Ontological discussion and the Catholic

[AndyF]

Is there any objection to Catholics having discussion or study in Ontology. Are there
any caveats or ground rules one should be aware of.? Can God be discussed simply on the principle that he is a being.? Are there threats to the pious, and how do we recognize them.?

I ask because I have been criticized for having pagan leanings simply by hypothetically juxtaposing diety in specific respectable hypothetical scenarios. I found this stance surprising. 

I have come to realize that some moderators would not recognize an ontological discussion if they saw it, and usually I need to explain myself. The message I receive is that in general one cannot advance in this study without being labeled has treasonous in some way. A person cannot hypothetically take God out of the strict context of what one is directed to believe in to make a point. No one is allowed to "let's suppose....". To some God is seen has an intolerant being not open to any scrutiny. Scrutiny to some implies mistrust, and scrutiny can never have a motive of general interest for entertainment or used has a tool for discovery, even to the extent the empirical would allow, and for our mystics it goes without saying this is the limitation. I get the sense that something could be discovered that could be an embarrassment, therefore individuals can be found who have taken on a personal crusade to rescue God from the likes of these "adventurous" risk takers. To them doing so can only be a manifestation of diabolical influence.

Having doctoral credentials seems to appease these to some extent, but somewhat reluctantly. These same are more likely to be labeled has presenting a new “ism” of sorts regardless of intent and motive.

I am hoping that once and for all the ground rules are clearly defined to everyone’s liking.

Andy

 

[JDaniel]

Is there any objection to Catholics having discussion or study in Ontology. Are there
any caveats or ground rules one should be aware of.? Can God be discussed simply on the principle that he is a being.? Are there threats to the pious, and how do we recognize them.?

I ask because I have been criticized for having pagan leanings simply by hypothetically juxtaposing deity in specific respectable hypothetical scenarios. I found this stance surprising. 

I have come to realize that some moderators would not recognize an ontological discussion if they saw it, and usually I need to explain myself. The message I receive is that in general one cannot advance in this study without being labeled has treasonous in some way. A person cannot hypothetically take God out of the strict context of what one is directed to believe in to make a point. No one is allowed to "let's suppose....". To some God is seen has an intolerant being not open to any scrutiny. Scrutiny to some implies mistrust, and scrutiny can never have a motive of general interest for entertainment or used has a tool for discovery, even to the extent the empirical would allow, and for our mystics it goes without saying this is the limitation. I get the sense that something could be discovered that could be an embarrassment, therefore individuals can be found who have taken on a personal crusade to rescue God from the likes of these "adventurous" risk takers. To them doing so can only be a manifestation of diabolical influence.

Having doctoral credentials seems to appease these to some extent, but somewhat reluctantly. These same are more likely to be labeled has presenting a new “ism” of sorts regardless of intent and motive.

I am hoping that once and for all the ground rules are clearly defined to everyone’s liking.

Andy

Good questions, as well as good points. Perhaps misunderstood. I believe you mean, "Can you use “God” in hypothetical situations, or, as hypothetical exigencies, that will be seen to not violate a seemingly inviolable and necessary piousness demanded by this forum? I have no authority to answer, so we must supplicate our moderator, with all due respect.

It would be good to receive answers to these questions.

God bless,
jd

 

[geometer]

Is there any objection to Catholics having discussion or study in Ontology. Are there
any caveats or ground rules one should be aware of.? Can God be discussed simply on the principle that he is a being.? Are there threats to the pious, and how do we recognize them.?

I ask because I have been criticized for having pagan leanings simply by hypothetically juxtaposing diety in specific respectable hypothetical scenarios. I found this stance surprising. 

I have come to realize that some moderators would not recognize an ontological discussion if they saw it, and usually I need to explain myself. The message I receive is that in general one cannot advance in this study without being labeled has treasonous in some way. A person cannot hypothetically take God out of the strict context of what one is directed to believe in to make a point. No one is allowed to "let's suppose....". To some God is seen has an intolerant being not open to any scrutiny. Scrutiny to some implies mistrust, and scrutiny can never have a motive of general interest for entertainment or used has a tool for discovery, even to the extent the empirical would allow, and for our mystics it goes without saying this is the limitation. I get the sense that something could be discovered that could be an embarrassment, therefore individuals can be found who have taken on a personal crusade to rescue God from the likes of these "adventurous" risk takers. To them doing so can only be a manifestation of diabolical influence.

Having doctoral credentials seems to appease these to some extent, but somewhat reluctantly. These same are more likely to be labeled has presenting a new “ism” of sorts regardless of intent and motive.

I am hoping that once and for all the ground rules are clearly defined to everyone’s liking.

Andy

Well, I have lead a mystical existence, and that is for the reason that I do have experience of God. So, I am perfectly happy with anyone who can contribute their empirical experiences. I know that G-d will answer questions, but I have not questioned him about his nature. I have read what rabbis have written, at least some of what has been written concerning the nature of G-d.

But, you are trying to open conversation about ontology. Our own ontology it seems is not completely understood. Even Jesus pointed this out, that most people are blind and deaf to what the nature of being truly is.

Do you really believe that your experiences are broad enough in this area?

 

[JDaniel]

Is there any objection to Catholics having discussion or study in Ontology. Are there
any caveats or ground rules one should be aware of.? Can God be discussed simply on the principle that he is a being.? Are there threats to the pious, and how do we recognize them.?

