"But ultimately, the rational intellect [which is relational to true information] tends to choose what is true as more valuable and appropriate than the emotional, which seeks what makes one feel better. The former finds its rest in eternity; the latter tends to mutability and temporization. I hope you’ll stick around and shoot the bull a bit more; I enjoy your perspectives."
I realize this is taken out context, Bernie, so you'll have to clarify how I may unintentionally distort what you mean.
I don't agree that it is the rational intellect that is capable of sacrificing short-term pleasure for virtue or the benefit of others; it can partially identify what the good is, but empathic awareness is needed to understand the relational aspects of serving the good in others, and this faculty is not solely, or mainly, under the auspicies of the intellect, at least as I'm understanding your view of it.
There is much more to thinking and feeling that merely the rational and the emotional. Few would argue that empathy arises from garden-variety emotions, but is a feeling awareness that doesn't get lost in the internal dialogues of the intellect or the emotional dramas that dialogue stirs rather automatically. Empathy seems to arise from the soul as a faculty allied with intuition. If we posit these as of the "intellect," then we need to be more expansive in how we understand its richness.
Both eastern and western religious traditions have rooted the mind in the heart, often an actual location in the chest and abdomen. Everything from acupuncture to the notion of the body as the temple of the Holy Spirit speak of an intelligent feeling awareness that is capable of compassion and understanding and that is related to, but distinct from, the rational functions carried out via the internal dialogue. The problem with a strict rationalist perspective is that it requires this internal dialogue to answer to experiences it isn't equipped for.
Have you heard of the recent findings by gastrointerologists called the "Second Brain?" There's actually a book with this title documenting the evidence, which appears conclusive. I've read the book; it's a dry read. But what it shows in the most reductionistic terms is that there is a nervous system located in the stomach and intestines completely separate from the central nervous system, although the two communicate with each other. Scientists in the early nineteenth century stumbled onto this when they noticed that only these organs continued to function after all connections between the body and brain had been severed.
What has been astounding in this research, although no surprise to people who believe there is such thing as a "gut" intelligence, is that over 90% of the body's serotonin is produced in the stomach and intestines, and completely independent of CNS signalling.
And so I offer this as an empirical metaphor when we consider our defintions of both intellect and emotion.
Alongside this bit of research, we should also look at the findings of the HeartMath Institute, which has shown the heart itself as having the capacity of intuition. Upwards of 60% of dopamine is produced in this organ. And so the subjective sensibility we all share, i.e, that our higher or more refined forms of awrareness arise from within the body via localized sensations appears to not be epiphenomenal in nature.
"HeartMath researchers found that we can actually be aware of an event five to seven seconds before it happens. In the recent study, subjects were shown a series of images. Most of the images were peaceful and calming, such as landscapes, trees and cute animals. Other photos, randomly dispersed in the succession, included violent, disturbing and emotionally stimulating images such as car crash, a bloody knife or a snake about to strike. The subjects were monitored during the viewing for changes in respiration, skin conductance, EEG (brain waves), ECG (electrocardiogram) and heart rate variability. Participants' physiological indicators registered an emotional response five to seven seconds before an emotionally disturbing image would appear on the viewing screen.
The main findings show that the heart receives and responds to intuitive information. Significant changes in heart rate variability occurred prior to disturbing and emotionally stimulating images appearing on the screen, compared to calm and serene images appearing. The fact that the heart is involved in the perception of future external events is an astounding result. The classical perspective assigns the brain an exclusive role in information processing. This study opens the door to new understandings about intuition and suggests that intuition is a system-wide process involving at least both the heart and the brain working together to decode intuitive information.
Another noteworthy finding of the study was the fact that there were significant gender differences. Women appeared to have a greater sensitivity to future emotional stimuli. Female participants demonstrated a significant heart rate variability pre-stimulus response, whereas the males' pre-stimulus response was smaller. McCraty says, "Based on our study and other research findings, we believe that the greater the emotional significance of a future event to the individual, the larger the intuitive response will be prior to the actual experience of that event.
