyed. God's punishments of the person seek to bring the person back from this ultimate self-destruction and to holiness and joy. With some people, he knew and predestined that they would not heed his calls to repentance through either prophets or judgments. So one could argue that in these cases, where he's punishing people he knows will still reject him in order to bring them back to him when he knows they won't come, he's just torturing them. However, this hypothetical "one" who I'm presently arguing with would be wrong, as a point to it exists.

The point is that, by bringing judgments against those one knows will refuse to heed them and accept their lessons, these evildoers' natures are proven to be utterly wicked and utterly rebellious against God, even in the face of his greatest endeavors to bring them back to him. This proof of their wickedness becomes a lesson to those who remain after the wicked are no more. Seeing fully the depths of villainy, they appreciate more fully the heights of God's glory.


I guess I see responsible behavior and irresponsible behavior as existing, but I don't think anyone has the ability to choose between the two. We only do from our own limited perspectives. We will be ourselves.

Judgment is the natural result of an evil nature and is not punitive. Unless it's punitive in the Final Judgment, which I don't know enough about to discuss. But in all cases prior to the Final Judgment, it is not punitive.

Evil natures naturally produce evil actions, and righteous natures naturally produce righteous actions. They didn't have the ability to choose, but they rather were what they were. Evil natures are condemned. Evil is condemned, evil natures condemned, and evil man too, for he has an evil nature and becomes utterly wicked. Consciousness too, when enmeshed with evil, is and produces a terrible new depth of wickedness. Witnessing it and its destruction is a valuable lesson for God's followers.

The judgment is not based on responsibility but rather is self-produced in nature, except for the judgment through which God calls people to righteousness.