Does Christian virtue lead to happiness in this life?

[tonyrey]

No, it’s not. This cannot be overemphasized. It’s a question of extremity. Christians are called to give God everything, not to “balance” Him with the world.

We are told to love our neighbour as ourselves and pray that God forgives us as we forgive our enemies. In other words we should love ourselves to the exact extent that we love others. If we regard ourselves as worthless we are questioning the precepts of Jesus which are based on the principle of equality…

 

[SentinelofTruth]

This is irrelevant. I was talking about God vs. worldly pleasures, not self vs. others.

 

[tonyrey]

This is irrelevant. I was talking about God vs. worldly pleasures, not self vs. others.

The “world” includes others:

Thomas a Kempis says we cannot enjoy both this world and the next. That seems a little extreme, but there must be something in it. On the other hand, the Psalms insist that the virtuous man will be blessed with children, lands, victory, etc.

To which I responded:

It is a question of balance. To stake everything on happiness in this world is a mistake because** if we love ourselves too much we become unlovable. Without self-imposed hardship we cannot reach heaven.**.

That is why:

We are told to love our neighbour as ourselves and pray that God forgives us as we forgive our enemies. In other words we should love ourselves to the exact extent that we love others. If we regard ourselves as worthless we are questioning the precepts of Jesus which are based on the principle of equality…

 

[SentinelofTruth]

tonyrey:

The “world” includes others:

I only meant to encompass physical things.

 

[fred_conty]

What goes around comes around. When goodness is spent on oneself and others, then this motivates others to spread goodness as well.

When customers know they are being treated with fairness and kindness, they return.
When children are loved and looked after, they respond.

Drunkenness, fornication and adultery have their own consequences.

So yes, the virtues are the way to be successful in life: finance, marriage, children, peace, work.

 

[Qoeleth]

What goes around comes around. When goodness is spent on oneself and others, then this motivates others to spread goodness as well.

When customers know they are being treated with fairness and kindness, they return.
When children are loved and looked after, they respond.

Drunkenness, fornication and adultery have their own consequences.

So yes, the virtues are the way to be successful in life: finance, marriage, children, peace, work.

Most of the saints, though, say “no” to finance, marriage and children.

 

[Qoeleth]

Happiness and success are difficult to define, not so much because they are subjective feeling states, but because we are called upon by God for different purposes. To the degree that we fulfill His will, we are happy and successful. Self-reports are not necessarily valid reflections of the person’s condition. Such feelings, as they are commonly understood, do frequently seem based on transitory circumstances in people’s lives. Happiness is more than a feeling of contentment and can be present even when there is great suffering.

A favourite C.S.Lewis quote from The Great Divorce comes to mind:
“Son,‘he said,’ ye cannot in your present state understand eternity…That is what mortals misunderstand. They say of some temporal suffering, “No future bliss can make up for it,” not knowing that Heaven, once attained, will work backwards and turn even that agony into a glory. And of some sinful pleasure they say “Let me have but this and I’ll take the consequences”: little dreaming how damnation will spread back and back into their past and contaminate the pleasure of the sin. Both processes begin even before death. The good man’s past begins to change so that his forgiven sins and remembered sorrows take on the quality of Heaven: the bad man’s past already conforms to his badness and is filled only with dreariness. And that is why…the Blessed will say "We have never lived anywhere except in Heaven, : and the Lost, “We were always in Hell.” And both will speak truly.”:

That is a wonderful passage- the character of the past is changed retrospectively.

 

[mytruepower2]

“Son,‘he said,’ ye cannot in your present state understand eternity…That is what mortals misunderstand. They say of some temporal suffering, “No future bliss can make up for it,” not knowing that Heaven, once attained, will work backwards and turn even that agony into a glory. And of some sinful pleasure they say “Let me have but this and I’ll take the consequences”: little dreaming how damnation will spread back and back into their past and contaminate the pleasure of the sin. Both processes begin even before death. The good man’s past begins to change so that his forgiven sins and remembered sorrows take on the quality of Heaven: the bad man’s past already conforms to his badness and is filled only with dreariness. And that is why…the Blessed will say "We have never lived anywhere except in Heaven, : and the Lost, “We were always in Hell.” And both will speak truly.”:

That is a wonderful passage- the character of the past is changed retrospectively.

