Revelation?

[empther]

Could we please stay on the subject topic posing and answering simple questions instead playing the role of a mind reader?

I’ll be glad to!
Here’s what you said in post 29

Are you sure that you are not biased with the concept of love, beauty and goodness of to judge a holy writing. There is a dual concept for anyone you can imagine. Love goes against hate, beauty against ugly, good against evil, etc. Without one another has no meaning. Should we hate ugly or evil, or love them? **Are hate, ugly and evil are part of the creation :bigyikes: and if not how could we experience them and if yes what was the necessity?
**

How can hate, ugly and evil substantially exist?

Here is the question again: Is there anything in this world that displease you?

That wasn’t the question.
In post 29 you said:

Are you sure that you are not biased with the concept of love, beauty and goodness of to judge a holy writing. There is a dual concept for anyone you can imagine. Love goes against hate, beauty against ugly, good against evil, etc. Without one another has no meaning. Should we hate ugly or evil, or love them? **Are hate, ugly and evil are part of the creation :bigyikes: and if not how could we experience them and if yes what was the necessity?
**

Once again…
How can hate, ugly and evil substantially exist?

 

[Bahman]

I’ll be glad to!
Here’s what you said in post 29

How can hate, ugly and evil substantially exist?

That wasn’t the question.
In post 29 you said:

Once again…
How can hate, ugly and evil substantially exist?

Either you hate evil or not. How you could hate evil if it doesn’t substantially exist? How you could like evil and be in another side?

 

[empther]

Either you hate evil or not. **How you could hate evil if it doesn’t substantially exist? :bigyikes: **How you could like evil and be in another side?

Ah hah! So you confirm that evil exists substantially!

Where can I grab the stuff? I want to throw it in a landfill.

So if evil substantially exists, as you say, then God must have created evil? Is that what you want people to believe?

Oh. I almost forgot.

How can hate, ugly, and evil substantially exist?

 

[Bahman]

Ah hah! So you confirm that evil exists substantially!

Where can I grab the stuff? I want to throw it in a landfill.

So if evil substantially exists, as you say, then God must have created evil? Is that what you want people to believe?

Oh. I almost forgot.

How can hate, ugly, and evil substantially exist?

Don’t you believe in Satan?

 

[Bahman]

Ah hah! So you confirm that evil exists substantially!

Where can I grab the stuff? I want to throw it in a landfill.

So if evil substantially exists, as you say, then God must have created evil? Is that what you want people to believe?

Oh. I almost forgot.

How can hate, ugly, and evil substantially exist?

I meant, don’t you believe in Satan exist?

 

[empther]

I meant, don’t you believe in Satan exist?

Illustrates three
Techniques:

1. ignore the points already made
2. change the subject
   …
   …
3. confuse and deflect late-comers to the thread

Satan exists, and he does evil, but his existence isn’t evil. God didn’t make him that way and Satan could not create evil or change his own existence.

How can hate, ugly and evil substantially exist?

 

[Bahman]

Satan exists, and he does evil, but his existence isn’t evil.

I wasn’t believe otherwise since evil and good are subjective and person dependent That is why they just could have a meaning when it comes to action. So you cannot deny subjectivity of evil or you do even deny that.

 

[empther]

Buy in post 42 you said:

Either you hate evil or not. **How you could hate evil if it doesn’t substantially exist? :bigyikes: **How you could like evil and be in another side?

How can that be?

 

[Bahman]

Buy in post 42 you said:

How can that be?

I meant that they are subjective reality hence they exist yet person dependent. Am I so unclear?

 

[davidv]

I meant that they are subjective reality hence they exist yet person dependent. Am I so unclear?

You have yet to demonstrate the evil and good are person dependent.

Yes, you are unclear.

 

[Bahman]

You have yet to demonstrate the evil and good are person dependent.
Yes, you are unclear.

First do you accept evil as a subjective reality? If yes, the subjectiveness define that evil and good person dependent since that is the definition of subjective reality,

Subjective: Relating to the way a person experiences things in his or her own mind.

 

[davidv]

First do you accept evil as a subjective reality?

