Hope

[Dameedna]

If my words were spot on, then perhaps i was too hasty in putting the silver medal around Faith’s neck. For, if St. Paul speaks the truth in saying Love is the greatest of all virtues, then it stands to reason that any virtue most like Love would be the second greatest. Faith, unlike Hope, seems to have nothing to do with desire.

Any claims that Paul made, were his claims. Let’s just remember that. Then I would suggest that there are diffrerent understandings of what Paul meant by what he said…

He is not making some kind of “declaration” that you must follow. Hope and faith are two very different things.He is sharing with you, his experience with christ and what it means to him.

It is the exerpience of hope, that gave him faith. Hope, ie love and truth are concepts that you either understand(conceptally) or not and they provide you with enough faith(motivation) to continue with your journey.

Faith is the exercise you enjoy, once you have submitted to it’s foundation, love, hope and truth.

They are higher powers. Faith is not.

Yeah, this is just my internet babble. Must make up ones own mind…if you can define your mind in the first place.

Stare at yourself in the mirror…really hard for a good 2 mins. Guarentee ya, you will freak yourself out

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Fair enough. Let’s look at “a personal act”. Based on the “Virtue” article referenced earlier, this act is primarily one of perfecting the intellect. This is an antidote to the “darkening of the mind” that was the result of the disobedience in the garden. This perfection would include knowing God better and better as the intellect grew in perfection.

Sounds good. Do you think this is a better definition?

(i2)

Faith is a personal act and a virtue that results in the perfecting one’s understanding of God and drawing nearer to Him in a personal relationship, insofar as such is possible. It is the free response of the human person to the initiative of God who reveals himself to that person.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

There are absolutes.



Yes, I’ve been playing with you tricky catholics for a while. You’re cheeky buggers you are

You’re a cheeky monkey yourself!

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Any claims that Paul made, were his claims. Let’s just remember that. Then I would suggest that there are diffrerent understandings of what Paul meant by what he said…

He is not making some kind of “declaration” that you must follow. Hope and faith are two very different things.He is sharing with you, his experience with christ and what it means to him.

It is the exerpience of hope, that gave him faith. Hope, ie love and truth are concepts that you either understand(conceptally) or not and they provide you with enough faith(motivation) to continue with your journey.

Faith is the exercise you enjoy, once you have submitted to it’s foundation, love, hope and truth.

They are higher powers. Faith is not.

Yeah, this is just my internet babble. Must make up ones own mind…if you can define your mind in the first place.

Stare at yourself in the mirror…really hard for a good 2 mins. Guarentee ya, you will freak yourself out

What i see when i look in the mirror is that i’m becoming more like Socrates every day (losing my hair, you see)!

Speaking of absolutes, what do you think is the one trait that the many different kinds of faith have in common?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

That is, what is the common denominator of all kinds of faiths? In other words, considering all Faith as one, what would you say is the one’s attribute or are its attributes?

 

[davidv]

I think you might agree that the definition of Christian love provided suffers the same defect. This example appears to demonstrate what i mean:

Consider a man who is an atheist who out of great love of people argues against the Catholic Faith and, as a result, turns many away from Christ. Such a man wills the good of others, but his love is quite the opposite, and perhaps even opposed to, Christian love. Do you see what i mean?

We need better definitions of both Christian Faith and Christian Love to guide us.

If there is a deficiency in the definition, this example does not reveal it. How can being turned “away from Christ” be consider “willing the good of another”? As a negative definition Love cannot contain anything that prevents or impedes ones progress toward the Beatific Vision (Heaven).

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

If there is a deficiency in the definition, this example does not reveal it. How can being turned “away from Christ” be consider “willing the good of another”? As a negative definition Love cannot contain anything that prevents or impedes ones progress toward the Beatific Vision (Heaven).

Well, i was thinking of the motives of the person taking the action, not the results. An atheist who believes the Catholic Faith to be a lie and even harmful, however mistaken he may be, might be taking the wrong action, even though his motives are right. The same might be said of religious people who speak out against Catholicism.

Perhaps you’ve met such sincere persons here at the forum. They may be deceived, but their intentions are to help, not harm others.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Dameedna:

The word trust comes to mind. Do you think it is absolutely true that all faith is some form of trust?

