Something different: a story

[OneSheep]

I thought I already did; okay, just this morning i premeditatively lied to someone, i already knew I was going to and I went ahead and did it. Let’s see how your system works.

Oof. A personal example. You may want to choose again.

I would start with “why did you lie?” But that would suggest I need detail, which I do not.

So, here is a list of reasons why people lie, off the top of my head:

1. To protect ourselves in some way.
2. To protect someone else in some way.
3. To protect the person being lied to.

Was one of these the reason, or something else?

BTW, its not “my system”. I basically learned it from a priest, and when I read Confessions I realized that St. Augustine went through the same process in the 4th century. It’s not complicated.

 

[brumano]

This is one of dozens I’ve been wanting to get back to, this looks like the right intersection. St Augustine is speaking more as a spiritual philosopher than a dogmatic teacher in his writings which we interpret not just in word, but in spirit; the spirit that he wrote in, that is. To me, he is saying that any honestly held philosophy is good because the thinker will inevitably, if given enough time, arrive at Monotheistic Christianity because it has been revealled, and it will be the only truth that can be trusted, and can prove satisfying on all objective levels. He is not saying everything that exists is good, he’s saying that everything that exists, can be good. Manicheism which he considered for a time was vacuous, but he could see a development in it towards monotheism so it has merits that could be thought of as good and there was a break from the past of stoicism that must have been for a time intellectualy stimulating but ulitmately unfulfilling for him personally as we see his interior conflicts and his restlessness for something far greater went on. My point? It would not have been good for him to stay in Manicheism, so if something is not good, then to that extent, it is in fact, Bad. " Our hearts are ever restless Lord until they rest in you." This restlessness is miserable suffering, it is bad unless and until it is turned to good.

 

[OneSheep]

This is one of dozens I’ve been wanting to get back to, this looks like the right intersection. St Augustine is speaking more as a spiritual philosopher than a dogmatic teacher in his writings…

He is not saying everything that exists is good, he’s saying that everything that exists, can be good.

St. Augustine sort of flips back and forth, and there is plenty of support for what you are saying. Here are some quotes from Confessions that I think are relevant:

“Every being is good. Beings that suffer corruption are nevertheless good… as long as they exist, they are good.”

“… it was made manifest to me that you (God) have made all things good. All things, taken one by one, are good and all things, taken together, are very good. For our God has make all things very good.”

“To you, (God) nothing whatsoever is evil.”

“Through the Spirit we see that whatsoever exists in any way is good.”

So, Augustine said these profound things, and then he remembered some past sins of his own, and he remembered the Manicheans, and he got bogged down in his resentment again, somewhat negatiing some of these absolute statements.

What St. Augustine did, though, was analyze “Why men sin”.

So, I gave a few options as to why people lie. Let me add to the list:

People lie in order to:

1. Protect themselves in some way.
2. Protect someone else in some way.
3. Protect the person being lied to in some way, (i.e. “white lies”)
4. Hurt someone else in order to punish them.
5. Get something they want by using deception.

Like I said, this is a partial list. Which option do you want to delve into more deeply, in terms of discovering why people sin?

 

[brumano]

St. Augustine sort of flips back and forth, and there is plenty of support for what you are saying. Here are some quotes from Confessions that I think are relevant:

“Every being is good. Beings that suffer corruption are nevertheless good… as long as they exist, they are good.”

“… it was made manifest to me that you (God) have made all things good. All things, taken one by one, are good and all things, taken together, are very good. For our God has make all things very good.”

“To you, (God) nothing whatsoever is evil.”

“Through the Spirit we see that whatsoever exists in any way is good.”

So, Augustine said these profound things, and then he remembered some past sins of his own, and he remembered the Manicheans, and he got bogged down in his resentment again, somewhat negatiing some of these absolute statements.

What St. Augustine did, though, was analyze “Why men sin”.

So, I gave a few options as to why people lie. Let me add to the list:

You can’t discover it, not completely anyway, nor can I nor could St Augustine; it is largely known as the mystery of evil. As to why people lie that is certainly the short list; but people who have become evil, lie and kill for the sheer evil of it and the spread and increase of it; they loose their freedom to choose otherwise, their very nature is changed and possibly for all eternity. The idea of lying as opposed to truthfullness is completely alien to them, lies become true for them, hence we see the worldwide culture of death that has become reality propped up as either a relative good or a non-issue. Sin has real consequences though, and in the end it will be destroyed…totally.

 

[OneSheep]

You can’t discover it, not completely anyway, nor can I nor could St Augustine; it is largely known as the mystery of evil.

Well, I dare to differ. I have, with God’s help, discovered why people do bad acts. I have been able to boil down sin to human appetites filtered through human ignorance and blindness. I have been able to figure out why human blindness happens, but why people are born ignorant is still a huge mystery to me. It seems to me that God could create us with a perfect awareness, knowing fully when we hurt others and how, but He did not. That is a real mystery, human ignorance. I do not resent human ignorance, though, I accept it. It is still a mystery to me. With no ignorance, there would be no deliberate sin.