The heart has been regarded as a conduit for wisdom beyond our normal awareness by virtually all human cultures, ancient and modern. HeartMath believes the greatest significance of this study lies in the finding that the heart is directly involved in the processing of intuitive information."
"I don't agree that it is the rational intellect that is capable of sacrificing short-term pleasure for virtue or the benefit of others; it can partially identify what the good is, but empathic awareness is needed to understand the relational aspects of serving the good in others, and this faculty is not solely, or mainly, under the auspicies of the intellect, at least as I'm understanding your view of it."
Actually, I tend to think of the intellect as a spiritual "effect" of sorts, not, as most seem to view it, as a purely rational operation. To me, information generally and the good (truth) in all its forms is proper fodder for the intellect. This includes knowledge, memory, emotion and feeling. What would any of these modes of information be without the intellect to process their various forms of data? What good would it be (or would it even be possible?) to feel empathy if there were no rational modus operandi to process it, no mind to grasp it?
The heartmath piece is interesting. Haven't heard of this before. I tend to trace all comprehension, be it reason or intuition, back to intellect or "living idea", which to me is the product and meeting point of matter and spirit. I can't see that the notion of internal organs as a type of secondary receptor of information would necessarily change anything in my thinking. Everything that apprehends, all cognition, is a spiritual function, from ants to humans or brain to heart as I see it.
Thus, when Jesus teaches us that evil wells up from within, from "the heart" (Mat 15:18-20), He is to my thinking teaching us about our spirit, regardless of where this false information makes its penetration into awareness or act.
I've always thought of intuition as much more than foreseeing future events. To me, intuition is a reception of the ideas of God, a union and participation of our true information (regenerate spirit) with His essence.
Trouble is, in the test of a prophet (Deut 18:18-22), for example, it's pretty clear to see from Scripture that not all intuition is of God. This is why I can't agree with the popular insistence on moral autonomy (which is really just a form of relativism) by my more gnostic brethren. The human heart [mind] simply cannot be trusted to make proper moral decisions. And this was ultimately the intended jist of my remarks to Brad.
Posts: 32 | From: midwest US | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
"How can personal experience ever not outweigh theology?"
Fair question. I did make it sound as though theology itself is an infallible standard, and of course it's not. False theology should be avoided, and true embraced. Goes back to the orthodoxy thing, of which I think Phil made a very good defense.
The problem I have is in trusting experience. Humans decieve one another regularly and with impunity, and the intelletual operation itself is so corrupted by the intrusion of false information (false or distorted intuitions, feelings, emotions and reason) that it is not to be trusted. I don't place faith in tradition, as my RC upbringing tended to teach me, but I do place a great respect for tradition....not in man's abilities, so much, but in God's power and lovingkindness in directing fallen humans in the discernment and establishment of reliable truths and principles.
The unregenerate spirit's influence in and on the intellect for deception [which of course is a form of self-deception] in prescriptive matters is very powerful but subtle. I think there is a convincing case to be made for these notions, but this lies somewhat outside the scope of this thread.
"I wonder how many of us are so smart that we really do know what is best for the other to submit to?"
I suspect my wife of 32 years thinks she is smart enough that I should submit to her. See WC, I think Freud was on the mark with the notion of penis envy.
"I think we’re ready for less top-heavy religion and more people-centric religion. That’s my philosophical orthodoxy and one that I may try to persuade people of but would never encode it so that it was a must."
But the downfall of relativistic thinking is that one supposes his or her relativism to be the best thing for everyone. The absurdity is that by definition, this philosophy can never be true, can never be "best" because "best" presupposes that it should be be adhered to all...yet "all" can never adhere to a philosopyhy whose base belief is that there is no best, no standard that is true and good for all.
All the same, don't worry about being a heretic, Brad. I've been disfellowshipped from a very strict Calvinist church membership supposedly for "believing in the old millennial reign doctrine". [not the real reason]
We're all heretics of one sort or another to God, even though we 'hang' in our little groups in this life. I am just finally learning late in life to forgive the corruption in the groups, and to look for the glue God uses to keep some of these groups together and on the right track--for the group good.
