Then we agree I guess!


"It's immoral because you are subject to God's Law - and you were created in such a way as to be subject to it."

Yes correct . Though I prefer to say that it is immoral because we are made in the image of God.

" I know St. Augustine and the later Saints supported this view, but I think it's absolutely wrong."

I think you need to study Augustine in his understanding of this more thoroughly. There are many things I find problematic in Augustine's writings, but this is NOT one of them.

"So apparently, something - the free will of man - can displace God, so that God ceases to exist where the privation of good exists right? So His omnipresence was a joke. That's absurd."

A complete misunderstanding of what Augustine was saying.

"(although yes, there are instances when murder is not wrong - or better said excusable. If you attack me with a knife for example, and I end up killing you, that is morally excusable)."

Agreed. Yet it is quite obvious that the saints would not agree entirely.

Btw I have written like 3 other posts directed to you... I would appreciate if you answered them

Also, God isnt 100 percent incomprehensible anymore, because we have Christ, right? We know how he is because of Christ.

What I Think is my personal problem with your view on christianity, God, man etc. is that you(and this is my problem with Aquinas too) talk about man and think about man in third person, and man sounds like an "it", created as some sort of a muppet by an incomprehemsible God. Correct me if I have been given the wrong impression though. Anyway: This way differs from Augustine for example, and also from Pascal, Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky etc. Because for them, man is always and "I" and a "you". Because of your view, you give the impression to me that man isnt comprehended as anything else but a finite object created by an infinite God... As for Aquinas, he may intellectualy have understood what Augustine understood and spoke about when he asked God what be really is, what his true Nature is, and when he wondered in a dissappointed way Why man in general wonders more about the stars than about the depth of his soul. But Aquinas didnt understand this really...

I think you need to study Augustine in his understanding of this more thoroughly. There are many things I find problematic in Augustine's writings, but this is NOT one of them. — Beebert

I've read quite a bit of Augustine, which passages are you referring to and which works?

A complete misunderstanding of what Augustine was saying. — Beebert

I don't claim he said this, I only claim that this would follow.

Btw I have written like 3 other posts directed to you... I would appreciate if you answered them — Beebert

Can you let me know which ones in particular you'd want me to answer? There's a lot of things I have to answer here and not enough time. Because of the sexism thing I'm behind with a lot of answers, including to others like Janus. So please let me know which ones (link me to them).

Also, God isnt 100 percent incomprehensible anymore, because we have Christ, right? We know how he is because of Christ. — Beebert

In His essence He would be.

What I Think is my personal problem with your view on christianity, God, man etc. is that you(and this is my problem with Aquinas too) talk about man and think about man in third person, and man sounds like an "it", created as some sort of a muppet by an incomprehemsible God. — Beebert

Why do you think I treat man like an "it" or a "muppet" (or better said a puppet)? That God is incomprehensible in His essence is true, and asserted by several mystics/saints. Lossky in his Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church also asserts it if I remember correctly. Now what does this have to do with man being an it or a muppet?

Because of your view, you give the impression to me that man isnt comprehended as anything else but a finite object created by an infinite God... — Beebert

I'd say that in my view there is a separation between created things, and the uncreated God. Man goes amongst the created things, but is, through Jesus Christ divinised such that in the afterlife (and for some rare few in this life) theosis is possible.

As for Aquinas, he may intellectualy have understood what Augustine understood and spoke about when he asked God what be really is, what his true Nature is, and when he wondered in a dissappointed way Why man in general wonders more about the stars than about the depth of his soul. But Aquinas didnt understand this really... — Beebert

Why do you say that?

Those two traditions are not alone in Holding this view. — Beebert

Show me proof of the fact other traditions consider God to be hidden. Do Buddhists consider God to be hidden? Well yeah, so hidden they don't even talk about him. Do Hindus consider God to be hidden? Where?