As to why people lie that is certainly the short list; but people who have become evil, lie and kill for the sheer evil of it and the spread and increase of it; they loose their freedom to choose otherwise, their very nature is changed and possibly for all eternity.

The idea is popular that a person can change their own nature, but I disagree. To me, only God creates, and a change of nature would be a creative act. People are enslaved by their appetites, people are enslaved by hatred and grudges, but I do not see this a change in nature, but an enslavement to their nature. Jesus came to set us free from our nature. All of us can be possessed by our appetites, our motives and desires.

The idea of lying as opposed to truthfullness is completely alien to them, lies become true for them, hence we see the worldwide culture of death that has become reality propped up as either a relative good or a non-issue. Sin has real consequences though, and in the end it will be destroyed…totally.

So, here the question is, to me, “Why do people cling to lies?”. This has to do with blindness. I cling to lies when I desire, very much, for them to be true. For example, slaveholders held onto the lie that “negroes” were less than human, like livestock. They had paid for their “holdings” and benefited financially from the ownership. Their desire for the wealth, and not especially not to lose the wealth and way of life, blinded them. I have experienced such blindness, in a different context.

BTW, I understand your point of view and have no reason to contest it. It is your view, from your experiences. I am only presenting a different way of looking at things, feel free to ignore it.

 

[vames]

Well, I dare to differ. I have, with God’s help, discovered why people do bad acts. I have been able to boil down sin to human appetites filtered through human ignorance and blindness. I have been able to figure out why human blindness happens, but why people are born ignorant is still a huge mystery to me. It seems to me that God could create us with a perfect awareness, knowing fully when we hurt others and how, but He did not. That is a real mystery, human ignorance. I do not resent human ignorance, though, I accept it. It is still a mystery to me. With no ignorance, there would be no deliberate sin.

Do you think ignorance can be seen as a useful tool for survival, just like blindness?

We see ignorance primarily as a source of frustration, because it engenders insecurity, indifference towards others, a great deal of self-deceiving and a waste of precious time of our lives. And we’re right, whether it’s about faith (“why doesn’t God tell me what He wants?”) or daily life (iIf only I knew what I know today!"). Also, clinging to lies is usually seen exclusively as a 100% voluntary, 100% conscious effort to numb ourselves for the sake of protecting our comfort (“I don’t want to go there, because it’s uncomfortable to me, it can shatter a coherent perspective about life that took me such effort to achieve”). But can we say that ignorance is bliss, in the most natural and basic way? No wars, no stories like the one about Ananias and Sapphiras, no crusades, no unfair trials, tortures and crucifixion, that’s for sure. But I have difficulties imagining how a society of individuals who are not born ignorant would function - each individual suffering and grieving like all the other people who get ill, age and die were his/her closest relatives, friends, significant others. Because human suffering - as in illnesses, natural aging and death, natural disasters that kill people - have nothing to do with “human evil”/sin. And I didn’t even touch the topic of empathy towards animals. Is survival of individuals and our species dependent, more or less, on our capacity of being ignorant? Can ignorance be seen as a gift that can be used or misused like everything we are born with?

 

[OneSheep]

Do you think ignorance can be seen as a useful tool for survival, just like blindness?

We see ignorance primarily as a source of frustration, because it engenders insecurity, indifference towards others, a great deal of self-deceiving and a waste of precious time of our lives. And we’re right, whether it’s about faith (“why doesn’t God tell me what He wants?”) or daily life (iIf only I knew what I know today!").

Well, perhaps “ignorance” v “blindness” needs to be carefully defined to answer that question. To me, what you are describing involves a good deal of blindness. When I say “ignorance” I am talking about unsuspecting, simple lack of knowledge. “I did not know that doing that hurt people”. “I did not know that those people were of value.”

Also, clinging to lies is usually seen exclusively as a 100% voluntary, 100% conscious effort to numb ourselves for the sake of protecting our comfort (“I don’t want to go there, because it’s uncomfortable to me, it can shatter a coherent perspective about life that took me such effort to achieve”). But can we say that ignorance is bliss, in the most natural and basic way? No wars, no stories like the one about Ananias and Sapphiras, no crusades, no unfair trials, tortures and crucifixion, that’s for sure.

Yes, usually seen as voluntary and conscious, but perhaps such conscious clinging is much more rare. I’ve never seen the stats on it, and it would be difficult to get such stats. I’m a little confused about what you are saying in the last two sentences above.

But I have difficulties imagining how a society of individuals who are not born ignorant would function - each individual suffering and grieving like all the other people who get ill, age and die were his/her closest relatives, friends, significant others. Because human suffering - as in illnesses, natural aging and death, natural disasters that kill people - have nothing to do with “human evil”/sin. And I didn’t even touch the topic of empathy towards animals. Is survival of individuals and our species dependent, more or less, on our capacity of being ignorant? Can ignorance be seen as a gift that can be used or misused like everything we are born with?