Posts: 32 | From: midwest US | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
w.c.
unregistered
posted
Bernie:
Good discussion. It's taking me some time to feel at home with your metaphors, especially re: intelligence, although you seem to partly embrace Phil's distinctions about the will's role in the mind's direction or capacity to embrace virtue.
I'd agree with the imperfections of the human being in general, and the need for the Holy Spirit's gifts to sanctify the essentially good soul. But perhaps we should clarify those notions, unless you already have. Do you hold to a notion of intrinsic depravity, or some other metaphor to describe human fallenness? There is a capacity in us to recognize our moral imperfection, and a receptivity to being quickened in conscience when we see even the subtlty of our selfishness. This reminds me of the saints, such as St. John of the Cross, warning of our being easily led into spiritual gluttony after tasting the Holy Spirit.
The weakness seems not so much in failing to recognize the good we should do, but in pulling up short re: consenting to that end, as St. Paul lamented.
IP: Logged |
I tend pretty strongly to Calvinist in matters of human depravity. Seems to me that the general consensus in religious thought is that humans generally and Christians particularly are basically pretty decent people who occasionally make mistakes. I consider this to be a deception at least as great as that of the religious leaders of Jesus' time who thought they were performing God's service by having Christ crucified.
The interesting question is, would we recognize our own badness if we were truly as corrupt as the scribes, Pharisees and lawyers of Jesus' day?
Am personally convinced the opposite is true, that human beings are very depraved beings who only occasionally do things right, and even then the righteousness we perform is 98% God's work in us.
Not a very popular theology, overall, except I am a universalist, which tends to surprise those with whom I've corresponded for some time without revealing this fact up front. I'm not well received in universalist circles, either...most of my universalist brethren seem to want an easy, painless salvation, and want it so bad that they throw out or ignore a great deal of the Scriptures in forming their belief systems.
I like it here, though. Somehow, Shalom Place has been able to avoid the harshness, pettiness and lack of decorum so common to theology boards today. How do you do this, Phil?
As to feeling comfortable with metaphors, seems that the notion of existence as information is hard for many to embrace. This tends to puzzle me, but then I've been thinking of things corporeal and incorporeal alike as forms of information for some time now, and it's become second nature to me, I guess.
Posts: 32 | From: midwest US | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I tend pretty strongly to Calvinist in matters of human depravity. Seems to me that the general consensus in religious thought is that humans generally and Christians particularly are basically pretty decent people who occasionally make mistakes. I consider this to be a deception at least as great as that of the religious leaders of Jesus' time who thought they were performing God's service by having Christ crucified.
As I noted in another thread, this is one of the disagreements which divide Catholics and some Protestant traditions.
FWIW, the Catholic position, while not endorsing such an extreme view of depravity, doesn't really endorse the position that we can obtain supernatural grace through good works or the use of our own human powers. So we are in agreement with Calvinists on this point, and it's an important one. We do maintain that the wounding of Original Sin has not totally poisoned the natural goodness instilled by God in human nature. Non-Christian human beings obviously can and do give evidence of goodness, and it seems disingenious, at best, to maintain that this is only a deceptive persona for the evil which lurks beneath.
I like it here, though. Somehow, Shalom Place has been able to avoid the harshness, pettiness and lack of decorum so common to theology boards today. How do you do this, Phil?
I've banned a few troublemakers and confronted a few others for incivility. The continuing presence of a core of very good people helps to set the tone for the place as well.
I'm glad you like it here, Bernie. You are most welcomed.
[ June 09, 2005, 10:49 AM: Message edited by: Phil ]
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
w.c.
unregistered
posted
From the POV of Calvinist depravity, we'd all be as corrupt as the scribes and Pharisees of Jesus' day. Jesus couldn't reach these characters because their hearts were callouse, but virtually all of the gospel stories detail His appeal to the malleable conscience in humans, even while all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. In fact, some of the Pharisees were deeply moved by Jesus, while otheres at least found Him disturbing. So some where enraged, and some had their hearts melted by His presence, such as Nicodemus, but none were indifferent, which would be the psychology of a truly depraved soul, IMO.
