Sequentia (Dies Irae)

Quaerens me, sedisti lassus:

Seeking me, Thou didst sink down wearily,

Redemisti crucem passus:

Thou hast saved me by enduring the cross,

Tantus labor non sit cassus.

such travail must not be in vain.

from http://requiemonline.tripod.com/lyrics/latinlyrics.htm

How profound just three lines...

Thanks Penitens for the quotes on your site that led me to this!

NOTICE OF NEW BLOG

due to the ever increasing lenghth of my philosophical and theological postings, I've decided to create a new blog.
"Ad Satisfactionem Omni Poscenti Vos" at VobisEstSpe.blogspot.com

So for those who want a quick and basic translation of the title of my new Blog:
Ad Satisfactionem Omni Poscenti Vos
"To the satisfaction of all asking you"
And here is a translation of the site name (VobisEstSpe.blogspot.com)
Vobis Est Spe
"To you that of the hope"

Both of which are from 1 Pt 3:15...
ad satisfactionem omni poscenti vos rationem de ea quae in vobis est spe (Latin Vulgate)
"But sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts, being ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you." (Douay-Rheims)
"but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts. Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope" (NAB, New American Bible)

The purpose of this blog is simple... this is where I will post my philosophical and theological thoughts and musings... though I am learning, and I will fail, I will seek always to find the Orthodox Catholic path in this undertaking...

St. Thomas Aquinas, patron of Scholars, Philosophers, and Theologians, Pray for us!

Gedankenexperiments (thought experiments)

This is a proto-thought, so I don't intend it to be well fleshed out...

It seems that part of the problem that occurs between the Theologian (theist) and the Atheologian (atheist) is due to differing ideas of the utility of Gendankenexperiments...

I maintain that we should work from a system without contradiction. If there is such a thing, there should be no discussion that we presently exist in one (if there is not such a thing, then the premises of logic seem pointless).

In such a case, if we are to discuss the existence of God, would it not be most pertinent to question that hypothesis within the system, and determine if it is consistent in the system? Though one might claim that discussion of hypothetical world systems where God created so-and-so or everyone perfect (such that free will never lead to any choice of evil or the complete lack of any evil), is pertinent to such a discussion, I would say that one can not admit relevance of such a hypothetical, without establishing prior that one can do so without logical contradiction.

If we already have a system we imagine is non-contradictory. then should we not start in that system. Even if we are not fully aware of every aspect of this system, we assume this system is non-contradictory, and thus by basing our information off of this system, we minimize the amount of variability when we are questioning a hypothesis, such as the existence of God.

Starting from intellectual scratch seems prone to contradictions, obvious or implied. As I hold the Atheologian's position on Theodicy has.

This is why I propose that for the clarity, Plantinga's method of showing the impossibility of any world but ours seems promising for future theologians. (A concise and approximate summary of Plantinga's method is: There is a person Bob who makes the free will decision to dance because he's happy right now. Now if we analyze every other "possible world" we find that it is impossible for Bob to NOT dance right now, given that he's happy, has free will and that Bob would dance right now if he is happy. God could make Bob dance, but then Bob would not have free will. If Bob does NOT HAVE free will in this world, where he HAS free will, then this is a contradiction, and this world can not exist. On the other hand, Bob could make the free will decision not to dance, but we have already stated that if he is happy he will dance, and we know that he is happy, so that this possibility is also IMPOSSIBLE, as it creates another contradiction, namely that he decides with his free will NOT TO dance, even though he will decide with his free will TO dance.)

This is by no means a support of Plantinga... I think his idea is heading in the right direction, but I believe his premises are rife with problems... mostly due to his discontinuity with traditional Theology.

lacrimae rerum

Kat and I have ended our relationship...
and though pain I feel,
it must be laid down,
that like Christ it might be crucified,
and my pain resurrected.

Sadness...

I am so horrified by what I just read that my stomach and mouth are ready to vomit... my very soul is sad, my mind is begging for an answer... my heart weeps... only a few times in my life has something other than sickness brought me this close to both tears and vomit.