I like what you are saying here. I do believe that denial is such a universal aspect of our minds that it must have an evolutionary function. Certainly, if our empathy was not somehow limited, we would truly have an unending pathology. Desensitization has its place, too, but I worry about all those minds sitting in front of computer games, deciding over and over that destroying the enemy is the only means of solving problems. When are they going to make computer games where reconciliation is the winning strategy?

And yes, perhaps it is empathy toward animals that strengthens the evolutionary function of blocked empathy. Have you ever seen The Gods Must be Crazy? The bushmen, like many hunters and gatherers, thank their kill for giving them the sustenance they need. Their society, in many, many, ways was much more developed around empathy than that of most industrialized nations. By the way, I recommend that movie if you can find it. It is light, but meaningful. I loved the dealings with the “antichrist”.

 

[vames]

Well, perhaps “ignorance” v “blindness” needs to be carefully defined to answer that question. To me, what you are describing involves a good deal of blindness. When I say “ignorance” I am talking about unsuspecting, simple lack of knowledge. “I did not know that doing that hurt people”. “I did not know that those people were of value.”

You’re right, this requires explanations, and perhaps I’m wrong or confused here. My idea is that any violence which is religiously motivated or/and prompted by the current/mainstream understanding of What Is Bad For Us and Who Our Enemies Are can be primarily attributed to ignorance. Ignorance = cultural conditioning = we can’t and we don’t know better (anything else that we have been taught is taboo, inconceivable, dangerous, so we shouldn’t “go there”, period). Blindness = personal denial = we can know better and perhaps sometimes we realize it, but this time we don’t, out of various personal reasons (usually fear or anger; we can “go there”, but instinctively we refrain from doing it).

I don’t really know how these two interact and enhance each other in practice: if I were a slave owner, centuries ago, probably I’d have been influenced both by the customs of my society (I have been taught that slaves are valueless, I could have quoted the authorities, the Bible etc) and by my own fear of otherness (black people are so different from me, their skin and facial features are different etc). So I mentioned in the same phrase Ananias and Sapphiras, the crusades and the wars, thinking that culturally conditioned ignorance is more powerful than individual, occasional blindness that can be sometimes overcome when ignorance is dissipated by the effort of knowing and understanding “the enemy” (random example: Matteo Ricci and “the rites controversy” in China - even today some sites condemn the Jesuits for being too fascinated by the Chinese religious practices, instead of understanding that their mission should have been to suppress them altogether).

I told you elsewhere that I was very angry with some people who still defend an exorcism that had killed a girl, some decades ago; to me is easier to accept the ignorance of the persons who actually promoted and performed the exorcism, because they didn’t know better (they were convinced that the girl was possessed and that they in fact “tortured the devil”, not the girl) than the blindness of other people who even today defend that exorcism, in the name of defending the Church. On the other hand, I can see that those who promoted and performed the exorcism were themselves overcome by fear and anger and couldn’t see the suffering of the real girl - and I can see the ignorance of those who today defend the exorcism, because they don’t know all the details about the case.

I guess that this difficulty of separating ignorance from blindness led Aquinas to apply so different intellectual methods of defining ignorance (easy and rational: vincible/invincible ignorance is when the individual is or is not free and willing to acquire the required knowledge) and blindness (complicated, with a decisive element of mystery). Check out this: “Spiritual blindness and hardness of heart imply two things. One is the movement of the human mind in cleaving to evil, and turning away from the Divine light; and as regards this, God is not the cause of spiritual blindness and hardness of heart, just as He is not the cause of sin. The other thing is the withdrawal of grace, the result of which is that the mind is not enlightened by God to see aright, and man’s heart is not softened to live aright; and as regards this God is the cause of spiritual blindness and hardness of heart /…/ Therefore blindness, of its very nature, is directed to the damnation of those who are blinded; for which reason it is accounted an effect of reprobation. But, through God’s mercy, temporary blindness is directed medicinally to the spiritual welfare of those who are blinded. This mercy, however, is not vouchsafed to all those who are blinded, but only to the predestinated, to whom “all things work together unto good” (Rom. 8:28). Therefore as regards some, blindness is directed to their healing; but as regards others, to their damnation; as Augustine says (De Quaest. Evang. iii).”

And yes, perhaps it is empathy toward animals that strengthens the evolutionary function of blocked empathy. Have you ever seen The Gods Must be Crazy? The bushmen, like many hunters and gatherers, thank their kill for giving them the sustenance they need. Their society, in many, many, ways was much more developed around empathy than that of most industrialized nations. By the way, I recommend that movie if you can find it. It is light, but meaningful. I loved the dealings with the “antichrist”.

I see it’s on YouTube, so I’ll watch it. This topic is very pleasant to me; my better half went on a trip to Korean island and he told me about some old rituals of the locals who used to apologize even to the trees when they needed to cut them. I thought: what’s this, an inspiration for Avatar? But this was real

 

[OneSheep]

I told you elsewhere that I was very angry with some people who still defend an exorcism that had killed a girl, some decades ago; to me is easier to accept the ignorance of the persons who actually promoted and performed the exorcism, because they didn’t know better (they were convinced that the girl was possessed and that they in fact “tortured the devil”, not the girl) than the blindness of other people who even today defend that exorcism, in the name of defending the Church. On the other hand, I can see that those who promoted and performed the exorcism were themselves overcome by fear and anger and couldn’t see the suffering of the real girl - and I can see the ignorance of those who today defend the exorcism, because they don’t know all the details about the case.