It -is- a beautiful passage, but the moment that I read it, I had problems with it.

For one thing, if the past is -ever- changed, this contradicts the views of Saint Thomas Aquinas, who got most other things right.

For another, this means that no saint is in Heaven yet, or their past would have changed to reflect a perfectly-happy life. Their past has not changed to reflect a perfectly-happy life, and in fact, many of them suffered horribly and unjustly.

Finally, if it’s only -their memories- of the past that change, this would mean that they remember the past falsely, and therefore are imperfect, but that would imply that they’re not in Heaven.

For these reasons, this passage troubled me. I see no way to reconcile this view with authentic theology.

 

[Qoeleth]

It -is- a beautiful passage, but the moment that I read it, I had problems with it.

For one thing, if the past is -ever- changed, this contradicts the views of Saint Thomas Aquinas, who got most other things right.

For another, this means that no saint is in Heaven yet, or their past would have changed to reflect a perfectly-happy life. Their past has not changed to reflect a perfectly-happy life, and in fact, many of them suffered horribly and unjustly.

Finally, if it’s only -their memories- of the past that change, this would mean that they remember the past falsely, and therefore are imperfect, but that would imply that they’re not in Heaven.

For these reasons, this passage troubled me. I see no way to reconcile this view with authentic theology.

Yes, I agree that it does not seem entirely true. St. Teresa of Avila said “Every part of the journey to Heaven is Heaven.” But I am not sure…

 

[tonyrey]

I only meant to encompass physical things.

The topic “happiness in this life” is not restricted to physical things.

 

[Aloysium]

It -is- a beautiful passage, but the moment that I read it, I had problems with it.

For one thing, if the past is -ever- changed, this contradicts the views of Saint Thomas Aquinas, who got most other things right.

For another, this means that no saint is in Heaven yet, or their past would have changed to reflect a perfectly-happy life. Their past has not changed to reflect a perfectly-happy life, and in fact, many of them suffered horribly and unjustly.

Finally, if it’s only -their memories- of the past that change, this would mean that they remember the past falsely, and therefore are imperfect, but that would imply that they’re not in Heaven.

For these reasons, this passage troubled me. I see no way to reconcile this view with authentic theology.

The prodigal son returns, there is great joy in heaven. His waywardness and suffering are not changed but transformed by the reality of his repentance and ultimate joy. Had he not, what a tragedy.

 

[SentinelofTruth]

tonyrey:

The topic “happiness in this life” is not restricted to physical things.

If you re-read my post, you will find that I wasn’t saying happiness in this life only encompasses physical things, but that I was saying this about the term “world”.

 

[tonyrey]

If you re-read my post, you will find that I wasn’t saying happiness in this life only encompasses physical things, but that I was saying this about the term “world”.

The OP used the term “world” to describe life in this world - which includes persons:

Thomas a Kempis says we cannot enjoy both this world and the next. That seems a little extreme, but there must be something in it. On the other hand, the Psalms insist that the virtuous man will be blessed with children, lands, victory, etc.

 

[SentinelofTruth]

SentinelofTruth:

Christians are called to give God everything, not to “balance” Him with the world.

I think it’s pretty clear what I meant here.

 

[mytruepower2]

Yes, I agree that it does not seem entirely true. St. Teresa of Avila said “Every part of the journey to Heaven is Heaven.” But I am not sure…

I’m convinced that many parts of the journey to Heaven are not Heaven, and Saint John of the Cross (read “Dark night of the soul,”) Mother Theresa and a number of others would, I’m sure, agree with me.

On this, the views of the saints seem divided, which usually means there’s no actual church teaching on it.

The prodigal son returns, there is great joy in heaven. His waywardness and suffering are not changed but transformed by the reality of his repentance and ultimate joy. Had he not, what a tragedy.

Right. That’s why I’m convinced the quote was not correct.