You pretty much have to make the argument that God's goodness in creation was permanently obliterated in the human soul because of sin, which would amount to the soul's eradication, not just its distortion (i,e., we'd all be zombies by that analogy). Jesus' appeal to the disciples, and those who gathered wherever He went, to become as little children, is an appeal to something which human beings already understand, although that level of vulnerability is frightening, more for some than for others (less for the apostle John than the other apostles, apparently). If this vulnerability weren't possible, however, I don't think He'd have made the invitation, since in that case consent of the human will would be baseless in a soul completely depraved.
posted
The problem I have is in trusting experience.
I can certainly see your point where a sort of preponderance of public religious opinion can weed out the freaks and the flakes. Or just temper and guide those who might be a little bit "out there". But "out there" is where I am so I’m not all that uncomfortable with that territory, if you know what I mean.
But the downfall of relativistic thinking is that one supposes his or her relativism to be the best thing for everyone. The absurdity is that by definition, this philosophy can never be true, can never be "best" because "best" presupposes that it should be be adhered to all...yet "all" can never adhere to a philosopyhy whose base belief is that there is no best, no standard that is true and good for all..
I’m not sure how a more people-enhancing rather than church-preservational position relates to relativism. And I’d certainly be the last to promote a philosophy of no standards, of no true or good. What I’m talking about is what I believe are better standards than the ones we have now. Being an outsider like me does have its advantages. It is easy for someone to look at, say, Islam and see that it would be much better if the teaching of anti-Semitism and misogyny were not institutionalized. Well, I’ve got a few, though much milder, criticisms regarding how Christianity is imparted via the church and Church. I think there are core orientations that are in need of some loving evolution.
All the same, don't worry about being a heretic, Brad.
Thanks for that advice, Bernie. And ya know, I don’t think it bothers me all that much to be a heretic. Orthodoxy and conformism, such as they must exist, can only be helpful and good if they are in the presence and under stress from the heretic. Orthodoxy and conformism burn heretics at their own risk – not to mention the extreme discomfort to the heretics.
I am just finally learning late in life to forgive the corruption in the groups, and to look for the glue God uses to keep some of these groups together and on the right track--for the group good.
Yes. Sometimes glue is needed and sometimes a little solvent is needed.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
w.c.
unregistered
posted
Here's a link to a conservative Catholic apologist taking issue with Calvinism:
What I find peculiar about both sides is the apparent lack of mystical-contemplative awareness informing the argument. I say apparent because it just seems a waste of time to be embroiled over such issues if one has actually tasted the Holy Spirit, which puts to rest much of this invective, not to mention the internal dialogue that is never finished with itself anyway. Nobody is really in charge of these arguments; their not meant to be settled, IMO, as they keep us from experiencing the body as the temple of the Holy Spirit, and the heart as the receptive doorway to that kingdom.
Sadly, it reminds me of Muslims who cling to the Koran as a flawless embodiment of Allah.
A former coworker of mine was quite tortured with Calvinism; he was steeped in that theology, and terrified of any emotionally-colored experience of Christ, fearing the deceits of Satan at every turn. As I got to know him over the years, it was pretty clear his fear of subjectivity had little to do with intellectual persuasions, although this kept his feet dry on a very small and lonely island.
posted
A former coworker of mine was quite tortured with Calvinism; he was steeped in that theology, and terrified of any emotionally-colored experience of Christ, fearing the deceits of Satan at every turn. As I got to know him over the years, it was pretty clear his fear of subjectivity had little to do with intellectual persuasions, although this kept his feet dry on a very small and lonely island.
You paint a very sad picture, WC. Talk about being alienated from one's self. But that's probably just part of the process. We take refuge in Higher things which gives us some elbow room to start dealing with that fear and shame that have somehow gotten attached to our core. In the meantime though, and surely simply because of the pain, we will often make things worse in the short term. If feelings have been causing us pain then, of course, the logical thing to do is to give up one's feelings and to call every uncomfortable thought or feeling the work of Satan. But the truth is, at least as far as I've been able to ascertain, 99.99% of that uncomfortable stuff is put there as a gentle message asking and nudging us to grow. If we ignore it then the nudge becomes a push. The push will become a shove. And eventually we'll be driving ourselves nuts Calvinistically or Fundamentally Islamically. That's probably when religion and/or churches become more of a harm than a help, when we use them to escape ourselves instead of deepening our relationship with ourselves. And part of my heretical message (hey – I like that title!) is that churches often seem only too glad to make you dependent on them. The healthy practice in business when hiring and training a subordinate is to try to make them better than you, not to hold them down and keep them less than you, or dependent on you.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good points, Brad. And, w.c., I've never been much interested in the kinds of debates you referenced on that thread, as they seem too many removes from human experience.