Yes, they don’t know all the details. Is it ignorance, or blindness. Doesn’t matter too much. It was the cause of the effect, both understandable.

I guess that this difficulty of separating ignorance from blindness led Aquinas to apply so different intellectual methods of defining ignorance (easy and rational: vincible/invincible ignorance is when the individual is or is not free and willing to acquire the required knowledge) and blindness (complicated, with a decisive element of mystery). Check out this: “Spiritual blindness and hardness of heart imply two things. One is the movement of the human mind in cleaving to evil, and turning away from the Divine light; and as regards this, God is not the cause of spiritual blindness and hardness of heart, just as He is not the cause of sin. The other thing is the withdrawal of grace, the result of which is that the mind is not enlightened by God to see aright, and man’s heart is not softened to live aright; and as regards this God is the cause of spiritual blindness and hardness of heart /…/ Therefore blindness, of its very nature, is directed to the damnation of those who are blinded; for which reason it is accounted an effect of reprobation. But, through God’s mercy, temporary blindness is directed medicinally to the spiritual welfare of those who are blinded. This mercy, however, is not vouchsafed to all those who are blinded, but only to the predestinated, to whom “all things work together unto good” (Rom. 8:28). Therefore as regards some, blindness is directed to their healing; but as regards others, to their damnation; as Augustine says (De Quaest. Evang. iii).”

My problem with reading Aquinas is that I think to read him well, one has to read the whole works, which is somewhat tedious. If I comment on any one particular item, my comments are sure to be addressed somewhere else, and somewhere else is addressed here, and there, etc. That said, I will still comment on this, with reservation:

Reply to Objection 3: That God directs the blindness of some to their spiritual welfare, is due to His mercy; but that the blindness of others is directed to their loss is due to His justice: and that He vouchsafes His mercy to some, and not to all, does not make God a respecter of persons, as explained in the FP, Q[23], A[5], ad 3

That God* directs* any blindness at all does not make any sense to me. Awareness always leads one to greater love in heart and deed. I agree that we all, as a species, have the capacity for blindness, and that the capacity is a gift, but it is a gift that has somewhat outlived its usefulness, so God sent His Son, among other reasons, to give us a means of dealing with blindness (i.e. forgiveness, a command to Love everyone).

I think that the king in my story was blinded by his resentment. His authority was somehow challenged, he feared the slippery slope, and we know that “king” had his own issues with lying.

Did Peter ever forgive himself for lying about his connection to Jesus? I am thinking that he knew Jesus forgave him, but did he ever forgive himself? Such an issue would act as a thorn in his side; his lashing out at A & S may have been a manifestation of this.

I see it’s on YouTube, so I’ll watch it. This topic is very pleasant to me; my better half went on a trip to Korean island and he told me about some old rituals of the locals who used to apologize even to the trees when they needed to cut them. I thought: what’s this, an inspiration for Avatar? But this was real

Enjoy. I hope they show the whole movie. I have a video with extras, the story of the bushman character and how his life continued, and ended, after the film. It sounds like their culture is essentially devastated. Let me know when you have watched it.

Humor is a powerful gift. Wish I had more.

 

[brumano]

Reply to Objection 3: That God directs the blindness of some to their spiritual welfare, is due to His mercy; but that the blindness of others is directed to their loss is due to His justice: and that He vouchsafes His mercy to some, and not to all, does not make God a respecter of persons, as explained in the FP, Q[23], A[5], ad 3

 

[OneSheep]

OneSheep;11724782:

But there are different types of sins and sinners; there are some who are for the most part or at least to some extent, innocently blind, such as Saul before his conversion to Paul. There are others like in the words of St. Peter who willingly forget, what they know is true in order to defy God…bringing, as he goes onto say, swift destruction on themselves.

I cannot find an example of anything other than “innocent” blindness though, Brumano. Saul was blinded because he saw Jesus as a blasphemer, just as so many others did. Why do people “willingly forget”? Again, I find that the answer is blindness and/or ignorance. People do not realize the consequences of their actions. People do not realize the value of the person that they hurt or sin against.

I am open-minded, Brumano. Can you think of an example of such “willful forgetting” from a person who is fully aware of the impact of his choice?

Awareness does not always lead one to greater love in heart and deed, in fact it could lead one into whole new vistas of evil, and whenever we become aware of some truth as being so, an accompanying temptation usually follows; the temptation to disregard or to subvert or exploit. and this is why our Lord placed the higher importance on the innermost person, not the expansion of awareness. “Open your hearts not your minds,” “Rend your hearts, not your garments.”
But here again we get into disagreement about the nature of evil, because God sent His only begotten Son, the evil ruler is judged, not excused. Yes He gives sight to us the blind but in His own words He came “So that the blind might see and those who see would be made blind.” The simile of deafness is also used: “Let him who has ears to hear, hear.” “Their ears shall be deaf to my words.”