LEADER EXCLUSIVE: Mother arrested for attempting to intervene in her 14-year old's decision to have abortion

Tuesday, March 22, 2005

By Joyce Morrison, Southern IL News Correspondent

For legal reasons, the names of the family and the 14-year old girl that are the subject of this story have been withheld at this time.

GRANITE CITY - A Sothern Illinois woman was arrested last week (March 17) after trying to intervene on behalf of her 14-year old daughter's effort to have an abortion. The girl was allegedly taken to an abortion clinic by the mother of the man allegedly to have impregnated the 14-year old.

According to the girl's mother, her 14-year old daughter was called off from school in Madison County by a woman posing as the girl's “grandmother.” The woman took the girl from her home only minutes before the girl’s mother returned home from work.

It was later determined that the woman who had posed as the "grandmother" to the school authorities was the mother of the male who had fathered the unborn child the 14-year old girl was carrying. The age of the male has not been released.

When the parents were notified their pregnant daughter was not at school, they suspected she had been taken to the Hope Abortion Clinic in Granite City. The parents and grandfather were the only persons authorized to request school absence for the fourteen year old female.

“My husband and I rushed to the abortion clinic where we saw our daughter’s name on the roster and the time she had checked in,” the mother said. She then went into the clinic and searched a room filled with young women awaiting abortions but did not see her daughter.

She took a seat near the main desk and said, “I was told I could not prove my daughter was there so I began calling her name. A medical tech at the clinic told me , ‘It’s your daughter’s rights, it’s her body. You have no rights.’”

After continuing to call out her daughter’s name and telling her “don’t do it,” authorities were called and the mother was arrested.

The 14-year old told her mother she could hear her but when she asked employees to give her mother a message, they came back to the room and told her that her mother had left.

Angela Michaels, of Small Victories Ministry, was tipped off as to what was happending at the Hope clinic. According to Michaels, she witnessed police placing the mother’s hands behind her back, taking her into custody. As the police were putting the mother in the squad car, she was crying out, “Please, please, help me...my daughter is in there.”

Michaels said, “Exactly one hour later at 10:35 a.m., the 14-year old emerged from the clinic looking disheveled. The 14-year old told us that employees kept her in a quiet room until the procedure was performed and she was told that her mother had left.”

Employees assured this girl on her departure, “No-one will ever know you were here, we’ll bury your records.”

In the meantime, the woman who had taken the girl for the abortion was slipped out the back door of the clinic.

The police in the community in which the family lives allegedly told the girl's mom that they couldn't intervene despite her making a charge that her daughter had been raped (by statute) because the charge was stale--7 weeks after the incident. They did tell the girl's mom that, while she had no right to stop the abortion, she did have a right to go into the clinic and speak to her daughter.

The parents are expected to file charges.

© 2005 IllinoisLeader.com -- all rights reserved

______

What are your thoughts concerning the issues raised in this story? Write a letter to the editor at letters@illinoisleader.com and include your name and town.

Circular reasoning?

A few things I've been pondering about the argument against God in Theodicy...

First it seems the arguments for Theodicy are CIRCULAR!
The underlying assumptions of Theodicy seem to assume NO GOD... which is unfair to the theist, and since as Hume (an atheist) implores we must start on even ground. (Though I think the atheist can only ever get false even ground, as I know the "hypothesis" of God is in fact so true that everything depends upon Him.)

The Theodicy arguments that I've seen so far consider evil as something akin to "pain and suffering". The nature of pain and suffering seems to cause the assumption that there is no God. Pain and suffering are generally considered as opposing Happiness and Comfort, they are not the opposite of God. In fact, it seems that if Pain and Suffering are "Evil" then the argument seems to imply utilitarian assumptions which include the non-existence of God. In the assumption of Happiness and Comfort as Good, it seems intrinsically to place only physical/emotional things into the equation, and denying the possibility of a Spiritual “Good” which includes God. Thus either the atheist is creating a Straw man argument between God and Evil, by devolving the argument into “moral and natural” good versus “moral and natural” evil, or if not, and they state in some way that they assume a God, then they are creating a False Dichotomy between Good and Evil, though this seems a unique False Dichotomy, by instead of failing to including the middle terms, it includes the middle terms at the failure to include the proper opposites or Dichotomy.