Nevertheless, there are important images of God, human nature and grace at stake, here, which do lead to consequences in attitude and behavior. It's easy to empathize with Calvinistic notions of total human depravity; just read the newspaper and watch the news and you'll see plenty evidence of it. Or, better, examine your own heart -- et voila! OTOH, there's no doubting the presence of goodness in human beings as well.
My biggest problem with the Calvinist/depravity position, however, is that I don't understand how grace and transformation can work in such a system. Is our old human nature discarded, or transformed? I tend toward the latter view. Also, if human consciousness is corrupt, then what on earth does grace appeal to and work with? My response is that the Ego must respond and learn to co-operate with the Holy Spirit in the work of transformation. By Ego, here, I do not mean the false self sytem of conditioning, but our conscious, choosing self. If the Ego does not respond, then there can be no opening to grace. If the Ego can respond, there there must be something about it that recognizes goodness and is drawn to it -- i.e., it is not evil or depraved.
[ June 10, 2005, 12:16 PM: Message edited by: Phil ]
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
w.c.
unregistered
posted
Brad:
I mostly agree. It seems that churches are just beginning to give humanistic psychology a fair look. The Catholic, Episcopal and Lutheran churches are increasingly open to this, although many pastors and priests still seem reluctant to mix faith and therapy. The general recommendations in these circles for adjunctive counseling are not uncommon, but the practice of coupling them is relatively new from the pulpit, IMO.
It seems much easier to approach spirituality after one has experienced psychotherapy than the other way around, since spirituality where the psyche is suffering from many unconscious distortions tends to be rather rigid, and where there is little incentive to open the mind and heart when family and church and community require/depend upon steady role participation.
As we've dicussed on other threads, spiritual awakening tends to activate the subconscious and the individuation process; this transformation shifts the balance of power in families, and in churches as well. I remeber a priest who went into therapy late in life after so many of his parishoners did, since he really coudn't help them pastorally, and this was a boon for that community. Then there was a priest from the parish I grew up in who tended to scoff at the idea, and his congregation, as it got younger, lost its ability to relate with him.
And what you describe is seen so often in the gospels, where Jesus enjoys interacting with those who are willing to look honestly at themselves, have some humor, be quickened in heart. He comments more than once about the great faith of those whose heart-longing is genuine, and where repentance is really a turning of the will to God, even non-Jews.
And so just being able to examine our hearts and be sadenned by our tendencies seems to be the basis for what you're describing as our responsiveness to the HS. Further, our selfishness is then discovered to be distorted longings that are themselves inherently good, or seeking God at their base; but none of that can be discovered within a Calvinist system, it seems, where subjectivity is considered a source of deceit.
Calvinists, as I've seen it in a few people, tend to really torture themselves, since they don't tolerate the notion of transformation, need to be perfect, but always fall short of it. God becomes rather menancing under such terms. Does it remind you, like it does me, of an abusive parent-child relationship?
posted
There's nothing man can do to entirely eradicate God's goodness. We cannot create or destroy anything completely; therefore, the Calvinist notion of utter depravity is baseless, perhaps more a fear of the person for what arises in consciousness when deep subjectivity is permitted via devotion. Moreover, if goodness were lost entirely, we'd be living in a completely different world, one in which conscience could hardly function, and rare moments of altruism impossible.
God's delight with human beings, plainly evident during the grace of contemplation, is verification enough that created goodness wasn't totally spoiled by the Fall. Christ's healing of sin is present eternally within the Trinity, allowing Yaweh to become Abba, "daddy." There is simply no room for a notion of depravity, as Calvinists seem to conceive of it, in a relationship between "Daddy" and His precious children, unless of course that relationship incubates a deep fear in the child for the parent.