Could you give an example of awareness not leading to greater love, and probably deed? Perhaps we are using differing definitions of “awareness”. Finding out new ways to exploit people is not “awareness”. A person may know a lot about people, but have no real awareness of their value. Finding out knew depths of the value of people is an example of awareness. Awareness, to me, by definition is the type of knowledge that leads to greater compassion. I think we have a difference in definition of terms; it happens.

Peter knew of course that he was forgiven, totally, and that is far more important to know than that we forgive ourselves; we have to accept forgiveness from God, but it is in God’s wisdom that he more often does not allow us to forget, we would not remember the severity and the remorse for our sin that would be disasterous…we would more or less just as easily go out and do the same thing over and over again. Peter was again tempted in this same way, many times I’m sure but because mercy is about growth he was able to triumph over this sin, because he could remember just how bad it was that he denied Jesus three times. It’s good that we remember how terrible our past sins are, so that we truly do not want to repeat them; that does not mean we do not forgive ourselves, but whether we do or not, God’s Mercy is what is above all.

There is a difference between “knowing he was forgiven” and truly forgiving ourselves. A person can have such “knowing”, but still be weighted down in self-condemnation, as evidenced by the scrupulous. Certainly, there is some relief in knowing that God forgives us, but what does it do to our own spirituality to carry forever the guilt of our past sins, guilt meted out by our own consciences? This is not the “freedom” that Jesus was talking about. Did Peter ever forgive himself? I don’t know.

We are autonomous, and that is a mystery. We are not the same person as God. God forgives, we forgive. God forgives, but sometimes we do not. When we do not forgive ourselves, it can be just as miserable as the belief that God does not forgive us.

To me, Brumano, there comes a point where we do not need remembrance of our past sins in order to avoid sinning again. We have the “law written in out hearts”; we do not repeat past sins because we empathize strongly with those whom are injured by the sin, and we do not desire to hurt anyone. Love, rather than self-punishment, becomes our guide.

 

[brumano]

i don’t know then, how is it we see throughout history the same empirical evils of injustice, hatred, cruelty, greed, exploitation, deception, and so on; from the first pages of known history and now progressed to an unprecedented world order of evil? Come now, do you really think all of this was just happenstance due to innocent human blindness? That’s just not realistic nor would it be intellectually honest to think it is so in order to keep, inner calm or to allay our fears about our propensity for and tolerance of evil, or about the state of the world as such, as has also been shown will certainly continue to deteriorate until it is a complete abomination in the light of good. Mankind is fallen and continues falling; what examples are there of willfull blindness? What was the Holocaust? What was the horrific genocide executed by the Marxist Communists? And what do we all willingly forget each and everyday now during this current rule of the culture of death? That life begins at the moment of conception, that’s what, and the right of the unborn and the elderly, the terminally ill, the socially marginalized and all the rest of us to have our life as God gave it, until the moment when according to His will, we then die. This is only some of what is willingly forgotten. People do realize the consequences of their actions, sometimes not fully, but please, what doesn’t a pharmaceutical company that produces abortifacient drugs know about what their product will do to an unborn baby, how are they blind to this?

I am open-minded, Brumano. Can you think of an example of such “willful forgetting” from a person who is fully aware of the impact of his choice?

 

[OneSheep]

i don’t know then, how is it we see throughout history the same empirical evils of injustice, hatred, cruelty, greed, exploitation, deception, and so on; from the first pages of known history and now progressed to an unprecedented world order of evil?

Come now, do you really think all of this was just happenstance due to innocent human blindness? That’s just not realistic nor would it be intellectually honest to think it is so in order to keep, inner calm or to allay our fears about our propensity for and tolerance of evil, or about the state of the world as such, as has also been shown will certainly continue to deteriorate until it is a complete abomination in the light of good. Mankind is fallen and continues falling

Brumano, you must be a “progressive”. Only the “progress” appears to you to be in the wrong direction! It is the existential question; is the world getting better, or is it getting worse? I grew up under the influence of my parents, who generally thought things were going the wrong direction. At about age 25, after a great deal of reflection, I made the switch.

In my view now, our Father made such wonderful creatures! I look at the trends. The civil rights movement, the leveling off of the population explosion, the advances we have made in medicine, the exponential increase in what we know about our environment and what it means to be human. Yes, there is plenty of bad stuff going on, but did you know that deaths due to war are on the steady decrease?

I know, you are probably thinking that we are so many frogs in the pot about international leaders and so forth. Perhaps we are in such a pot, but we are not frogs! The fact of the matter is that the pot is not hot enough yet, and not enough of us know that we are in it. The founding of our great nation continues to prove that people can say “enough!” and make a change for the better.