It seems that for the Atheist and the Theist to be on the “same ground” one must admit the possibility of God… though this possibility would by necessity be abstract and variable enough to be able to both include and exclude the possibility of God. The seeming best formation of a proper dichotomy would be “Good” and “not-Good” as they are explicitly contradictory and mutually exhaustive. And as a well formed Christian theist would deny the equality of God and evil, the best formulation of the dichotomy does not reduce not-Good to “evil”, but instead to “the privation or deprivation of Good”. This permits the atheist a place for his pain and suffering versus happiness and comfort, as well as permitting the theist a place for his God versus the privation of God, premise.

Theodicy stuff

This is from a daily writting for my class, based off of the problem of evil, specifically as outlined by J.L. Mackie in Evil and Omnipotence
His argument is of the form:
1. God is omnipotent
2. God is wholly good
3. Evil exists
4. Any two of the above leads to a contradiction with the third.
5. Therefore one must deny one of the three.
6. The believer claims all three are true.
7. Therefore, the believer is not logical in these beliefs.

He uses what he calls "quasi-logical rules" to connect good, evil and omnipotence to show that the contradiction in line (4) occurs. They are:
a.) "good is opposed to evil, in such a way that a good thing always eliminates evil as far as it can"
b.) "that there are no limits to what an omnipotent thing can do."
c.)from these two principles, "it follows that a good omnipotent thing eliminates evil completely and then the propositions that a good omnipotent thing exists [lines 1 and 2] and the evil exists are incompatible [line 3]"

------------------

I don’t know how coherent this is, and I know it probably needs some editorial work, but I think it clear enough to get my point across.

I deny the premise that "a good thing always eliminates evil as far as it can." Evil “is always and only the deprivation of what is Good” (West, Theology of the Body p.63), it is a non-entity; it is the lack of what should exist. In this sense it is nonsensical to say that a good thing always eliminates a no-thing. Perhaps what is meant by Mackie’s phrase is that a good thing must fulfill what lacks in good (or some similar concept). Or perhaps he means that a good thing immediately fulfills what lacks in good. The second of which I would claim nonsensical as well, as God (who in my understanding exists outside of time but still sustaining it) exists at every time via the essence of being “eternally now”. So a thing that lacks good could have been fulfilled previously or in the future and still be considered fulfilled “immediately”.

If by immediate, it is meant in the next human instant in time or some other such thing, then I would say that nothing could ever change or exist. Whereas, perfection is always constant and any change implies imperfection. If an object that is perfectly good exists, and a good thing (e.g., God) would not allow that object to be deprived of good, then God would not allow the object to change, as change implies imperfection, and a change from perfection is a deprivation, i.e., evil. Thus it seems to follow that if God created a perfect world, then it would be unchanging or nonexistent. But there is change and existence; therefore it is not the case that “a good thing always eliminates evil as far as it can.”

Similar logic shows that an object can not be perfect if it is not whole, so that the world would have to be homogenous, and one thing; for it to be good. But this is also not the case, so the premise again is not the case (in the specific meanings).

I would suspect that any variation of “a good thing must fulfill what lacks in good” is a non-tenable position, as that would ultimately imply that a perfectly good thing (e.g., God) would make everything perfectly good (e.g., God), but this reaches an infinite regress or the creation of nothing (i.e., only the perfectly good thing exists). And neither of these are the case, such that it seems it is not the case that “a good thing must fulfill what lacks in good”. It seems that there are two primary possible problems with the statement, either a good thing cannot exist, or if it does it has no obligation to fulfill what lacks in good.

And though I take the later view, I don’t know that a defense of it would be succinct enough to write before I fall asleep.

Spring Break?

So I've been on spring break for the last four-five days, and now I'm starting to get back into school mode... I have two large philosophical essays due in the next two months so I've been starting research on one and procrastination on the other... I also have two tests next week... which I'm not terribly concerned over... but I probably should be... tomorrow I plan to start studying for my Buddhism class... and monday (because thats when we get our review sheet) I'll start on my Philosophy of Physics class...