And it has nothing to do with what Nietzsche REALLY said in the quote. — Beebert

It does, because N. was strawmanning. He didn't understand why Pascal was talking about the Hidden God, and instead implied that Pascal thought this was some kind of immorality from God or whatever :s

Btw, regarding Socrates; which Socrates are you referring to when you praise him? ;) The Picture of him by Plato or that by the dramatist Aristophanes? The latter presents Socrates in his play 'The Clouds' as a petty thief, a fraud and a sophist with a specious interest in physical speculations. However, it is still possible to recognize in him the distinctive individual defined in Plato's dialogues. — Beebert

Plato's dialogues. Aristophanes was a brutish conservative of the status quo of that time largely, and therefore of course he saw Socrates as a corrupter of the youth.

"It does, because N. was strawmanning. He didn't understand why Pascal was talking about the Hidden God, and instead implied that Pascal thought this was some kind of immorality from God or whatever"

I am busy so I Will answer your posts later but: You are way too stubborn and biased and before every discussion you have already made up your mind so I dont know if I really have the interest or power to ger into a discussion about this with you but; you have failed to see what Nietzsche was talking about. Pascal spoke often about how the silence of the infinite space filled him with horror(in a bad way). He doubted a lot. Remember that the copernican revolution took Place not long before? Can you imagine what the resulted in, what this meant for People back then? Of course Augustine gave Pascal some relief because he too had realized how small and yet great man were in a much more profound way than all before him, more so than Aristotle and Plato. Aquinas went back to Aristotle and didnt quite grasp this depth of Augustine, and that resulted in a theology that was built like a house. After the copernican revolution, the thomistic worldview was severely injured from inside, because the world revealed itself in its immeasurability. Nietzsche talks about how these and other things all the way through history really affects the common men in history, the poor unknowing common man, who just gets thrown into life without knowing and reflecting over why and becomes affected by the Culture and understanding of his time, to his own destruction. And then he sees how Pascal understood these things and yet didnt.

"The Eternal Silence Of These Infinite Spaces Terrifies Me" - Pascal

Your constant babble about strawmanning is BTW pathetic beyond comprehension.

— Beebert

Yes, He is defining what God is not:

nor godhead nor goodness — Agustino

In an earlier post, you agreed that God is Goodness.

(...as I said too.)

Michael Ossipoff

In an earlier post, you agreed that God is Goodness. — Michael Ossipoff

Reference? And I would agree that he's Goodness, but only in the analogical, not categorical way. Ultimately he is beyond that.

But yes. I have experienced hell . The despair that I felt from feeling absolutely certain that my life was over, that I had no more Hope, that all I had to do was to wait for my everlasting torture in a Fire after death is the worst psychological torture you can experience. I am 100 percent sure of that — Beebert

From what I've read of the Eastern position, there isn't a bad Eternity, because people who have a some (or lots of) bad coming, don't reach Eternity yet.

According to that position, Eternity is only reached by someone who is pure, good, and fully-completed in those regards..

Michael Ossipoff

I'd said:

In an earlier post, you agreed that God is Goodness. — Michael Ossipoff — Agustino

Reference?

I'll find where you said it and paste it into a post, with the date and page stated.

You continued:

And I would agree that he's Goodness, but only in the analogical, not categorical way. Ultimately he is beyond that.

So your God isn't really Goodness (except by analogy??)?

What then?

You might say the Creator, but then you seem to making creation into something abstract, neither good, bad or neutral. ...abstracting creation from Goodness. I suggest that abstraction like that is only something that philosophers come up with. I don't think that it's valid to believe in creation abstracted from Goodness.. I suggest that God is the reason why what is, is good

....the good intent behind what is.

Michael Ossipoff

So your God isn't really Goodness (except by analogy??)? — Michael Ossipoff

No, not in-so-far as Goodness (being a concept) is a limitation.

I know. The Eastern view on that is both preferable and more healthy but the true question is; what is true?

Sounds like abstract philosophy. Whether abstract philosophy is appropriate in this instance is the question.

