Starting to doubt Catholicism

[Platonist]

yeah I know. The Platonic cosmology is just more merciful and has a wider margin for error. But like I said, maybe Plato overestimated the limits of mercy (Acts 5:1-5).

 

[MNathaniel]

yeah I know. The Platonic cosmology is just more merciful and has a wider margin for error. But like I said, maybe Plato overestimated the limits of mercy (Acts 5:1-5).

I’ll tend to go with what the all-merciful God told us Himself when He became incarnate as a man, and taught us in his own words. In this God, perfect justice and perfect mercy go together, and are beyond any indivudal human’s intuitions or philosophies, it seems.

I’m not trying to be glib; I’m just not super familiar with Plato. Could you sum up what Plato says about the limits of mercy?

 

[Platonist]

What’s there to say? No judgement is more merciful than eternal judgement after an arbitrarily short life. Eternal states being decided in time just doesn’t make sense. It also seems to tug at my sense of justice, but I’m sure scholastic types have written justifications for it.

 

[MNathaniel]

What’s there to say? No judgement is more merciful than eternal judgement after an arbitrarily short life. Eternal states being decided in time just doesn’t make sense. It also seems to tug at my sense of justice, but I’m sure scholastic types have written justifications for it.

I mean, what I’m asking for is maybe a quote from Plato about what he said about mercy, since you seem to be saying you think Plato said something specific about mercy.

Did Plato believe in heaven-for-all after death, for example?

 

[Platonist]

I meant that leaving the perfection of the soul outside of singular lifetimes, like Plato speculated, is more merciful than the one and done deal of Catholicism.
edit: but if the catholic cosmology is just, so be it. Can’t really argue against that.

 

[MNathaniel]

I meant that leaving the perfection of the soul outside of singular lifetimes, like Plato speculated, is more merciful than the one and done deal of Catholicism.

Sorry, could you be more specific? Did Plato believe in reincarnation until eventual transcendence of every soul, for example? (Quotations/citations might help too, for a Plato non-expert like me.)

edit: but if the catholic cosmology is just, so be it. Can’t really argue against that.

The Catholic ‘cosmology’, as you put it, is both just – and governed by a merciful God.

So we can’t squidge past the justice part. But God does offer us mercy. We just have to accept it and cooperate with His mercy.

 

[Platonist]

Quotations/citations might help too

I don’t really want to, sorry

 

[MNathaniel]

MNathaniel:

Quotations/citations might help too

I don’t really want to, sorry

Haha fair enough, that’s my cue to bow out of the conversation then. If it’s not important enough to you, it’s not important enough to me.

 

[Veritas6]

I’m starting to doubt the Faith in a couple of key areas. I recognize the reality of the eternal Forms and of God of course, but it seems like Catholicism was just watered down classical philosophy fashioned onto Jewish folk religion. All the good parts of the faith came from the gentiles, why is this?

Truth is universal and anyone can attain some form of truth, it doesn’t matter who it is. Would you say Catholicism needs to be completely unique in its philosophy? Have you read any St. Thomas Aquinas?

And why was Greek culture so superior to Hebrew? Who is the Hebrew Plato, for example? Historically, they just seem like a backwards hill people, nothing makes them stand out as carriers of the Truth. Its easier to believe Socrates is in “heaven” than any Old Testament figure.

In many instances one culture can be “superior” to another, and perhaps a lot of Greek culture is superior to Hebrew culture. The fact is if the Bible is true, God decided to reveal Himself entirely to a humble culture of “hill people”. That’s not to say He didn’t reveal His truth to the ancient Greeks, hence the ideas of the eternal Forms and classical theism. Perhaps Socrates is in heaven, he wouldn’t be disqualified just because he never knew Jesus.

My biggest problem is that you just have to take things like the Incarnation as true with no evidence. This seems absurd and contrary to reason (which is God himself). How can the Word of God be contrary to God? And why does Reason itself require faith?

I agree the idea of the Incarnation is hard to accept, but it doesn’t therefore have to be absurd. Why do you think it is absurd or contrary to reason?

 

[Platonist]

Truth is universal and anyone can attain some form of truth

Yet transcendent being was grasped by the Greeks, and not God’s chosen people.

Perhaps Socrates is in heaven

He better be! Definitely deserves it over David or any prophet.

Why do you think it is absurd or contrary to reason?

It’s not absurd; but it does come out of nowhere, and relies on blind faith rather than reason, which seems contrary to God who is Reason Itself.

 

[Veritas6]

Yet transcendent being was grasped by the Greeks, and not God’s chosen people.

I don’t see the problem here. The Hebrew people were not all philosophers, and maybe that’s a good thing. What the Greeks lacked was how to understand this truth. They saw “through a glass, darkly”, the reality of God, but they didn’t understand the whole picture: that we’re all called to be transformed and seek salvation to be with God for eternity.

He better be! Definitely deserves it over David or any prophet.

In what sense does he deserve it over the prophets?