I'm in Des Moines right now with Kat... taking a break from Ames (ISU) and enjoying the peace and quiet... its nice...

School has been good so far... in metaphysics I got two 100's on the same test, something my teacher said he hasn't done in a very long time... in Logic I had a 100, and in Buddhism I had a 93% which was still one of the highest... Philosophy of Physics has yet to have a test so I'm unsure of my standing, though I've done pretty well on the quizes...

Two weeks ago Kat and I went to a weekend conference with Christopher West, discussing the Theology of the Body, nad I really enjoyed that... it was a nice break from the bleak philosophies that I read in class.

Anyhow... off to play games :-D it is spring break after all!

metaphysics

Today in class we finally got to the theodicy section... our teacher told the story of invisible people in iceland (he's from iceland), and asked what makes Christian's story about God any better?

and... well...

Faith...
What is faith but belief in nothing?
Okay,
Miracles?
What are miracles, if they break natural laws, they can't occur... unless you're delusional?
(those were arguments in my head, and this was the basic jist of a conversation between the teacher and another atheist)
Experience?
What ground is that to convince others?

So I've been thinking... what is it that makes belief in God so rational to believers?
Though I still think experience is the most important thing... but how do you speak of miracles in ways others can understand? How can you speak of the Eucharist and it's power so that even a protestant doesn't think you're crazy? How can you speak of God's grace and love, and not be laughed out of class? And then how can you do it and salvage an A in the class?

I know at some point my teacher will point me out... and confront my belief... what do I say?

while walking back to my dorm, in the cold and silent street, I was thinking... and wondering... and I think the answer came...

Hope...
I don't know what else... just Hope...

Faith hope and love? no just Hope...

I think Hope is what divides those who have faith and those who dont... those who love for their own sake and those who love for things bigger than themselves... Hope... Hope seems to be what Christ brought us at the cross... hope...

Is it a good argument... NO... can I make a good argument? to open hearts... yes... to others... the judgment has been made, and no change will occur now... but perhaps, God will plant the seed of their own undoing, of their opening...

I don't know, but if anyone has ideas... I'm all ears.

Fun

Today Kat and I went around town dropping off 4340 entries into a contest (at 30 different sites) I still have like 6 sites left, but most of them went off pretty well...

Most people who saw me stuff my entries into their boxes were confused, but thought it was fun, and wished me luck, one of them (*at a jewlry store*) cheered loudly! it was really fun... and Kat and I got to run around town like a race!

YAY for fun! And then after Kat left back to Des Moines, I did some drops near campus, and discovered a game store, where I bought an expansion set for Axis and allies for 5$...!!! (the real reason I bought it was for the map... 30"x50" version of the map) so for 5$ I couldnt pass it up!

Now I need to study.. study study!

Pope...

So I was reading in book about the buddhist catholic dialogue... and kept getting references to the pope's book Crossing the Threshold of Hope... so I opened it up and started reading some page I had marked off at one time...

The page was surprisingly interesting, not for its help with my Buddhism project, but for its possible help with my Metaphysics class... it addressed the problem of evil... in a way I had not really connected before... it seems to make the bold, yet elegant claim that evil can not be understood aside from one small insignificant event in a desert... the way of the Cross... "The scandal of the Cross remains the key to the interpretation of the great mystery of suffering."

I normally think of the scandal of the Cross as simply the scandal of killing the incarnate God, or the scandal of people following a man who died on a cross... but I never considered that part of the scandal is that of "God's solidarity with man in his suffering"... the scandal of people saying "that's silly you think your God cares about YOU? You think your God cares about your suffering? Why would God answer the mystery of suffering that way??"