Michael Ossipoff

I know. The Eastern view on that is both preferable and more healthy but the true question is; what is true? — Beebert

Well, as I like to point out, the Eastern position is implied by Skepticism, the most parsimonious, the fully parsimonious, and therefore the most plausible and believable, metaphysics.

Michael Ossipoff

What you seem to be trying to do is to follow the Christian mystical train of thought without understanding what they really want/wanted to achieve. They try to empty and purify the mind from false perceptions so that nothing prevents them from experiencing God and getting to know him better, because God is beyond our language and understanding and so on, and we can not define him therefore. Why they define these things by not defining, is because wrong understanding exist. If man didnt get a wrong understanding of God because of Language, but just intuitevly understood and accepted that God is beyond our comprehension, then we wouldnt need to talk that much about God. You on the other hand USE their method of "purifying the mind" and create concepts and new categories and explanations about God by them, and thereby, the whole meaning of what these mystics were actually doing gets lost. You remember the last sentence in Wittgenstein's Tractatus I hope? ;)

"Show me proof of the fact other traditions consider God to be hidden. Do Buddhists consider God to be hidden? Well yeah, so hidden they don't even talk about him. Do Hindus consider God to be hidden? Where?"

Have you not heard of maya in hindu thought? Have you not read the Vedas and Vedanta? The upanishads? Dont you understand what maya really means? :S
Regarding buddhism: Yes and that is a profound thing. If Buddha never experienced what Isaiah experienced, why should he speculate and pretend to know about things he didnt? Why talk about someone who was so hidden that there was nothing to talk about?

"Plato's dialogues. Aristophanes was a brutish conservative of the status quo of that time largely, and therefore of course he saw Socrates as a corrupter of the youth."

Hahaha. You have read that on Wikipedia or? Your Pride is frightening. What make you think you know? Regarding Aristophanes being conservative is what People have speculated about. You clearly havent read any Aristophanes.

I'd said;

So your God isn't really Goodness (except by analogy??)? — Michael Ossipoff

You replied:

No, not in-so-far as Goodness (being a concept) is a limitation.

Goodness isn't a limitation for a God who is Goodness itself.

My argument on this matter is this, which I said a few posts ago:

I don't think that it's valid to believe in creation abstracted from Goodness.. I suggest that God is the reason why what is, is good

....the good intent behind what is. — Michael Ossipoff

Michael Ossipoff

"Why do you think I treat man like an "it" or a "muppet" (or better said a puppet)? That God is incomprehensible in His essence is true, and asserted by several mystics/saints. Lossky in his Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church also asserts it if I remember correctly. Now what does this have to do with man being an it or a muppet?"

I explained this in the above post. It is the natural consequence of how you take from the mystics without really caring about what they intended to achieve.

"I've read quite a bit of Augustine, which passages are you referring to and which works?"

Confessions. He speaks about how for God, evil doesnt exist. Not for God, nor for his creation when viewed as a whole. Because nothing outside or within can break his order. Something can only be "counted" as evil for another, because two parts might not fit each other. But that which in this is evil, it is wrong (perhaps blasphemous, at least a sin) for us to call evil according to Augustine, because that which is evil in one way, harmonizes with something else and is in itself therefore good. And all parts that doesnt harmonize with each other can though harmonize with the "lower part", which is in harmony with something greater. This is part of what you dont quite seem to grasp.

Furthermore, God is incomprehensible - therefore He can't be capricious, for capriciousness is comprehensible. — Agustino

I find capriciousness and evil to be highly incomprehensible actually. Whether theism is true or not, evil often defies easy explanation.

For someone to be evil, they have to break the moral Law. God cannot break the moral Law as He is not its subject. Therefore God cannot be evil. — Agustino

We were talking about God causing an event that we know from the law to be evil, like murder. You replied by saying that, if God caused the event, it would be beyond good and evil. But this makes the event both evil and not evil at the same time, which is impossible.