I ask because I have been criticized for having pagan leanings simply by hypothetically juxtaposing deity in specific respectable hypothetical scenarios. I found this stance surprising. 

I have come to realize that some moderators would not recognize an ontological discussion if they saw it, and usually I need to explain myself. The message I receive is that in general one cannot advance in this study without being labeled has treasonous in some way. A person cannot hypothetically take God out of the strict context of what one is directed to believe in to make a point. No one is allowed to "let's suppose....". To some God is seen has an intolerant being not open to any scrutiny. Scrutiny to some implies mistrust, and scrutiny can never have a motive of general interest for entertainment or used has a tool for discovery, even to the extent the empirical would allow, and for our mystics it goes without saying this is the limitation. I get the sense that something could be discovered that could be an embarrassment, therefore individuals can be found who have taken on a personal crusade to rescue God from the likes of these "adventurous" risk takers. To them doing so can only be a manifestation of diabolical influence.

Having doctoral credentials seems to appease these to some extent, but somewhat reluctantly. These same are more likely to be labeled has presenting a new “ism” of sorts regardless of intent and motive.

I am hoping that once and for all the ground rules are clearly defined to everyone’s liking.

Andy

Andy:

You obviously have something in mind; why not start it and let’s see where it leads. I doubt you will tread on anyone’s toes. I am intrigued.

jd

 

[MindOverMatter]

Is there any objection to Catholics having discussion or study in Ontology. Are there
any caveats or ground rules one should be aware of.? Can God be discussed simply on the principle that he is a being.? Are there threats to the pious, and how do we recognize them.?

So long as we recognize that God is “being/reality/truth” rather than just another being “participating” in “being/reality/truth”, then there is no problem.

 

[AndyF]

Do you really believe that your experiences are broad enough in this area?

But who is? The same question could be presented to a novice student who wishes to embark into the field of theology.

No. I would use what is possible within the bounds of what is available to me. This limitation may or may not determine the possibility or level of my success.

I do understand that when all is possible to learn within our natural sphere, there remains the spiritual, and here this knowledge is more reserved for select individuals and is attained by grace. Only those who set on a predetermined path will be successful, but still only to a degree.

Andy

 

[AndyF]

demanded by this forum?

.

God bless,
jd

No, by the Church.

If I breach a ruling that the Church finds no offense with, the issue is between the site owner and the Church. All members can make certain presumptions in regards a “Catholic” Forum.

AndyF

 

[AndyF]

Andy:

You obviously have something in mind; why not start it and let’s see where it leads. I doubt you will tread on anyone’s toes. I am intrigued.
jd

Not before the rules are established.

 

[AndyF]

So long as we recognize that God is “being/reality/truth” rather than just another being “participating” in “being/reality/truth”, then there is no problem.

He’s not participating.?

 

[MindOverMatter]

He’s not participating.?

It depends what you mean by truth. You can speak of truth in a contingent sense or a necessary sense. You can also speak of truth as applied to general facts about existence, as in the fact that things exist, and in this respect it is correct to say that God participates in that truth. But in this case, we are not talking about things in terms of their fundamental nature; instead we have spoken of them merely in respect of their existence. However, in respect of Gods metaphysical nature, as in the kind of being or “reality” that God is, it would be a mistake to say that God exists in existence or reality. God is ultimate reality. God is not a being among other beings. God is the being, or the “real”, in which beings have the potential to be. God is the difference between something and absolute nothingness. The definition of such a nature, is “reality”; the real, which means that God exists according to Gods nature which is existence, and we exist and continue to exist as an effect of Gods nature an eternal presence. If God was merely participating in this kind of truth, then this would suggest a higher reality than God in which God exists and acts, ad infinite. This would be a contradiction, since God ultimately defines the difference between the real and not real.

God is in fact the cause of logical truth, potential possibility, and reality; God is not the possible outcome or the eternal manifestation of it. However i do not mean to say here that God “creates” logic. Rather, i intend to say that God is the ultimate existential reason why there is such a thing as reality and logical truth and thus potential possibility; and that is because Gods being is an eternal/timeless expression of being and reality; while humanity merely participates in Gods eternal expression.

This is necessarily true because in order for something to be the ultimate reality it has to be the root of all potentiality including metaphysical/ontological/logical truth. If it were not, it would not be the ultimate reality, since there would be other beings that are not the effect of God.

God is truth, or ultimate reality, in so far as “reality” comes from Gods being, and no where else. God is hierarchically present to finite beings and necessarily permeates them; since they cannot continue to be real without God. And they must exist in that which is truth or reality by nature, since they cannot exist in the presence of an actual “nothing”. There is no such thing as nothing, and so there is necessarily an absolute being that is reality by nature, rather than by participation. God is the absolute reality in which potential contingent truths are permitted actuality. Potential realities have actuality in God. God is the necessary truth; the truth that must exist before we can speak logically of potential realities. They share in Gods existence. God gives them actuality, and the possibility of their existence is only true because God is reality, and reality eternally acts for their existence. They participate in reality; and this is another way of saying that they participate in God. Gods being is infinite. It is everywhere, and nowhere in particular. God is immaterial and thus no being can contain God. There is nowhere you can go where God is not present.

 

[AndyF]

MindOverMatter

God is immaterial and thus no being can contain God.

Excellent, thanks for the info.!

I know I’m deviating, but to complete my understanding I’m curious to know how does that special beatification of becoming Son’s of God (Eph 1:5) and to judge angels reconciles with your explaination?

Thanks.

Andy