Is this an either/or question? If it is, I cannot answer. Evil is subjective in that a person who experiences it can only express that experience subjectively. However, an evil, that is, some lacking of good, can also be described objectively.

If yes, the subjectiveness define that evil and good person dependent since that is the definition of subjective reality,

Subjective: Relating to the way a person experiences things in his or her own mind.

I reject the false dichotomy presented here.

 

[CrossofChrist]

The main questions of this thread are around the concepts to understand whether our sense of judgments are strong enough to judge revelation.

First question: Is the creation perfect considering the fact that God is omniscience and omnipotent?

Yes and no. Creation will receive its perfection in its fullness in the second coming of Christ, and has already been perfected by Christ’s Incarnation and Resurrection.

Second question: Are our sense of judgments toward truth complete?

What exactly do you mean by this?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Because of two reasons, first you need thinking to become cognitively open to new truth, second, I was asked to do so.

I am searching spirituality to the edge and what is left is thinking to the edge.

I am a physicist working on a few projects at an institute. I spent half of my time thinking about the existence in general.

That’s good. Take a look at Thomas Aquinas’ proof for the existence of God based on the existence of things. It is from his long essay Ente et Essentia ( paragraph 80 )

1. Now, whatever belongs to a thing is either caused by the principles of its nature, as the ability to laugh in man, or comes to it from some extrinsic principle, as light in the air from the influence of the sun. But it cannot be that the existence of a thing is caused by the form or quiddity of that thing ─ I say caused as by an efficient cause ─ because then something would be its own cause, and would bring itself into existence, which is impossible. It is therefore necessary that every such thing, the existence of which is other than its nature, have its existence from some other thing. And because every thing which exists by virtue of another is led back, as to its first cause, to that which exists by virtue of itself, it is necessary that there be some thing which is the cause of the existence of all things because it is existence alone. Otherwise, there would be an infinite regress among causes, since every thing which is not existence alone has a cause of its existence, as has been said. It is clear, therefore, that an intelligence is form and existence, and that it has existence from the First Being, which is existence alone. And this is the First Cause, which is God.

dhspriory.org/thomas/english/DeEnte&Essentia.htm

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

Yes and no. Creation will receive its perfection in its fullness in the second coming of Christ, and has already been perfected by Christ’s Incarnation and Resurrection.

Why God didn’t create universe perfect so he could leave some room for us to search the truth instead of hearing the truth and accepting the truth we cannot understand.

What exactly do you mean by this?

I meant whether we need a sense of judgment to understand what is claimed as true or false?

Suppose person X comes and claim something about the truth. Don’t you need a sense of judgment to understand whether what s/he says is correct or not. We are blind without sense of judgment otherwise. Assume that what is claimed was rejected because it does not satisfy your judgment. Now assume that Jesus comes, his second coming, and claim the same thing. Would you accept it this time as truth or again use your sense of judgment to check what is claimed?

My aim from making this thought experiment is to show the judgment necessity on any subject matter otherwise we have to accept the truth based on our blindness which contrary to what you claimed namely creation becomes perfect in second Jesus coming.

This however bring the old question out, namely why do we need the revelation if we could deduce it based on facts which is required for having a sense of judgment since otherwise we cannot judge the truth and we have accept it blindly hence nothing becomes complete with second coming.

 

[Bahman]

Is this an either/or question? If it is, I cannot answer.

It is not an either/or question.

Evil is subjective in that a person who experiences it can only express that experience subjectively.

We are at the same page now.

However, an evil, that is, some lacking of good, can also be described objectively.

That is subject of discussion. But before that is good also a part of our subjective realities? In reality, what is objective outside an intellect is neither good or evil. That is intellect duty to attach a label on a objective reality as good depending on whether it is pleasing to the agent or do otherwise if it is unpleasant. Can we agree up to this point?

I reject the false dichotomy presented here.

So please read the previous comment.

