Posted on 08/11/2015 6:03:41 AM PDT by xzins
Anselm’s theory made sense to a medieval audience, because the law at that time levied punishments according to the rank of the victim. So, stealing a goat from a fellow peasant resulted in, say, ten lashes. Stealing the same goat from the king resulted in death.
Thus, when Anselm asserted that Adam’s sin was an “infinite offense,” because it offended God, and therefore required “infinite satisfaction,” it seemed self-evident to his contemporaries. It doesn’t to us.
The monstrous part of Anselm’s theory is that it divides the Trinity: In order to “satisfy” God the Father, the Son must be tortured and killed. Lovely. One has to wonder how many people have been driven screaming from Christianity by this theory.
Note that Thomas said that the existence of God is not SELF-EVIDENT to us. He didn’t say that the existence of God is not EVIDENT to us.
And yet it seems to me everything that science does is based on faith of some kind — just not faith in God.
Exactly... and “What do you know for sure”....
The meager ability of human senses and even intellect is the base of not only faith but lack of faith..
Having faith in anything is a “jump into the blue”...
Source of “ART”, “Music”, even “cuisine”, creativity of any kind..
Jumping into the blue is courageous.. “gutsy”, and profound..
Look at the varied religions man has invented to answer a quest for GOD... the ultimate creator..
it’s downright genius the “GODS”(of both genders) man has created.. morphed.. and crafted...
Even philosophical GODS.. intellectual specters.. mental figment idols.. concept totems.. brain amulets.. idiom talismans..
“FAITH”... in what’s not there... “YET”...
Or is there but you can’t see it.. “Yet”..
Or isn’t there but you want it be.........
Seems it’s almost impossible for a human to not have faith in something...
Is something “Impossible”... seems not having FAITH IS..
Maybe “science” is the Art of trying to NOT have faith..
Seems so, sometimes.. the creative urge to jettison faith..
If so then science is a cartoon.. but I don’t minimize humor..
I have faith in humor..
I’m not sure what the distinction is that you are trying to make. Per the Oxford Dictionary:
self-evident (ADJECTIVE)
not needing to be demonstrated or explained; obvious:
synonyms: obvious · clear · plain · evident · apparent · manifest · patent ·
evident (ADJECTIVE)
plain or obvious; clearly seen or understood:
synonyms: obvious · apparent · noticeable · conspicuous · perceptible
C.S. Lewis' Narnia analogy (in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe) was that Satan (the Witch) was God's executioner, so to speak, licensed to pay out retributive justice; and any rebel was the Executioner's lawful prey. The only way to prevent this happening, was for Aslan to substitute himself (because the Witch would rather destroy Him than any other victim.)
But this doesn't make sense to me, either. Why should God "owe" Satan a tasty torture snack?
It's clear to me that a human can't merit heaven (because of our limited nature, we could never merit something infinite.) But, following the same line of reasoning, it's not clear to me how a human could merit hell.
In a paradoxical way, I would even wonder whether Original Sin doesn't make personal Mortal Sin impossible, since we were rendered so marred in our minds and wills as a result of Original Sin, that we could never muster the single-minded, knowing, unwavering and limitless malice needed to earn a proportionately unlimited punishment.
I believe it all makes sense somehow, but I don't know how.
Your thoughts, Father?
Indeed. That was Albert Einstein's understanding, which he found tantalizingly "mysterious."
Another fascinating thing about mathematics is: it is a universal language.
And yet another: There is no conceivable way for mathematics to be the product of a random, "evolutionary" development. It cannot have arisen by chance. Rather, it seems to have been built into the structure of the world from Day One.
Thank you, dear brother in Christ, for posting this fascinating article!
Good call, dear brother!
What "science" wants is certainty. But, although certainty is impossible in this world in principle, they keep seeking it; for the alternative — faith — is just too "scary."
Great essay/post, dear 'pipe! Thank you!!!
No theory holds water if it sets up the Father as demanding something from the Son—such as torture and death. Or if it posits that Satan has some kind of RIGHT to anything, which Jesus was required to satisfy.
God created man. Man rebelled. God chose to overcome that rebellion and give us what he always intended to give us: eternal life, i.e., a participation in his life, i.e., a participation in the divine nature—charity. Somehow, the means by which this was accomplished was the Incarnation, and the suffering and death of Jesus.
Frankly, I don’t see why a “theory” is needed. I’ve never seen a theory that didn’t imply grotesque consequences. Which may, of course, merely reveal my abject ignorance of theological history.
I’m sure you’re aware of Plato’s prediction in the Republic (700 B.C.) that if ever there were a perfectly just man, he would be beaten with rods and taken outside of town and crucified.
Actually, all “theories” of the “atonement”—even the notion that Jesus died in order to “atone” for our sins is a theory—presume that we even know, when it comes to Incarnation and the suffering and death of Jesus, what was the END and what was the MEANS. There are long-standing theological theories that hold that the purpose of the creation was to accomplish the Incarnation, absolutely irrespective of Adam’s sin, which had not taken place, and didn’t have to take place.
This gives me a lot to think about. Thank you very much.