It’s not absurd; but it does come out of nowhere, and relies on blind faith rather than reason, which seems contrary to God who is Reason Itself.

I wouldn’t say it comes out of nowhere, God always has a reason for doing something. One interpretation I’ve read is God became man to show us the path to heaven. He made Himself a perfect role model for us to become more like Him.

If we can agree it’s not absurd, we can maybe try to reason why God would do something. Obviously we cannot know the mind of God, but He always provides a reason. Catholicism is not a blind or unreasonable faith.

From Aquinas:

To each things, that is befitting which belongs to it by reason of its very nature man, since this belongs to him because he is of a rational nature. But the very nature of God is goodness, as is clear from Dionysius (Div. Nom. i). Hence, what belongs to the essence of goodness befits God. But it belongs to the essence of goodness to communicate itself to others, as is plain from Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv). Hence it belongs to the essence of the highest good to communicate itself in the highest manner to the creature, and this is brought about chiefly by “His so joining created nature to Himself that one Person is made up of these three—the Word, a soul and flesh,” as Augustine says (De Trin. xiii). Hence it is manifest that it was fitting that God should become incarnate.

https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4001.htm

Also I haven’t read Aquinas in depth, but he seems to just present watered down Aristotelianism , ie whenever he cannot find a synthesis between christianity and aristotle/logic, he just cites scripture.

Can you give some examples Aquinas uses here? Again, is it such a bad thing he aligned a lot of his thought with Aristotle? A lot of what Aristotle wrote was correct. What he lacked was an understanding of the need for redemption and salvation to be with God - to actually commune with this divine Being.

 

[Platonist]

I don’t see the problem here. The Hebrew people were not all philosophers, and maybe that’s a good thing. What the Greeks lacked was how to understand this truth. They saw “through a glass, darkly”

And the jews didn’t understand anything about God! They had God himself speak to them directly, and there’s nothing to show for it. They listened to commandments because they were ordered to, not because they had any understanding of virtue or the Good itself. Greeks saw far clearer than the Jews.

but they didn’t understand the whole picture: that we’re all called to be transformed and seek salvation to be with God for eternity.

Really? And the jews understood universal salvation? I thought that was a little bit of a hang up. Even in Jesus’ day they still conceived of God as an ethnic totem.

In what sense does he deserve it over the prophets?

He sought the Good for its own sake.

Can you give some examples Aquinas uses here?

I don’t remember; I just remembered every time I would search for an interesting topic, Aquinas would ultimately have nothing of his own to say logically, and only defer to church fathers or scripture when he couldn’t give a rational answer.

A lot of what Aristotle wrote was correct

My main hang up is the soul being the form of the body.

 

[Veritas6]

And the jews didn’t understand anything about God! They had God himself speak to them directly, and there’s nothing to show for it. They listened to commandments because they were ordered to, not because they had any understanding of virtue or the Good itself. Greeks saw far clearer than the Jews.

They didn’t know anything about God? Again, is it such a terrible thing “simple” people were chosen by God? God spoke to them and thus Judaism was formed, and then Jesus came along and fulfilled Judaism.

Even if you’re not Christian (I don’t want to assume, I don’t know), you have to recognize there is something to show for it - formation of a new religion.

God didn’t choose the Greeks to be His Chosen People, it doesn’t mean they’re in hell for not knowing Christ. I don’t see any problem here.

Really? And the jews understood universal salvation? I thought that was a little bit of a hang up. Even in Jesus’ day they still conceived of God as an ethnic totem.

Do you believe people who came after the Greeks are somehow less intelligent or uncapable of understanding anything? They understood relationship, that was enough for God.

What do you mean by an “ethic totem”?

He sought the Good for its own sake.

As David did as well. He also recognized God as Good.

I don’t remember; I just remembered every time I would search for an interesting topic, Aquinas would ultimately have nothing of his own to say logically, and only defer to church fathers or scripture when he couldn’t give a rational answer.

If he is appealing to other sources there isn’t anything wrong with that. Aquinas reasoned through everything, hence his answer I provided on the Incarnation.

Your response is as if to say if you can’t logically explain the concept of relativity or quantum physics, there’s nothing wrong with appealing to Einstein to provide an answer.

My main hang up is the soul being the form of the body.

Aquinas defines the soul as “the first principle of life of those things which live: for we call living things ‘animate,’ i.e. having a soul, and those things which have no life, ‘inanimate.’”

Substance is what something is, but the human body is not a substance, but the matter of a substance, a human being. When the body lacks a rational soul it becomes a cadaver, and no longer the body of a man.

What distinguishes an organism from a pile of inanimate parts is its organization. Living things are highly structured. At each level of organization new properties and abilities emerge. Thus, a human soul is simply the overarching structure or organization that arranges our fundamental physical parts such that we are able to carry out the human range of activities. “It’s like a blueprint for how to assemble a human, except that it’s a blueprint present within each of us.”