IP: Logged |
posted
our selfishness is then discovered to be distorted longings that are themselves inherently good, or seeking God at their base
That’s an interesting thought.
Does it remind you, like it does me, of an abusive parent-child relationship?
You weren’t asking me, but it does to me.
…the Calvinist notion of utter depravity is baseless, perhaps more a fear of the person for what arises in consciousness when deep subjectivity is permitted via devotion.
Call it "The Fall" or "Original Sin", if you will, but I ain’t buyin’ that bill of goods at the present moment, and I say that will a smile on my face, not a scowl. But there seems as if there was some little worm at the very center of each of us. That worm is dark and black and it wiggles and longs to feed. If we feed it it simply grows more powerful and more needful. If we don’t feed it then it simply consumes us from within. Maybe that’s a poor analogy, but if one looks around one can see a "something" working in people that seems so deep, so seemingly impenetrable, and so intransigent that so many of us spend our lifetimes either feeding it or trying to excise it. But the strange thing is, despite it’s ubiquitousness, it seems we understand so little about it, although perhaps present company accepted. But for mere Joes like me it’s a mystery. It seems like a low-hanging piece of fruit that one should be able to easily pluck, for it is, after all, right inside you. But it seems forever evasive and forever crazy-making. And it leads people to do all kinds of Calvinistic things. I do pity them because I do hope they return the favor.
It seems much easier to approach spirituality after one has experienced psychotherapy than the other way around, since spirituality where the psyche is suffering from many unconscious distortions tends to be rather rigid, and where there is little incentive to open the mind and heart when family and church and community require/depend upon steady role participation.
That’s quite an interesting observation, WC.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
w.c.
unregistered
posted
Brad:
I wonder if that desperation, or inextinguishable anguish, you are alluding to, which gives rise to our selfish contraction or need to protect ourselves, isn't actually the longing for union with God that would bring about the end of the false self Phil describes. Who knows . . . ? All I can say is that the deep rest which the grace of contemplation brings shows not only the subtlety and depth of selfishness, but the even deeper goodness that is beyond the human mind to comprehend, even though it is a faculty of the soul which seems especially marked for divine intimacy alone.
IP: Logged |
"We do maintain that the wounding of Original Sin has not totally poisoned the natural goodness instilled by God in human nature. Non-Christian human beings obviously can and do give evidence of goodness, and it seems disingenious, at best, to maintain that this is only a deceptive persona for the evil which lurks beneath."
I agree with your thoughts, mostly. To me, though, total depravity doesn't necessitate the information of spirit to a state of complete complete false information. In fact, I try to make the case that this is impossible because the spirit wholly given over to false information would be capable only of chaos and destruction.
I'm not comfortable with Thomas' and most 19th century Calvinist's views that evil is the absence of good. In its technical sense, this seems to be true. But strictly speaking, the privation of good would consist in merely degrees of good from more to less, and this doesn't account for premeditated evil. For this, I think the participation of intellect with the false information of spirit in reason is necessary.
Hi WC,
"From the POV of Calvinist depravity, we'd all be as corrupt as the scribes and Pharisees of Jesus' day."
Agreed. What evidence would you suggest to prove that we're not?
"Jesus couldn't reach these characters because their hearts were callouse, but virtually all of the gospel stories detail His appeal to the malleable conscience in humans, even while all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."
Jesus can and does reach all hearts, eventually. I suspect you're looking at things from a temporal point of view. Shifting to the cosmic, God is in control and is completely sovereign. I think there's a lot of truth in the notion that Jesus only reaches hungry hearts, but I remain stubbornly sovereign grace to the end: I say He first prepares those hearts, which Phil alluded to...this is why Calvinists have such high regard for Augustine, who was very much a sovereign grace thinker. In the end, it's all of Him, bringing to fruition His statement, "So you too, when you do all the things which are commanded you, say, ‘We are unworthy slaves; we have done only that which we ought to have done’" (Luke 17:10).