 

[Bahman]

That’s good. Take a look at Thomas Aquinas’ proof for the existence of God based on the existence of things. It is from his long essay Ente et Essentia ( paragraph 80 )

1. Now, whatever belongs to a thing is either caused by the principles of its nature, as the ability to laugh in man, or comes to it from some extrinsic principle, as light in the air from the influence of the sun. But it cannot be that the existence of a thing is caused by the form or quiddity of that thing ─ I say caused as by an efficient cause ─ because then something would be its own cause, and would bring itself into existence, which is impossible. It is therefore necessary that every such thing, the existence of which is other than its nature, have its existence from some other thing. And because every thing which exists by virtue of another is led back, as to its first cause, to that which exists by virtue of itself, it is necessary that there be some thing which is the cause of the existence of all things because it is existence alone. Otherwise, there would be an infinite regress among causes, since every thing which is not existence alone has a cause of its existence, as has been said. It is clear, therefore, that an intelligence is form and existence, and that it has existence from the First Being, which is existence alone. And this is the First Cause, which is God.

dhspriory.org/thomas/english/DeEnte&Essentia.htm

Linus2nd

Thank you very much and I will look at it shortly.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Thank you very much and I will look at it shortly.

Man, do you ever sleep?

Linus2nd

 

[CrossofChrist]

Why God didn’t create universe perfect so he could leave some room for us to search the truth instead of hearing the truth and accepting the truth we cannot understand.

We don’t know the specifics on why, but we can speculate as to why the universe wasn’t created so that its end was already attained. In the end though, if you want to continue the discussion down that path (and I feel like that’s the purpose of this thread), it will come back to God’s love.

I meant whether we need a sense of judgment to understand what is claimed as true or false?

Suppose person X comes and claim something about the truth. Don’t you need a sense of judgment to understand whether what s/he says is correct or not. We are blind without sense of judgment otherwise. Assume that what is claimed was rejected because it does not satisfy your judgment. Now assume that Jesus comes, his second coming, and claim the same thing. Would you accept it this time as truth or again use your sense of judgment to check what is claimed?

Oh okay I see what you meant. Thank you.

My aim from making this thought experiment is to show the judgment necessity on any subject matter otherwise we have to accept the truth based on our blindness which contrary to what you claimed namely creation becomes perfect in second Jesus coming.

We gather the information to make a judgment on the truth from our senses, from what is out there in the world.

newadvent.org/summa/1084.htm#article7

This however bring the old question out, namely why do we need the revelation if we could deduce it based on facts which is required for having a sense of judgment since otherwise we cannot judge the truth and we have accept it blindly hence nothing becomes complete with second coming.

First, Revelation makes it easier to understand the things we already can deduce from our reason (e.g the Decalogue). But it would be wrong to look at our nature as if it is closed in on itself and is self sufficient. We need God, but God only comes as a gift that only he can give, since God doesn’t come from us. The purpose of Revelation isn’t to present us with facts, but to bring us into friendship with God.

 

[CrossofChrist]

We don’t know the specifics on why, but we can speculate as to why the universe wasn’t created so that its end was already attained. In the end though, if you want to continue the discussion down that path (and I feel like that’s the purpose of this thread), it will come back to God’s love.

Oh okay I see what you meant. Thank you.

We gather the information to make a judgment on the truth from our senses, from what is out there in the world.

newadvent.org/summa/1084.htm#article7

First, Revelation makes it easier to understand the things we already can deduce from our reason (e.g the Decalogue). But it would be wrong to look at our nature as if it is closed in on itself and is self sufficient. We need God, but God only comes as a gift that only he can give, since God doesn’t come from us. The purpose of Revelation isn’t to present us with facts, but to bring us into friendship with God.

cont…

Revelation isn’t just information for our intellect to process; Revelation is the revealing of God himself. As such, it requires the whole man, both intellect and will. So how can we judge that Revelation is true? Certainly divine facts demonstrate the truthfulness of Revelation; our intellect apprehends that only God’s intervention and stamp of approval to the event could make what happened possible. But another way is perceiving beauty; the beauty that comes from God, maybe Jesus’ actions or the charity of the saints, touches our hearts and we know that what is hidden behind the beauty which we see with our natural reason must be true. And when we accept in faith we can “see” the Beauty itself with the eyes faith gives us (of course this should be distinguished from the “sight” we receive in the beatific vision).