I call it the “wrench theory of learning”. I take a wrench and inadvertently begin beating myself over the head with the thing. After a great deal of pain and suffering, I realize that I have pain, and I realize that I have been beating myself over the head with a wrench. Then I put the wrench down. Yes, I am that stupid. Yes, people are that slow to gain wisdom. We are quite loveable though…

May I present one example, pertinent to this thread? Can you imagine any democratically elected leader today behaving as the King did, or Peter in the story of A & S? That leader would not last a day in this world, and that is a good thing. Abortion is trending out; education will be its demise. But hey, I’m not set on changing your mind by any means. Pessimism is not a big issue to me.

what examples are there of willfull blindness? What was the Holocaust? What was the horrific genocide executed by the Marxist Communists? And what do we all willingly forget each and everyday now during this current rule of the culture of death? That life begins at the moment of conception, that’s what, and the right of the unborn and the elderly, the terminally ill, the socially marginalized and all the rest of us to have our life as God gave it, until the moment when according to His will, we then die. This is only some of what is willingly forgotten. People do realize the consequences of their actions, sometimes not fully, but please, what doesn’t a pharmaceutical company that produces abortifacient drugs know about what their product will do to an unborn baby, how are they blind to this?

On the last question, you can check my thread about how to forgive abortion doctors. We talked about the blindness a bit.

I have plenty of personal experience in blindness. I confess that when I resent a person, I am automatically blind to his humanity. Osama bin Laden, for example, I considered as having a value less than dirt. I wanted him dead. I had somewhat the same opinion about doctors who do abortions. Is it “innocent” blindness? I think the label is impertinent. It’s just blindness, and God gave us the capacity for such blindness, IMO.

People resent their enemies, and their minds recreate their enemies’ images as something less than human. Many of the German people resented the Jewish citizenry and the powerful bankers as invasive. Those Germans were blind. People in Stalin’s regime had the same issues. To me, blindness is never “willful”, it is an automatic gut-reaction thing. However, that statement is subject to some scrutiny on the definition of “will”. I am certain that the leadership of the USSR hungrily eyed the holdings of many wealthy individuals and they wanted their stuff. Desire, too, blinds us. It blinds me sometimes. It is important that we are all aware of our nature. Did the Soviet leadership’s desire for stuff sustain their “will” toward hanging onto the dehumanization of their enemies? Perhaps, but the influence of desire on will is also one of those automatic things. To me, the answer to this predestined aspect of our human nature (mechanized hating) is willful forgiveness. I have little control over my automatic anger toward someone (actions yes, emotion no). What I can willingly do is to forgive once I have become aware that I have anger.

The King did not console the wife because his mind had already demonized the two of them as soon as they “lied” to him. She did not have a value to him, she was disposable. The king was more than disappointed, he was resentful. The couple had become objects of resentment in the king’s mind. He did not “will” the resentment; it was a mechanized reaction, an automatic blindness.

 

[brumano]

St. Augustine sort of flips back and forth, and there is plenty of support for what you are saying. Here are some quotes from Confessions that I think are relevant:

“Every being is good. Beings that suffer corruption are nevertheless good… as long as they exist, they are good.”

 

[OneSheep]

St. Augustine sort of flips back and forth, and there is plenty of support for what you are saying.

…in context of who created all, for their intended good, and the good of all who are created; and that is of course an extrapulation of his, on the final state of all beings in the fullness of time but it is not meant in the temporal to suggest that existence itself is good. this is because we participate in our existence which we have from the ever existing good. Part, of the good of all beings is that they fullfill in some capacity the will of the good from which they were created, whether they know it or not or whether they choose it or choose against it or not, for one thing the contrast is made to goodness such that the being can then see, and truly choose the full good which is God. St. Augustine among other things is actually saying here that goodness has to be strived for, he had to seek this greatest good not just accept superficiality as relatively the same, which it is not. From your quote: Beings who suffer corruption are nevertheless good; so those beings are suffering, and by corruption you take him to mean sin which is partially his meaning which is not mistaken, but it is because they are good that they suffer, if they are good they hate the suffering of sin and as long as they exist God will bring their suffering to a manifold good. The evil do not suffer from sin they enjoy it, they prosper and revel in it, they love it, this is the difference and unless that changes somehow their existence itself is evil and that is why evil exists, in the now, but in the end it will not be found

“… it was made manifest to me that you (God) have made all things good. All things, taken one by one, are good and all things, taken together, are very good. For our God has make all things very good.”

This means only that evil can in no way or eventuality actually defeat or change God, to God there is no threat from evil that he, God, cannot withstand or even transform into an even more exceeding good, such as he has done with death of course. It could’nt mean that nothing is evil in the sight of God, it just means that God, has made all things for good, not evil.

Well, I see his writings differently. Augustine was leaving the position of the Manicheans, who asserted that part of creation was good, and part bad, and they had designated those parts. Augustine rejected this altogether.

