[De Maria]

Hi again De Maria,

Most people disagree about the nature of morality, but the one thing they mostly agree upon is there should be some type of objectivity when it comes to morality.

What is objectivity to you? And what is the virtue of objectivity as opposed to subjectivity? Why do you consider one better than the other?

I would argue that your 'king' example means in essence there is no objectivity when it comes to morality.

Objectivity, to me, means that one can study the matter and come to a reasonable conclusion about its properties without undue sentiment or personal prejudice.

Subjectivity, to me, is a means of studying some matter by and come to a reasonable conclusion based upon one's feelings and preconceptions.

As long as they both lead to the truth, I see no superiority in either.

Let me give you and example. Men frequently lament that women are not objective. I agree. I believe women are more subjective than men. Yet, in my experience, women make far superior decisions than men in many stages of life. Even though they go more by feelings than by cold calculations.

Morality is simply what God wants.

I have no problem with that. Why do you? Don't you believe that God is omniscient? (all knowing).

At best this seems to be a subjectivist position. At worst it could be interpreted as, "God commands morality. Morality is what God commands".

What do you think?

I wonder why you seem to have a problem with that?

Regards

Tut

Sincerely,

De Maria

[TUT317]

What is objectivity to you? And what is the virtue of objectivity as opposed to subjectivity? Why do you consider one better than the other?

Sincerely,

De Maria

Hi DeMaria,

I don't really think one is better than the other it is more a case of choosing the right examples. Many would consider moral objectivity to be intuitive i.e. the way we think.This is of course leaving aside personal morality. When in the public arena we tend to consider or judge certain actions we witness, good/ bad- evil/ virtuous.

Certain actions appear to have moral properties about them. Morally right or wrong> independent of what you or I might think about them (moral realism if you like). There are of course some problems associated with this view. Nonetheless, it is quite reasonable to try and establish the existence of God from facts about morality. In fact God is the only source of morality. On face value this is an objective account. I assume this is what you are wanting to work towards?


In answer to your last question...

I think God is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving. Yet there is evil in the world. Perhaps more accurately, acts we judge to be good or evil.

We can have any three of the above propositions together but we can't have all four together.


Regards

Tut

[TUT317]

I didn't read your last post carefully enough. In fact you were asking about the virtue of subjectivity and objectivity.

As you are no doubt aware virtue ethics centres on the nature of the individual and how well they adhere to rules, obligations and customs. Actions are right or wrong depending on how well a person adheres to rules, duties and obligations. This is, regardless of our subjectivist point of view. This is what makes it an objective theory of morality.

All this fits in well with 'The Divine Command Theory' e.g. an action is right because God Commands it. Opposed to this idea is that God would only command right actions. I think your earlier suggestion that we can entertain both propositions has problems.

On this basis objective morality exists independently of what we might think of God's commands. Even though such an entity exists independently of us the only way we can discover the moral value of such an entities commands is by consulting our state of mind.

If someone has a lot of virtue then it stands to reason they don't suffer from the problem of lacking virtue. St. Thomas borrowing from Aristotle would say that there are some virtues we can't have enough of. Nonetheless,this seems to create a false dichotomy. On this basis we have to say one of two things. Abraham was virtuous or he was non virtuous. Having virtue is what makes a person moral. It is assumed that actions are a reflection of an individuals state of mind. In Abraham's case I think this is too simplistic.


Regards

Tut

[De Maria]

Hi DeMaria,

I don't really think one is better than the other it is more a case of choosing the right examples. Many would consider moral objectivity to be intuitive i.e. the way we think.

Doesn't that then make it subjective?

This is of course leaving aside personal morality. When in the public arena we tend to consider or judge certain actions we witness, good/ bad- evil/ virtuous.

Certain actions appear to have moral properties about them. Morally right or wrong> independent of what you or I might think about them (moral realism if you like). There are of course some problems associated with this view. Nonetheless, it is quite reasonable to try and establish the existence of God from facts about morality. In fact God is the only source of morality. On face value this is an objective account. I assume this is what you are wanting to work towards?

That is very close to the definition of justification.

In answer to your last question...

I think God is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving. Yet there is evil in the world. Perhaps more accurately, acts we judge to be good or evil.

We can have any three of the above propositions together but we can't have all four together.

In fact, we do have all four together. God does not cause the evil.

Regards

Tut

Sincerely,

De Maria

[De Maria]

I didn't read your last post carefully enough. In fact you were asking about the virtue of subjectivity and objectivity.