The scandal is:

Therefore, its value is for you who have faith, but for those without faith: "The stone which the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,"and "A stone that will make people stumble, and a rock that will make them fall." 1 peter 2:8

For Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are called, Jews and Greeks alike, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.1 cor 1:22-25

The scandal is God entering human history, becoming one of us, embracing one of us as Emmanuel... and that God dying for us... but its not just that... its that IT MATTERS! It matters that he did this... despite disbelief... its the leap from "Okay, so what?" to "OH MY GOD, YOU CARE!" Its from the rationalism of the world, that leaves everything with out meaning, that leaves everything empty, that leaves everything dead and powerless... to this majestic understanding, that NOTHING is empty, nothing is dead, nothing is powerless or without meaning, because of CHRIST! Because of the incarnate God who died in his Desire to Justify himself to US...

US!


God did not have to die... He did not have to care, and if He did care, He most certainly did not have to die the death of a thief and murderer... but he DID... because of our strongheadedness, our egocentric love, our desire to strip everything of power... He did it, not for himself, but out of sheer OVERWHELMING AND GRATUITOUS LOVE... for us!...

us.





No one can ever deny the viscerally repugnant reaction to a whipped, nailed, bloodied and broken body...
hanging,
suffocating,
dying
on a cross.

No one can hear of this and not be haunted by God's Love.

No one.

Philosophers...

This is an exerpt from a comment paper on value theories:
-----
Initially I was going to say that it seems that philosophers could solve the issue of value very easily... with the premis that a Christian God exists. It seems to me a bit egotistical of philosophers to refuse to address such an issue... Tending to want to simplify the system, philosophers reject the premis on the assumption that 1. God does exist, and we cant know, or 2. God doesn't exist, and thus why complicate the system with the premis of a God? But this decision seems to bite the philosophers in the rear, leading to a tonne of other complications... i.e., value outside of Humanity's perception, Justice and other universals... it seems to me more evident each time I read the book that the premis of a God is much more elegant and seemingly more sensible... as it seems that philosophers like O'Neill are trying to clarify things so much so that things get even more confusing.
-----

I'm coming to a greater appreciation of how knowing a God exists unifies so much knowledge, and without a God, how much more difficult it is to know anything... it reminds me of Zeno's paradox about the Runner... (the runner to get to the end must first be able to get to the half point, but to get the half point, he must get to the half of the half point... eventually saying that for the runner to reach the end he mus cross an infinite amount of points, but that's impossible and thus running{or moving} is impossible.) The way I see it is the divisions are different knowledges... if you try to build a whole (reach the end) from all the divisions, it's not possible, because you have an infinite distance to cover... but say you have already reached the end of the distance, by not worrying about the divisions, just about the Goal (God). Once you've gotten to the Goal, you can look back and divide your path however you choose, and it will make sense, as to how it got you to your Goal.

I don't know if the analogy is well formed, but I'm typing fast, as It's dinner time... and I've got to go eat. I'll try to clear it up later.

Class

I looked a bit a head in my metaphysics book... and found that the Author (aka., my professor) comes to the conclusion in the section about God and Evil (theodicy?) that "therefore, there is no God"... so I'm going to need to rediscover refutations of this as the only solution... if anyone has any leads on ways of defending God and Evil, please send them...

One of my tactics will be to deny that the exisitence of evil is contradictory with the concept of an All-loving God...

Another I'm going to look into, is to state that if the view of evil is that it is only a finite thing, and God is infinite, then evil is not contrary to the all-powerful God.

But I'm far from even seriously starting into inquiry about how to defend it... so any help will be of great use.

Christian radio

Just had a thought earlier today about the radio spot that says that on the last day there will be people who tell jesus about all of their christian works... but he will say to them that he did not know them... (then it goes on talking about faith...)


If you have works, but no faith, then you are not saved. (as the above argument states)
If you have faith, but no works, then you are not saved. (as "faith without works is dead")
Lets say that it is only the case that you can have faith, but no works, or works, but no faith.
If these are your premises, then you are not saved OR you are not saved. Which is redundant, so we can reduce this to say: you are not saved (i.e., there is no possible way to be saved, if faith and works are mutually exclusive).

The problem with the argument is that faith and works are not mutually exclusive, but they are compatible. And it seems that it is only through both that we can be saved.

I thought of it this way today... if faith can be likened to God knowing us, then works seems able to be likened to us knowing God (knowing God calls us to action). And it seems the case that a relationship only occurs when both know each other.