"You pretty much have to make the argument that God's goodness in creation was permanently obliterated in the human soul because of sin, which would amount to the soul's eradication, not just its distortion"
Here's a way to look at it: a tire is worthless if a big hole is blown out the side. The tire is totally 'depraved' insofar as it's no longer able to perform the task for which it was created. We can argue that the tire still has air inside and rubber outside, and is thus technically still a tire in essence...but it's still worthless. It can no longer transport a vehicle. Despite its yet possessing air and an outer skin, it is totally unable to perform its work.
I see total depravity this way. Even though some goodness exists inside, the darkness that's in the soul renders the being totally unable to perform his or her salvation. Doesn't mean we can't do good, just means we can't do enough (or proper) good to obtain fellowship with God. The Bible says Christ illumines all (Jn 1:9). To my thinking, He is inside all, waging war against the evil/false information that is overtaking the soul, bringing new birth from our spiritual death. It's all really a matter of ratio, I think: I believe (for purposes of speculation only) the human spirit can be at best maybe 15% or 20% regenerate, and this would apply to Paul, John, the OT prophets, etc. Most believe it the other way around, which I see as a deception.
As you may have noted, I don't make the case that all goodness is obliterated. But this isn't necessary for total depravity to be true.
More later, in a rush (as usual). Gutted my bathroom, installing everything new, only have small amounts of time online.
Posts: 32 | From: midwest US | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder if that desperation, or inextinguishable anguish, you are alluding to, which gives rise to our selfish contraction or need to protect ourselves, isn't actually the longing for union with God that would bring about the end of the false self Phil describes. Who knows . . . ?
Who knows indeed, WC. I’ve seen so many theories and models, many quite plausible and coherent. But there seems to be someone or something that drives the human being on and will not let him or her come to a simple rest, at least for any length of time. And we’re sometimes hard-pressed to discern between a compulsion and a potentially fulfilling yearning. Is there a difference? Well, considering the effects of addictions and such, clearly is seems like there is. At the other end of the spectrum is something I’m going through now which is a blankness, an emptiness, which is not depression, nor is it sadness, but it is a feeling of NOT having sufficient yearning for anything in particular. It is a weird thing to be in such a state. On the one hand, it’s nice not being in the midst of a "busy busy busy" workaholic or seemingly caffeine-induced "human doing" lifestyle. On the other hand, it can be very tough to know how to deal with such a deep silence.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gutted my bathroom, installing everything new, only have small amounts of time online.
Was that spiritual advice in the form of an analogy from Bernie, or was that an actual calendar of events? I shall "gut my bathroom" and "install everything new". Man. I already feel like a new man! Good luck with all that crap, no pun intended.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
w.c.
unregistered
posted
Bernie:
Jesus saying that "the kingdom of God is within you," or that He and the Father will come and make their home with us, and St. Paul speaking of his thorn as a source of grace, doesn't sound congruent with your analogy of a ruined tire. Furthermore, you seem on uncertain ground when you resort to "information" as your working metaphor and then contend evil is something more than just the privation of good; it sounds like you are requiring just better programming, rather than transformation of the heart.
Even though you concede goodness, it sounds like the residue of your tire metaphor, which just doesn't work when considering that the essence of God's creation can only be altered by Him, the goodness of His design being no exception, and still functional in terms of how Jesus appealed to his disciples to become receptive as little children; otherwise there would be no repentance, no conversion via the Holy Spirit's infusion of the soul, and certainly no reference to the body as its temple; this is a far cry from being "totally unable to perform his or her salvation." Jesus certainly didn't treat people as inherently defective, and His reference to the Father as "Daddy," and the church as the bridegroom, strongly suggests intimacy and transformation/growth, rather than sovereignty in the implacable way you depict.
The saints make it clear that we cannot will ourselves to holiness, but their theology is informed by showing the soul capable of consenting to the fullness of the Holy Spirit, even to the degree refered to as transforming union, which Phil can explain better than I can. The fruits of the spirit are the evidence of this possibility. That transformation involves the prayer "thy will be done," where the human faculties are taken up beyond their understanding by the Holy Spirit and purified through various "dark nights."