As you are no doubt aware virtue ethics centres on the nature of the individual and how well they adhere to rules, obligations and customs. Actions are right or wrong depending on how well a person adheres to rules, duties and obligations. This is, regardless of our subjectivist point of view. This is what makes it an objective theory of morality.

Are we talking in terms of Christianity? Because Christianity teaches that the nature of the individual is fallen and therefore prone to commit sin. Which then makes it very hard to ahere to rules, duties and obligations.

All this fits in well with 'The Divine Command Theory' e.g. an action is right because God Commands it. Opposed to this idea is that God would only command right actions. I think your earlier suggestion that we can entertain both propositions has problems.

The idea that we can't or that we mustn't is wrong.

The assumptions that God is all good and that God is all powerful are the basis of Christianity. So, if you are entertaining different assumptions, I would like to know which religion you represent?

On this basis objective morality exists independently of what we might think of God's commands. Even though such an entity exists independently of us the only way we can discover the moral value of such an entities commands is by consulting our state of mind.

That is not the best way. Because of our fallen nature, and our propensity to sin, our state of mind is iffy for the discovery of moral right and wrong. The best source is the Church which God put here to lead us to Him. And the Bible, which is His Word, but which we aren't guaranteed to understand without assistance.

If someone has a lot of virtue then it stands to reason they don't suffer from the problem of lacking virtue. St. Thomas borrowing from Aristotle would say that there are some virtues we can't have enough of. Nonetheless,this seems to create a false dichotomy. On this basis we have to say one of two things. Abraham was virtuous or he was non virtuous. Having virtue is what makes a person moral. It is assumed that actions are a reflection of an individuals state of mind. In Abraham's case I think this is too simplistic.

I agree that its too simplistic. Even the Just Man falls seven times a day. Therefore, the virtuous man understands more than anyone else how sinful he is in reality:
Romans 7:
[16] If then I do that which I will not, I consent to the law, that it is good. [17] Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. [18] For I know that there dwelleth not in me, that is to say, in my flesh, that which is good. For to will, is present with me; but to accomplish that which is good, I find not. [19] For the good which I will, I do not; but the evil which I will not, that I do. [20] Now if I do that which I will not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

[21] I find then a law, that when I have a will to do good, evil is present with me. [22] For I am delighted with the law of God, according to the inward man: [23] But I see another law in my members, fighting against the law of my mind, and captivating me in the law of sin, that is in my members. [24] Unhappy man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death? [25] The grace of God, by Jesus Christ our Lord. Therefore, I myself, with the mind serve the law of God; but with the flesh, the law of sin.

Regards

Tut

Sincerely,

De Maria

[TUT317]

Doesn't that then make it subjective?



That is very close to the definition of justification.




Sincerely,

De Maria

Hi De Maria,


In a way it does make it subjective and herein lies the problem. Just briefly...

St Thomas reasoned that God would not give us commands through scripture and the church only to have them contradicted by our subjective experiences. Actions seem to have a type of 'to do' or 'not to do' about them.

Discovering things about God's commands is a bit like looking at rules from a third person perspective. Our emotional state is irrelevant as to the truth or falsity of such commands. They remain true regardless. In a way we are detached from morality, we don't decided which of God's commands are good and which are bad.

My point is there is a problem here. We want to talk about moral properties existing independently from us (objectively) yet the only way we can discover these properties is subjectively ( how we feel about actions based on experience).

It think this is the problem St. Thomas was trying to overcome yet it seems counter intuitive.

Regards

Tut

P.S I will get back to your other responses tonight.

[Wondergirl]

Because of our fallen nature, and our propensity to sin, our state of mind is iffy for the discovery of moral right and wrong. The best source is the Church which God put here to lead us to Him. And the Bible, which is His Word, but which we aren't guaranteed to understand without assistance.

*tiptoes in and quietly mentions* That's probably the main difference between Catholicism and Protestantism.

[Athos]

Men frequently lament that women are not objective. I agree. I believe women are more subjective than men.


Sincerely,

De Maria

Fascinating comment. To what do you attribute this?

[TUT317]

Are we talking in terms of Christianity? Because Christianity teaches that the nature of the individual is fallen and therefore prone to commit sin. Which then makes it very hard to ahere to rules, duties and obligations.



The idea that we can't or that we mustn't is wrong.