So, a relationship with God requires Him to know us (give us the gift of faith) and for us to know Him (serve him through action), and not solely one or the other.

COLD

So I woke up early this morning to get some work done on the computers at the lab (I don't own one)... and enjoyed the nice iowa morning... and by nice I mean... downright evil... 6 BELOW! what DID THEY DO TO THE WEATHER! Okay... calm down... Anyhow... this weather is insane... but I got to the bus stop right when the bus came and joined the sardines... got to school and the lab was down... as were the other labs in the building I was in... as I was heading to another building I remembered I could check out a laptop, which I promptly did, and am now on... My classes are interesting... Philosophy of Physics, Logic, Buddhism, and Metaphysics... Phil Phys is interesting as I used to be a physics major, and it seems promising, as the teacher is affable. Logic... well yes... I took it last semester in san antonio, but it didn't transfer right, and though I could go and protest, I discovered that the class it did transfer in as, counts to my degree, and that it would be a good idea to start off my Iowa state career with a good GPA... also I still have several things I need to learn in logic, and I don't mind reinforcement of the teaching. Buddhism is interesting... it seems to have a very interesting teacher... and the subject matter is quite interesting... in fact for an oral report I'm going to work on the Catholic-Buddhist dialogue (so if any of you have info on that, please email me sirhair@gmail.com ), and Metaphysics is interesting... I think my teacher is pro-abortion and is an atheist... and so far my class seems to be hostile to faith... which will make this class an interesting cross... having to stand up amongst lions and defend the truth... already I know I'm going to have to decrease that He may increase... anyhow... I hope soon to post some pics but... as of now I don't have a permanent computer... so that may be a bit... also my classes are all intensive reading classes... (except logic) which is much different from my last few classes... which were only read the text book type classes... anyhow... I think its a bit odd that the best and brightest of the nation (or at least Iowa) are all so vehemenently opposed to truth and tradition... they want so much to be unique and novel that they accept any garbage that presents itself as gold... may the youth of our nation stop being such... such teenagers.

Iowa

Well... I am actually very okay, I've just been busy... I'm in the process of moving up to Iowa State university on the 6th. I'm currently in Des Moines... I've got a new red Parka with a comfy and detachable Fleece lining... I've got gloves, a hat and cold weather... but I miss the 81 degree weather of San antonio today! :-( it's 22 or something here... and it "feels like 11" according to weather.com... other than that I'm just getting administrative things done before school starts next week... and looking for a job Thanks for the concern Penitens!
I'll hopefully be posting more in the weeks to come...
God bless!

YAY

I think I'm healthy (well not fully but only a few more days and this congestion should be gone). and I got at least 3 A's in my classes, with the fourth class most likely an A, also. This last week Lee was sick (I was too) so he didn't do youth night, so I had to... it turned out really well... we talked about Ambrose, and the gospel... the activity was having three students act out a scene (of their choice) and then three youth that watched it one at a time (with the rest waiting outside) saying what they saw... noting that all the stories were similar, and accurate, but also complemented by the others, and we related that to the gospels... and how each person needs to hear things in different ways... that we should reach others where they are.

sick

sick sick sick...

Usually I get sick after school ends.. this time, it seems the bugs are preemptively striking... next week is finals, I've got one on monday (photog) one on tuesday (I'm pretty sure it's astronomy) and two on thursday (logic, and psych). Yay... my official resignation was put in on tuesday, and on the 28th I'm no longer the Youth Minister. on the 30th I hope to move to IOWA! (yes I actually said Iowa in a positive manner). I've been training Lee over the last few weeks in how to handle the youth and develop a Youth ministry program... he's coming along, and I'm sure with help from the volunteers, he'll do quite well.

Just went to the eye doc, and got a picture of the inside of my eyes... so these are my eyes, if you want a better view, check out the free software at www.optos.com.

Right eye!

This is the left eye...

If you want to check it out, view the whole image (click on it) and then right click and save the file. Then open the optos software, and open up these images for some quite interesting eyes!