 

[davidv]

Well, i was thinking of the motives of the person taking the action, not the results. An atheist who believes the Catholic Faith to be a lie and even harmful, however mistaken he may be, might be taking the wrong action, even though his motives are right. The same might be said of religious people who speak out against Catholicism.

Perhaps you’ve met such sincere persons here at the forum. They may be deceived, but their intentions are to help, not harm others.

Good intentions are certainly desirable. However, if an action is intrinsically wrong, no amount of “good intention” can create a “good” act of it. Catholic morality does not sanction an “ends justifies the means” kind of thinking.

 

[fhansen]

OK, I’ll take a stab at it playing by these rules, even risking losing my head and all (appreciate that I’m putting my life on the line here).

Love is to will the good of ourselves or another, whether for God or created beings. However, human love, being subject to frailties and ignorance, must be informed as to what is the good-especially the ultimate good-or else a will for the good may be unintentionally misplaced or even counterproductive. Faith, a supernatural assurance of knowledge, is necessary in order to inform one of the ultimate good for all, while hope is necessary in order to even desire-to care-and to trust that these things are true.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Good intentions are certainly desirable. However, if an action is intrinsically wrong, no amount of “good intention” can create a “good” act of it. Catholic morality does not sanction an “ends justifies the means” kind of thinking.

Did you mean to say, Catholic morality does not sanction a means justifies the ends kind of thinking?

My thought is that Jesus does sanction a means justifies the ends kind of thinking. Consider His words:

Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, “What? Are we blind too?”

Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.”

(John 9:40-41)

He appears to be saying that the means (being blind to one’s own sin) justifies the ends (the results of such sin). If these enemies of Christ whom He addressed had been ignorant of the wrongness of their actions, God would have absolved them from any guilt for those actions.

The same may be said of the example we are considering: Since the atheist is blind to the wrongness of his actions of turning people away from the Church, God will absolve him from this sin.

It helps me to keep in mind that i only see the actions of a person and have little idea of what is actually going through his head. However, as the prophet tells me:

But the LORD said to Samuel, “Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.”

(1 Samuel 16)

However, perhaps you have some wisdom i have not obtained myself. Do you have reason to believe that God does not consider one’s ignorance of sin and motives when judging the person?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

OK, I’ll take a stab at it playing by these rules, even risking losing my head and all (appreciate that I’m putting my life on the line here).

Love is to will the good of ourselves or another, whether for God or created beings. However, human love, being subject to frailties and ignorance, must be informed as to what is the good-especially the ultimate good-or else a will for the good may be unintentionally misplaced or even counterproductive. Faith, a supernatural assurance of knowledge, is necessary in order to inform one of the ultimate good for all, while hope is necessary in order to even desire-to care-and to trust that these things are true.

I appreciate your act of faith that the Holy Spirit will guide our conversation to a good end. You are to be commended for your bravery, Sir FH!



Let’s consider this as our definition of Christian Love, with a few minor tweaks:

(j2)

Human Christian love is to will and act for the good of ourselves or another, whether for God or created beings. However, human love, being subject to frailties and ignorance, must be informed as to what is the good–especially the ultimate good–or else a will for the good may be unintentionally misplaced or even counterproductive. Hence, human Christian faith is necessary in order to inform one of the ultimate good for all.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Let me know if that definition (which is subject to change as we discover a better understanding of the truth in our conversation) is agreeable to you. Also, let me know if this definition for faith agrees with you:

(i3)

Human Christian faith is a personal act of trust in God and a virtue that results in the perfecting one’s understanding of God and drawing nearer to Him in a personal relationship, insofar as such is possible. It is the free response of the human person to the initiative of God who reveals himself to that person, and it is a supernatural assurance of such revealed knowledge of God.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

It might be that the only disagreement as to definitions to this point is regarding Hope. When i look into her beautifully innocent (and often naive) eyes, i see that she is the consequence, but not the cause of her sister Faith. Faith is the reason for Hope, not the result of it.

Consider again the text quoted earlier:

Hope is the theological virtue by which we desire the kingdom of heaven and eternal life as our happiness, placing our trust in Christ’s promises and relying not on our own strength, but on the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit. “Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful.”