The assumptions that God is all good and that God is all powerful are the basis of Christianity. So, if you are entertaining different assumptions, I would like to know which religion you represent?



That is not the best way. Because of our fallen nature, and our propensity to sin, our state of mind is iffy for the discovery of moral right and wrong. The best source is the Church which God put here to lead us to Him. And the Bible, which is His Word, but which we aren't guaranteed to understand without assistance.



I agree that its too simplistic. Even the Just Man falls seven times a day. Therefore, the virtuous man understands more than anyone else how sinful he is in reality:
Romans 7:
[16] If then I do that which I will not, I consent to the law, that it is good. [17] Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. [18] For I know that there dwelleth not in me, that is to say, in my flesh, that which is good. For to will, is present with me; but to accomplish that which is good, I find not. [19] For the good which I will, I do not; but the evil which I will not, that I do. [20] Now if I do that which I will not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

[21] I find then a law, that when I have a will to do good, evil is present with me. [22] For I am delighted with the law of God, according to the inward man: [23] But I see another law in my members, fighting against the law of my mind, and captivating me in the law of sin, that is in my members. [24] Unhappy man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death? [25] The grace of God, by Jesus Christ our Lord. Therefore, I myself, with the mind serve the law of God; but with the flesh, the law of sin.



Sincerely,

De Maria

Hi De Maria,


Are we talking Christianity?

Yes because St Thomas argued for Aristotelian virtue ethics except that the gave it a Christian emphasis. I would say that St Thomas favored virtue ethics because it avoids the problem of consequentialism (moral actions should be judged on their consequences)


I don't really represent a religion, but I go to the Uniting Church.
I was making reference to the Euthyphro dilemma. This is a non- denominational or universal problem.


In relation to our fallen nature and propensity to sin. You say our state of mind is iffy for the discovery of moral right and wrong.

It could be argued that humans are very good at discovering right and wrong. It is just that we are very bad at adhering to what we have discovered.


Regards

Tut

[paraclete]

His Word, but which we aren't guaranteed to understand without assistance.

The assistance we are give to understand his Word is the Holy Spirit, he is given to counsel us and lead us into all truth. The essential difference is the RCC has determined that it is in the place of the Holy Spirit to intrepret Scripture and lead us into truth

[TUT317]

the assistance we are give to understand his Word is the Holy Spirit, he is given to counsel us and lead us into all truth. The essential difference is the RCC has determined that it is in the place of the Holy Spirit to intrepret Scripture and lead us into truth

Hi Paraclete,

Interesting thoughts- the Holy Spirit interprets scripture for us and we accept whatever is commanded based on this interpretation.

To me this suggests a dual process. We are given scripture and the interpretation is done for us. This dual process gives us an objective account of morality. In other words, we follow whatever is commanded.

There is still a problem here with the nature of ethics. My earlier point was that we want to talk about moral properties existing independently ( objective account) yet it seems as though we discover these properties subjectively ( how we feel about certain actions based on experience).

By cutting out the Holy Spirit in relation to interpreting scripture we are left with a subjective account. That is, the Holy Spirit by assisting us directly helps us better understand scripture.

It seems to me that you are saying this is the essential difference between RCC and other denominations- interesting way of looking at it.


Regards

Tut

[deepinthought2]

To me as a kid the whole faith and works thing just meant that you cannot be saved by works but you can be lost if you don’t have them. It’s as if we are rats swimming in a bowl and God decides who He finds favour in. Stop swimming and you’re toast. But don’t think that swimming is going to save you because that is arrogant. It’s fine to say that only works produced by faith count, but how does that work? Do we have to only hope and pray and then automatically works are produced, or do we actually have to put in some effort and will power? Or is it offensive to God to put in effort and will power?
The point is that God is not a moron. If even man is reasonable, how much more reasonable is God? He does not disregard a sincere or faithful act because it did not follow a set ritual, and He sees right through every insincere or unfaithful act regardless of the ritual. So just because you say you are doing works in response to the love that He first showed you, does not make it faith.
The answer to the dilemma is a psychological one. The seat of righteousness is not in the mind but in the heart. Therefore the law must be written on the heart. There must be true change and understanding, a real transformation and submission before our actions become sincere. In life we experience the pain of our own sins, until the point where we truly understand and want no more of it. It does not happen all at once, but one sin at time.
The ego must die – the old nature of self-seeking and praise-dependence. We must submit to God and let go of sinful desires. When we try to please God and expect praise when our minds are able to temporarily override the sinful desires of our hearts, it is just a sign that the ego is still alive and well. Then we tend to compare ourselves to others and secretly pat ourselves on the back and point the finger at them. But with true change we seek salvation from sin itself, so that even if heaven’s doors were opened to all of mankind tomorrow we would not go back to our former ways.