I have to ask you a somewhat indelicate question:
How would you characterize your relationship with Christ? What is your personal sense of His presence? I ask this because the Calvinists I've known in the past tend to hedge their bets at this level, God being too sovereign to "come and make our home" with humans.
And what you describe is seen so often in the gospels, where Jesus enjoys interacting with those who are willing to look honestly at themselves, have some humor, be quickened in heart. He comments more than once about the great faith of those whose heart-longing is genuine, and where repentance is really a turning of the will to God, even non-Jews.
I see there's been quite a bit more dialogue, and I'll catch up with things in due time, but I wanted to respond to this one more by adding to your comments a touchpoint with Jesus' parable of the sower and the seed. As you recall, the sower (Christ) is sowing these seeds (invitations to supernatural life) which fall on all kinds of ground (human consciousness). The seed grows best in fertile ground, which I take to mean those human beings who are living as authentically and humbly as it is possible for them to do so, expressing whatever measures of goodness they can.
We used to speak of natural grace and supernatural grace -- the natural signifiying all those dynamics that work unto growth and wholeness. You might say that natural grace is built into the created order and is intended to lead us to growth and even enlightenment. These dynamics have been damaged by sin, but they are still at work, ever-nudging us toward authenticity and wholeness. And it is precisely these movements that are redeemed and augmented by supernatural grace, which not only restores our natural human nature but "upgrades" it through the Holy Spirit by virtue of our union with Christ in his sacred humanity.
Supernatural grace building on Nature: very Thomistic, I know, but that's been my experience.
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
w.c.
unregistered
posted
Phil:
That is helpful, a distinction I've heard before by you and other Catholics, and it does resonate with me in general and during prayer.
I was standing in line at the video store tonight, and there was a mother and her daughters ahead of me, and those sweet faces radiating the fire of their souls is so basically good that evil can really be seen as a distortion of something essentially good, especially since it's seen in virtually all children. This is similar to the sower parable you mention, since Jesus implores us to the receptivity of children. But that same light can be seen in the eyes of adults as well. I tried not to be intrusive, but all the people I saw today, at work and afterwards, embody this quality. Only occasionally do I run across souls so miserable that the light is rather dim, but even then it shows forth for brief moments, usually in pain as the longing for love overcomes the fear of it.
Hence, we can be exhorted to love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength, and our neighbors as ourselves. If we weren't primarily good, then what would be the use of the effort?
I'd like to see a few of those blanks posts that you've written. I bet it's some of your best stuff.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That rings true to my experience as well, w.c.
Bernie's point about salvation is not to be too quickly dismissed, however. The continuing capacity of human beings to grow in natural grace must be seen along side our incredible capacity for evil. As he noted, Even though some goodness exists inside, the darkness that's in the soul renders the being totally unable to perform his or her salvation. Doesn't mean we can't do good, just means we can't do enough (or proper) good to obtain fellowship with God. I agree with that, and have said as much above.
The burning question, however, is whether supernatural grace has also become available to all because of Christ and the gift of the Spirit? I'm generally inclined to think that this is indeed the case -- that a new ontological situation exists in the God-human relationship wherein supernatural grace is available to all regardless of faith tradition and explicit consents, and that it grows in the soul through the practice of virtue and in sync with growth in natural grace. This view doesn't in any way diminish the merits won for the race by Christ, nor does it hold that we somehow save ourselves. It also affirms the importance of explicit faith and the conscious commitment to surrender one's life to Christ and the guidance of the Spirit. I think I can safely say that what I have just expressed is the Catholic position on this matter.
The analogy of the blown tire isn't half-bad, either, if the point is to say that a tire (human nature) still exists after the fall, only it's pretty useless and is vulnerable to deflation. I think it falls short in recognizing that even a blown tire can still roll and that there are some tires that seal themselves -- which would be akin to something like natural grace. A far better analogy would be that we are an automobile that has had water added to our gasoline . . . or a wheat field that has had weeds sown in it (hmm, that one sounds familiar ).
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
. Shalom Place
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Or just temper and guide those who might be a little bit "out there". But "out there" is where I am so I’m not all that uncomfortable with that territory, if you know what I mean.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
OTOH, there's no doubting the presence of goodness in human beings as well.