(CCC 1817 )

It appears to be saying that Faith is the cause or reason for Hope, for if i were to ask, “Why do i hope in God?” the answer the text gives me is, “because you first placed your trust (i.e., faith) in Christ’s promises.”

In the case of human Christian Faith, Hope and Love that we three kings are considering, the order of cause and effect appears to me to be:

revealed knowledge > faith > hope > love

where (>) signifies causation.

For, as said earlier, it is irrational or even insane to hope in something one has no trust at all is true.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Perhaps i am mistaken, FH. If so, please point out my error. If no, i’ll submit for your approval a more precise definition of Hope. Once we have defined all three human virtues, i have faith we will quickly be able to determine the greatest of the three in you, David, or me.

 

[davidv]

Did you mean to say, Catholic morality does not sanction a means justifies the ends kind of thinking?

No. I meant is as I wrote it. It is immoral to use immoral means to further a moral end.

My thought is that Jesus does sanction a means justifies the ends kind of thinking. Consider His words:

Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, “What? Are we blind too?” Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.”(John 9:40-41)He appears to be saying that the means (being blind to one’s own sin) justifies the ends (the results of such sin). If these enemies of Christ whom He addressed had been ignorant of the wrongness of their actions, God would have absolved them from any guilt for those actions.

The same may be said of the example we are considering: Since the atheist is blind to the wrongness of his actions of turning people away from the Church, God will absolve him from this sin.

It helps me to keep in mind that i only see the actions of a person and have little idea of what is actually going through his head. However, as the prophet tells me:

But the LORD said to Samuel, “Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.”(1 Samuel 16)However, perhaps you have some wisdom i have not obtained myself.

It appears that what you call “means” is not what I had in mind.

My definition in this context:

Means = the actions taken to further an end. They are not the attitudes and intentions that exist at the time of the action.

Do you have reason to believe that God does not consider one’s ignorance of sin and motives when judging the person?

I have no reason to believe that. However, I do believe that we will suffer consequeses (short of damnation) for any wrong we do, even if in ignorance or with good intention.

So, can we then say that only love can guide us to doing the right things for the right reasons? Faith and hope may not do this?

 

[davidv]

It might be that the only disagreement as to definitions to this point is regarding Hope. When i look into her beautifully innocent (and often naive) eyes, i see that she is the consequence, but not the cause of her sister Faith. Faith is the reason for Hope, not the result of it.

Consider again the text quoted earlier:

Hope is the theological virtue by which we desire the kingdom of heaven and eternal life as our happiness, placing our trust in Christ’s promises and relying not on our own strength, but on the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit. “Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful.”

(CCC 1817 )
It appears to be saying that Faith is the cause or reason for Hope, for if i were to ask, “Why do i hope in God?” the answer the text gives me is, “because you first placed your trust (i.e., faith) in Christ’s promises.”

In the case of human Christian Faith, Hope and Love that we three kings are considering, the order of cause and effect appears to me to be:

revealed knowledge > faith > hope > love

where (>) signifies causation.

For, as said earlier, it is irrational or even insane to hope in something one has no trust at all is true.

I agree with everything here.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

No. I meant is as I wrote it. It is immoral to use immoral means to further a moral end.

It appears that what you call “means” is not what I had in mind.

My definition in this context:

Means = the actions taken to further an end. They are not the attitudes and intentions that exist at the time of the action.

Understood. So would you say, David that the motives never excuses the ends? or do good intentions sometimes excuse wrong consequences under some circumstances?

What do you believe Jesus’ quoted statement to the Pharisees (John 9:40-41) reveals about this question?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

So, can we then say that only love can guide us to doing the right things for the right reasons? Faith and hope may not do this?

My thinking is that a person might be deceived into doing the wrong things with a clear conscience that his motives are pure. Since he is deceived, it would seem just for God to show more mercy to him than one who was fully aware of the gravity of his own sin.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I agree with everything here.

Good! Then perhaps you and i are getting closer to the truth (or perhaps i’m getting closer to the truth you already posses). All that remains is for FH to agree or disagree with us.