However, given that the definition of “transform” is “to change something completely, and usually in a good way,” I don’t think we can really differentiate between transforming something and changing it; particularly when we talk about the past.

What we -can- talk about is the transformation of human understanding; the full enlightening of the intellect, which helps us realize the reasons why each evil was allowed to happen, both to us and to those around us. That seems compatible with the Thomistic understanding of Heaven.

 

[tonyrey]

I think it’s pretty clear what I meant here.

We are called to offer God everything but that doesn’t mean He takes everything or expects us to make ourselves miserable by renouncing all the gifts and blessings He has given us.

It is also a false dilemma that self-denial always entails deprivation. When we serve others rather than ourselves we share their happiness. The Beatitudes do not only apply to life in Heaven…

 

[mytruepower2]

We are called to offer God everything but that doesn’t mean He takes everything or expects us to make ourselves miserable by renouncing all the gifts and blessings He has given us.

It is also a false dilemma that self-denial always entails deprivation. When we serve others rather than ourselves we share their happiness. The Beatitudes do not only apply to life in Heaven…

Yes, I would agree that self denial doesn’t always involve deprivation, in that one can sacrifice a good thing, only to have it given back to them later. They aren’t deprived of the good thing in that case.

The only problem would be if you give something up, and never get it back. That would then imply a deprivation, because even if it was by your own choice, nevertheless, you are one good thing shorter than you were before, and that good thing remains absent afterwards. The great thing about believing in Heaven is that we don’t have to think we’ve run short of good things, even if we are miserable. God is just “holding onto them for us.”

The other thing to remember is that even continual, charitable giving doesn’t imply continual loss of good things. After all, God is continually giving good things to us, but that doesn’t mean that he loses those good things in himself. This may be the correct order of the universe; each giving at the same time as they’re being given to, and only human selfishness disrupts this order.

If taken in the abstract, the idea might even be palatable.

 

[tonyrey]

Yes, I would agree that self denial doesn’t always involve deprivation, in that one can sacrifice a good thing, only to have it given back to them later. They aren’t deprived of the good thing in that case.

The only problem would be if you give something up, and never get it back. That would then imply a deprivation, because even if it was by your own choice, nevertheless, you are one good thing shorter than you were before, and that good thing remains absent afterwards. The great thing about believing in Heaven is that we don’t have to think we’ve run short of good things, even if we are miserable. God is just “holding onto them for us.”

The other thing to remember is that even continual, charitable giving doesn’t imply continual loss of good things. After all, God is continually giving good things to us, but that doesn’t mean that he loses those good things in himself. This may be the correct order of the universe; each giving at the same time as they’re being given to, and only human selfishness disrupts this order.

If taken in the abstract, the idea might even be palatable.

:clapping: But why only in the abstract?

 

[mytruepower2]

:clapping: But why only in the abstract?

Mainly because it’s difficult to imagine this in practical terms, or to square it with certain desires that we often believe we have.

One good thing that we desire, for example, is victory, and at first it seems hard to see how this could be simply given by someone else, or given to someone else.

However, having thought about it for a few seconds, the vast majority of victories are not, in fact, due to our own efforts mainly, but are the result of our circumstances, or the abilities that we’ve been given, or the opportunities we’ve had in the past, or even the result of other people who agree to work with us. The victories of the American and British forces under General Eisenhower at the Battle of the Bulge, for example, wasn’t mainly because of his efforts, but because his men and his generals had responded to his actions and agreed to help him. Most victories are like this; impossible without external circumstances to back them up.

Still, it’s hard to think this way about victory without delving into abstractions, which is what makes it more acceptable than it would have seemed otherwise.

 

[SentinelofTruth]

tonyrey:

We are called to offer God everything but that doesn’t mean He takes everything or expects us to make ourselves miserable by renouncing all the gifts and blessings He has given us.

It is also a false dilemma that self-denial always entails deprivation. When we serve others rather than ourselves we share their happiness. The Beatitudes do not only apply to life in Heaven…

I know. Did you completely forget what was said in my first post?