Harkening back to a theology class long, long ago on the theology of St John (The Revelator), the definition of Logos, which is generally translated Word (and correctly) was actually understood by the Greeks to be much more significant. Logos meant something like "the organizing principle of the universe" to, I believe, the Stoics.
Fascinating that John would use such a Word and send it to Gentile, Greek Christians.
In the beginning was the WORD "Personification of the Organizing Principle of the Universe", and the WORD was with God, and the WORD was God.
When we see order, our first thought should always be "God's WORD". Whether in mathematics, or in an ontological argument, or even a simple "heavens declare the glory of God, and the earth shows His handiwork."
I wish I had the math background to see the beauty of this proof displayed and concluded demonstrating intricate precision and perfection.
As our sister would say, "His name is I AM!"
Here is a link to their paper:
www.logic.at/people/bruno/Papers/2014-GoedelGod-ECAI.pdf
Read it and weep... as I am now while pulling out my hair...
http://www.logic.at/staff/bruno/Papers/2014-GoedelGod-ECAI.pdf
bookmark
Thank you very much for the link.
Although I believe that God derived the first function value that we discovered as mathematics, Godel nevertheless seems to proceed in A1 from an assumption which would render the rest of his work speculative.
God told Moses, “Then I will take My hand away and you shall see My back, but My face shall not be seen.”
I suspect that He would always come very close, but would never be fully revealable.
The idea of LOGOS goes further back than the Stoics, a philosophic school that dates to the third century B.C. The first usage that I'm aware of goes to Heraclitus, c. 535 – c. 475 B.C. It is very clear from his writings that he thought of LOGOS just as you say, as "the organizing principle of the universe." Only a few fragments of Heraclitus survive; but he spoke often of the LOGOS in what remains:
Although the Logos is eternally valid, yet men are unable to understand it — not only before hearing it, but even after they have heard it for the first time. That is to say, although all things come to pass in accordance with this Logos, men seem to be quite without any experience of it.... [Fragment 1]Dear brother in Christ, you wrote, "Fascinating that John would use such a Word and send it to Gentile, Greek Christians.... In the beginning was the WORD "Personification of the Organizing Principle of the Universe", and the WORD was with God, and the WORD was God. When we see order, our first thought should always be 'God's WORD.'"
But though the Logos is common, the many live as if they had a wisdom of their own. [Fragment 2]
Those who are awake have a world one and common, but those who are asleep each turn aside into their own private worlds. [Fragment 89]
It is not meet to act and speak like men asleep. [Fragment 73]
Those who speak with the mind must strengthen themselves with that which is common to all.... For all human laws nourish themselves from the one divine — which prevails as it will, and suffices for all things and more than suffices. [Fragment 114, emphasis added]
Exactly. Jesus Christ, Son of God, WORD of God, Logos Alpha and Omega. All are different names for the same principle, which denotes the Word of the Beginning, final Judgment in the End, and everything that happens in between....
What is most striking to me are the passages in the Gospel of John, Chapter 12, about "certain Greeks" and Jesus' amazing response on hearing that they wanted to see him:
20 And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast:The Gospel of John has always struck me as being strongly "Greek-influenced" as compared with the synoptic gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. In these passages, the suggestion is that Jesus' ultimate mission and glorification commenced once the Greeks showed up — with their by then well-established idea of the universal LOGOS, the divine ordering principle of the universe.
21 The same came therefore to Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus.
22 Philip cometh and telleth Andrew: and again Andrew and Philip tell Jesus.
23 And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified. [emphasis added]
Evidently, these "certain Greeks" wanted to see this LOGOS with their own eyes....
Justin Martyr — a philosopher who'd studied with many of the ancient philosophical schools without satisfaction — said that the Incarnation of Christ was the fulfillment, not only of the Jewish scriptures, but also of classical philosophy of the Platonic type.
It's a beautiful thought!!!
Thank you so very much for writing, dear xzins!
What a concept... the organizing principle of the Universe.. I suppose You(they) mean the 3D Universe..
In my so-called "vision" which is what I prefer calling it.. Was one of my major questions I wanted/needed answered.. The answer: Service.. meaning the Logos is Service.. It's all about service.. Galaxy's, Solar Systems, Planets.. Sun's, Angels. God, US, life forms... It is all about Service..
Performing Service to something even anything.. Quality of service being a major component.. Being served was not as important as serving.. but both are required you must have both.. Was quite a revelation to me..
Jesus came for service, to serve.. not to rule..
"Pick up your Own Cross and follow me"- Jesus
Being a slave is honorable(in some capacity), being a slave owner was NOT.. unless they also served as slaves to somebody else.. Quite different than what I supposed.. What IS a slave is a whole nother conversation...
The Quality of service being the qualifier.. Whom are you serving and how well are you doing it?.. If you serve no one you were and are useless.. BUT it's very hard to do that.. It hard to serve no one.. Up jumps God and Satan as metaphors.. Some even serve themselves and no one else.. But indeed they are serving..
I will NOT go for a long discourse on this.. BUT I thought just maybe..
I said "something"...... maybe not..
Oh! Well..
Not necessarily. Do not jump to conclusions.
I do that..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.