Augustine uses the word existence not occurrence. No doubt, bad things happen. However, to me, it is our conscience that says “bad forces, bad people, cause bad things to happen”, and it is this thinking that helps us keep our own behaviors in check. When I do helpful acts, my conscience says “I am a good, acceptable person”, and when I do hurtful acts, my conscience says the opposite, and inflicts guilt. This is how the conscience works. When we label people as “evil”, we are reflecting the designation given by our conscience. We often use “existence” and “occurrence” interchangeably, but to me Augustine is using “existence” as opposed to “occurrence”. Important distinction. Sins do not “exist”, they occur. We have a whole vocabulary to address the distinction: verbs and nouns, right?

It seems to me that Augustine’s Christian experience was one in which he saw that God transcends the conscience itself. Existence is more than what we do, existence is an underlying goodness, in which the Creator takes joy and loves. Bad things happen because people are well-intended, but ignorant and blind. Augustine was able to see this for the most part, but fell short when it came to certain items. When he remembered some of his past sins, he fell back into a mode of self-condemnation.

 

[brumano]

Well, I see his writings differently. Augustine was leaving the position of the Manicheans, who asserted that part of creation was good, and part bad, and they had designated those parts. Augustine rejected this altogether.

Augustine uses the word existence not occurrence. No doubt, bad things happen. However, to me, it is our conscience that says “bad forces, bad people, cause bad things to happen”, and it is this thinking that helps us keep our own behaviors in check. When I do helpful acts, my conscience says “I am a good, acceptable person”, and when I do hurtful acts, my conscience says the opposite, and inflicts guilt. This is how the conscience works. When we label people as “evil”, we are reflecting the designation given by our conscience. We often use “existence” and “occurrence” interchangeably, but to me Augustine is using “existence” as opposed to “occurrence”. Important distinction. Sins do not “exist”, they occur. We have a whole vocabulary to address the distinction: verbs and nouns, right?

It seems to me that Augustine’s Christian experience was one in which he saw that God transcends the conscience itself. Existence is more than what we do, existence is an underlying goodness, in which the Creator takes joy and loves. Bad things happen because people are well-intended, but ignorant and blind. Augustine was able to see this for the most part, but fell short when it came to certain items. When he remembered some of his past sins, he fell back into a mode of self-condemnation.

He did because he met up again with the same old dogged temptations, but the difference was he knew God’s Mercy, and that is what makes the world of difference. Just to point a few things out about the world in which he lived and the world in which we live being very much the same; his past sins were’nt sins as far as the world was concerned, the pursuit of personal pleasure, narcicisism, self aggrandizement, these are all esteemed by the world as long as one remains successful, the “world loves it’s own” but when that all goes awry for whatever reason what happens to the person, then all of a sudden the world’s not such a pretty place anymore, then everything changes, then the sinner knows just how bad sin really really is and the only way out is God’s Real Mercy.

 

[OneSheep]

He did because he met up again with the same old dogged temptations, but the difference was he knew God’s Mercy, and that is what makes the world of difference. Just to point a few things out about the world in which he lived and the world in which we live being very much the same; his past sins were’nt sins as far as the world was concerned, the pursuit of personal pleasure, narcicisism, self aggrandizement, these are all esteemed by the world as long as one remains successful, the “world loves it’s own” but when that all goes awry for whatever reason what happens to the person, then all of a sudden the world’s not such a pretty place anymore, then everything changes, then the sinner knows just how bad sin really really is and the only way out is God’s Real Mercy.

I think Augustine condemned the source of his temptations, the desires that we have. It is normal. But yes, with the focus on God’s mercy, he found a way out of the condemnation.

This mercy was not on the mind of the king in my story. The king was compelled by his conscience to “do justice” in his eyes, which was exactly what was on the minds of those who stoned Saint Stephen and hung Jesus on the Cross.

To me, punishment, though compelled by our conscience, is not merciful by design. We are compelled by our consciences to condemn and punish one another, which serves in modifying the behaviors of those around us. However, Jesus show us another way, a way of humility and forgiveness. When the crowd wanted to stone the adulteress, Jesus intervened with mercy, and steered the crowd to humility. He dealt with the woman in a compassionate way. I grant that a prison sentence can be delivered with compassion, and it depends on the way that the sentence is delivered. What I am saying is that the delivery by the king did not appear to be compassionate. The king did not appear to forgive the couple, based on the way that he treated them.

 

[OneSheep]

Looks like the Holy Father has given a bit of reference to the issue at hand, sort of:

The third thing that takes us away from the righteousness of our intentions - Pope Francis said - is money: "Those who follow Jesus for money, trying to take economic advantage of the parish, of the diocese, of their Christian community, of the hospital, or the college… Let us think of the first Christian community that was swayed by this intention: Simon, Ananias and Sapphira… this has been a temptation right from the beginning.

ansa.it/english/news/vatican/2014/05/05/no-careerists-dirty-money-grubbers_db563051-6e47-457e-9df0-50395078016d.html

First of all, I agree with Pope Francis’ message. The reference, though, does not seem to apply.

Let’s see, here… Ananias and Sapphira sell their land to give to the Church, and they end up giving less than the amount that they received for the land.