Does this privation of the good exist? You will now say yes. So apparently, something - the free will of man - can displace God, so that God ceases to exist where the privation of good exists right? So His omnipresence was a joke. That's absurd. And if you'll claim that evil is nothing, then you're even worse than you claim that I am by asserting that God is beyond the Law since you do not take evil seriously. — Agustino

Please bear in mind that I have tried to speak on behalf of classical theism for the sake of this discussion. That being said, from that perspective, I don't see why claiming that evil is nothing is not to take evil seriously. Why would that follow?

Wrong doctrine. Or better said, doctrine at a superficial level. Divine simplicity entails first and foremost that God is beyond the things created and nameable. — Agustino

The position I am defending says that, while God is in himself beyond whatever we might predicate of him, we can nonetheless truthfully predicate certain things of him in an analogical sense. If you, on the other hand, really believe that nothing can be predicated of God, not even analogically, then I fail to see how the word "God" has any meaning whatsoever. You'd best stop using it and remain silent, a la Wittgenstein.

I also stand by my claim that I have never heard a traditional Christian theist make your claim. There are roughly two schools concerning predication, the analogical and the univocal. I've already explained what I take the former to assert. The latter school would say that what we mean by good and evil applies unambiguously to God, e.g. to say of a human being that he is good and to say of God that he is good is to use the word "good" in precisely the same sense.

Right, so you've never read Dionysius? You've never read Isaiah? You've never read Christian mystics? — Agustino

I don't think a careful reading of them would yield the conclusion you've reached. Nor do I believe they all fail to describe God as good. It's also ironic that you bring up Dionysius, who believed that evil was indeed nothing.

although yes, there are instances when murder is not wrong - or better said excusable. If you attack me with a knife for example, and I end up killing you, that is morally excusable — Agustino

That's not murder. That's manslaughter. Murder always wrong (intrinsically evil).

Please expand on this. — Agustino

See above.

I think procreation is not immoral. Whether it should be preferable to never procreating is a question for the individual. Some are called to be completely devoted to God. Others are not.

I was never an anti-natalist. — Agustino

Interesting. Thanks for clarifying.

"You'd best stop using it and remain silent, a la Wittgenstein."

I am not sure he has understood or appreciated Wittgenstein. If he did he would be silent long time ago, which I have told him a few times.

"I also stand by my claim that I have never heard a traditional Christian theist make your claim"

The closest would be calvinism. Though agustino doesnt like calvinism...

The closest would be calvinism. — Beebert

Yeah, maybe so.

Found an interesting, relevant article. I quote from the final paragraph:

Of course, SOME Calvinists DO embrace nominalism/voluntarism consistently and then they must swallow its “good and necessary consequences” including that we cannot know that God will keep any of his promises because he has no eternal, immutable character that causes him to that and only that. The only reasonable result of consistent voluntarism is Luther’s “deus absconditus” – the hidden God who is the cause of evil as well as of good.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2010/12/more-about-the-basic-choice-in-theology-voluntarism-versus-realism/#T28pzgdB38wgteBy.99

So, Agustino, I don't think Beebert and I are off the mark in detecting Protestant strains in your thinking.

There is no doubt. Unless I/we have misunderstood, which agustino will probably claim. Anyway, agustino seems to view God more as a God of raw and pure power/a God of pure will rather than a God of love etc. God actually is defined one time in the New Testament. St John says; "God is love". Not "loving", but "love"! A God like agustino's I dont understand how one can have faith in. Does he at least agree that if God says one thing He doesnt Change it? Or is he so unpredictable that he can break promises? Jesus promised to save those who obey and Believe him. Now; if one does Believe and obey, agustino's God seems to give no guarantee that he keeps his promises. So where does Faith come in to all this? Faith in what? In God's unpredictability?

Regarding Aquinas; he explains man in the world but not the world in man

"What is?", and "Why what is?" are the subject of metaphysics, with the understanding that metaphysics and "Why?" can only be taken so far.

That what is, is good, isn't explainable, and calls only for gratitude.

...and gratitude for the good intent that's behind what is.

Michael Ossipoff