 

[Platonist]

Again, is it such a terrible thing “simple” people were chosen by God?

It’s a terrible thing that the supposed “chosen people” have no Godly qualities. They didn’t understand the nature of God as well as the Greeks; they didn’t understand (or practice) virtue as well either. What did they have to show for divine favor? No knowledge, no virtue.

Are you bothered people who came after the Greeks are somehow less intelligent or uncapable of understanding anything?

I’m bothered that heathens would understand God better than God’s own people.

What do you mean by an “ethic totem”?

Ethnic totem; as in, they still thought of Being Itself as some sort of tribal or national God to appeal to for political deliverance. This is part of the reason Jesus’s teaching didn’t go down so well.

As David did as well.

David was mediocre, virtue-wise.

Thus, a human soul is simply the overarching structure or organization that arranges our fundamental physical parts such that we are able to carry out the human range of activities.

This can’t be right; the soul lives on after death, and even in this life the intellect and will are immaterial. The soul is not just the movement of your blood or the electrical charges of your brain; it is an immaterial essence. The soul cannot be reduced to the mere order of our bodies without destroying spiritual intellect or will. Your view tries to dismiss immaterial reality, its incoherent. Are we less perfect in heaven, existing with half our nature missing? How do you cut a substance in half?

 

[Veritas6]

It’s a terrible thing that the supposed “chosen people” have no Godly qualities. They didn’t understand the nature of God as well as the Greeks; they didn’t understand (or practice) virtue as well either. What did they have to show for divine favor? No knowledge, no virtue.

Okay I don’t know where you’re getting that they didn’t understand or practice virtue… Evidence?

I’m bothered that heathens would understand God better than God’s own people.

You’ll have to ask God why He chose the Hebrew people and not the Greeks.

Does understanding God therefore make someone better than another? If a child understands that God exists, are you bothered that they’re not able to know the complete philosophical argumentation to prove God exists? The Hebrew people were probably not sophisticated philosophers, but they knew God exists and that He communicated to them as a Father who loved them and wanted a relationship. It doesn’t make it any less true that God exists if He chose to reveal Himself as Father to the Hebrew people.

As you don’t speak to a toddler like an adult, God didn’t desire to communicate Himself entirely as an abstract Unmoved Mover. God is Goodness and Love Itself, He desires relationship with us. The concept of the Unmoved Mover is an excellent way to know God exists, but it doesn’t adequately explain Who God is (you can’t really have a relationship with an Unmoved Mover).

David was mediocre, virtue-wise.

Evidence?

This can’t be right; the soul lives on after death, and even in this life the intellect and will are immaterial. The soul is not just the movement of your blood or the electrical charges of your brain; it is an immaterial essence. The soul cannot be reduced to the mere order of our bodies without destroying spiritual intellect or will. Your view tries to dismiss immaterial reality, its incoherent. Are we less perfect in heaven, existing with half our nature missing? How do you cut a substance in half?

Okay I am not dismissing immaterial reality, I’m simply explaining the general concept of the soul. I agree the soul lives on after death and that the intellect and will are immaterial. The idea I am getting at is the immaterial soul is the entire framework that animates the body. Without a soul the body is a corpse. If the soul is my intellect and will, then I retain my identity even outside of this fleshly body.

 

[fhansen]

everything the church understands about God and Love came from the Greeks in the first place.

And yet the OT records the shema. And in the gospels as well as Catholic teaching, love takes center stage. A wise-and experienced-Catholic mystic put it this way,
"It’s love alone that gives worth to all things."

Did Plato know that, that existence is really not ultimately worthwhile otherwise? Did he understand the supreme value of love? And the church teaches, echoing another mystic,
"At the evening of life we shall be judged on our love."

Now if Plato knew that then I think he must’ve truly gained a fair bit of wisdom.

 

[Platonist]

Is Love more valuable than Truth or Beauty? They’re all emanations of God.

 

[fhansen]

I don’t know if that can be answered so easily, or if those things are even separable at the end of the day. I’d just say that the others would leave us ultimately empty without love. They wouldn’t be enough.

But mere knowledge about this love and the need for it isn’t enough either. Love, finally, is an experience, of sheer uncompromising goodness.

 

[Platonist]

or if those things are even separable at the end of the day.

No, of course they’re not, this is very true.

Love, finally, is an experience , of sheer uncompromising goodness.

I don’t get this. Do you mean emotion? Simple emotions can’t be trusted as true.

 

[fhansen]

No not an emotion. It’s to know love. It’s way beyond either emotion or intellectual knowledge. It’s the direct, intuitive knowledge of God, virtually tactile. It’s the absolute satisfaction of all desire. It cannot be imagined unless only very faintly in the relationships we might have with others, especially in those moments when, for example, we’re willing to sacrifice for another. But the love of God is total and absolute wellbeing for its recipient, to know peace to an inexhaustible degree. To know this is the reason we’re created, and reason, alone, simply cannot attain to it. It is pure grace.