Will someone please explain to me why this is taking economic advantage? There is some kind of disconnect going on here, and it may be on my side. What is it that we need to know about the story that we are not seeing in Acts chapter 5?

Why would Pope Francis address a story where a common reaction of a person of conscience may very well be to give absolutely nothing to the Church?

 

[Pitcharan]

Looks like the Holy Father has given a bit of reference to the issue at hand, sort of:

The third thing that takes us away from the righteousness of our intentions - Pope Francis said - is money: "Those who follow Jesus for money, trying to take economic advantage of the parish, of the diocese, of their Christian community, of the hospital, or the college… Let us think of the first Christian community that was swayed by this intention: Simon, Ananias and Sapphira… this has been a temptation right from the beginning.

ansa.it/english/news/vatican/2014/05/05/no-careerists-dirty-money-grubbers_db563051-6e47-457e-9df0-50395078016d.html

First of all, I agree with Pope Francis’ message. The reference, though, does not seem to apply.

Let’s see, here… Ananias and Sapphira sell their land to give to the Church, and they end up giving less than the amount that they received for the land.

Will someone please explain to me why this is taking economic advantage? There is some kind of disconnect going on here, and it may be on my side. What is it that we need to know about the story that we are not seeing in Acts chapter 5?

Why would Pope Francis address a story where a common reaction of a person of conscience may very well be to give absolutely nothing to the Church?

I read the episode carefully and then could grasp Pope Francis’ message.
True, most readers may prefer to give absolutely nothing to the Church. He is not talking about them. He is concerned about those who seek God for monetary gains. Ananias and Sapphira tried to deceive the other believers whom they joined merely to enjoy the bounties without sharing or by giving less to take more. Even today many are attracted to the Church out of similar intentions. They are like Judas who followed Jesus to become the treasurer of the group and steal from the common fund. He chose to betray Jesus because he was snubbed for suggesting that costly ‘nard’ should rather be sold to feed the poor than being used for anointing Jesus. When his evil intention to steal the money that would accrue by selling the perfume was frustrated by Jesus, he avenged His Lord and Master by betraying Him and made money out of it too.

 

[OneSheep]

I read the episode carefully and then could grasp Pope Francis’ message.
True, most readers may prefer to give absolutely nothing to the Church. He is not talking about them. He is concerned about those who seek God for monetary gains.

Thanks for offering an opinion. I was not referring to people who want to give nothing to the Church, though. What I am referring to is that the story of A and S, when read by most people, out of the context of the New Testament. Most people, I think, would turn their nose at giving to any institution with such an attitude on the part of the leadership. People of normal conscience would say “what an ungrateful lot” and not support the institution. Can you imagine any non-profit today displaying the behavior that Peter did in the story? That action would be all over the news today, and the Non-Profit would be absolutely dead tomorrow. People would “vote with their feet”.

This is the way I am reading the situation, but I am open to plenty of other views. “Apologetics” concerning the whole story should be about how to forgive Peter. Reference to the story in terms of making a point about anything without such apologetics only draws people’s attention to a scene that is far from merciful.

Ananias and Sapphira tried to deceive the other believers whom they joined merely to enjoy the bounties without sharing or by giving less to take more. Even today many are attracted to the Church out of similar intentions. They are like Judas who followed Jesus to become the treasurer of the group and steal from the common fund. He chose to betray Jesus because he was snubbed for suggesting that costly ‘nard’ should rather be sold to feed the poor than being used for anointing Jesus. When his evil intention to steal the money that would accrue by selling the perfume was frustrated by Jesus, he avenged His Lord and Master by betraying Him and made money out of it too.

I see a big difference, though, Pitcharan. The story of A &S is a story about people who have given money to the Church. This is not “monetary gain” in any way whatsoever. Hey, if I was a development officer for a non-profit, and had the “problem” of gobs of people saying they would donate a bunch of money but end up giving a bit less, I would not treat them in the way that A and S were treated, would you?

Did A&S get an increase in the sale price by saying that they would give the money to the Church? This is highly unlikely for the time, in fact the opposite is more likely to be true. So, I fail to see any “gain” on the part of A&S, unless they were bragging about what they had done and were getting perks for their generosity, etc. None of such detail is provided in Acts 5.

What makes more sense is that possibly in those days there was an unwritten rule that all wealth among the believers was to be shared with the whole community. After all, they were sharing the wealth among themselves. In the interest of “fairness”, anyone
holding back, whether it was as A&S did, or someone simply saving a bit for themselves and refusing to donate more may have been in violation. Such a rule would certainly not survive in the Charlemagne administration!

And when I think about it, this scenario makes the most sense of all. If every member of the community, especially the most wealthy, had given all they had to the community, then the action of A&S would definitely have been seen by most believers as a violation of mores. Perhaps the unrecorded reaction was the contempt that all the followers had toward A&S in what they did. In this case, the instilling of “fear” among the followers was looked upon as a positive on the part of those who were following the rules.

Unfortunately, in those days, as today, very often “justice” trumps mercy, and forgiveness is not considered. All quite understandable, and forgivable.