[TUT317]

To me as a kid the whole faith and works thing just meant that you cannot be saved by works but you can be lost if you don’t have them. It’s as if we are rats swimming in a bowl and God decides who He finds favour in. Stop swimming and you’re toast. But don’t think that swimming is going to save you because that is arrogant. It’s fine to say that only works produced by faith count, but how does that work? Do we have to only hope and pray and then automatically works are produced, or do we actually have to put in some effort and will power? Or is it offensive to God to put in effort and will power?
The point is that God is not a moron. If even man is reasonable, how much more reasonable is God? He does not disregard a sincere or faithful act because it did not follow a set ritual, and He sees right through every insincere or unfaithful act regardless of the ritual. So just because you say you are doing works in response to the love that He first showed you, does not make it faith.
The answer to the dilemma is a psychological one. The seat of righteousness is not in the mind but in the heart. Therefore the law must be written on the heart. There must be true change and understanding, a real transformation and submission before our actions become sincere. In life we experience the pain of our own sins, until the point where we truly understand and want no more of it. It does not happen all at once, but one sin at time.
The ego must die – the old nature of self-seeking and praise-dependence. We must submit to God and let go of sinful desires. When we try to please God and expect praise when our minds are able to temporarily override the sinful desires of our hearts, it is just a sign that the ego is still alive and well. Then we tend to compare ourselves to others and secretly pat ourselves on the back and point the finger at them. But with true change we seek salvation from sin itself, so that even if heaven’s doors were opened to all of mankind tomorrow we would not go back to our former ways.

Hi Deepinthought,

I really enjoyed reading this. I makes me think that we can get too "bogged down" in theology. It also makes a lot of sense.

Regards

Tut

[JoeT777]

Justification by faith apart from works and Justification by faith and works are seamlessly combined in the Catholic Sacramental System.

I don’t know that you can separate salvation into 'work' and 'no work'. Pope Benedict’s opening line in the encyclical letter Spe Salvi, (Hope Saves) is; “in hope we were saved, says Saint Paul to the Romans and likewise to us (Rom 8:24). According to the Christian faith, “redemption”—salvation—is not simply a given.”


I think the Pope’s encyclical answers the question about salvation. The answer is quite unlike Protestant’s understanding of a guaranteed salvific anointed from a fickled god’s whim sitting on high picking and choosing this one he likes, damn the others. This line continues, likened to Dorothy’s faith in the Land of Oz, will see the children home. Most of us recall that the wizard of Oz was the snake oil salesman – buy into this line and you get greased. The problem is that belief, in and of itself isn’t enough. Faith is like the seed of a mustard tree of redemption, you can’t separate chaff from the kernel and expect to sprout holiness. To grow and bear fruit it must receive the waters of baptism and the light of knowledge. In short to click our heels in belief only bruises the heels.


The Pope associates our salvation with a faith based hope:

The dark door of time, of the future, has been thrown open. The one who has hope lives differently; the one who hopes has been granted the gift of a new life.

Yet at this point a question arises: in what does this hope consist which, as hope, is “redemption”? The essence of the answer is given in the phrase from the Letter to the Ephesians quoted above: the Ephesians, before their encounter with Christ, were without hope because they were “without God in the world”. To come to know God—the true God—means to receive hope. We who have always lived with the Christian concept of God, and have grown accustomed to it, have almost ceased to notice that we possess the hope that ensues from a real encounter with this God.

Pope Benedict explains still further; while “faith is the substance of things hoped for; it is the evidence that our faith is rightly placed.” (Heb 11:1). St. Thomas explains that virtuous act of faith is related to a good end (the object of the will) and truth (the object of the intellect). Faith deposits an interior change in attitude allowing us to stand “firm in what one hopes, being convinced of what one does not see.” At the very least we should recognize that there is a relationship between faith and hope. So, much so, that we find that hope depends on faith given by God trough His love for His creation, faith becomes the substance of our hope for redemption and eternal life, i.e. a synergistic relationship, needing both our will and God’s will, becoming one will.


Likewise, in perseverance, faith precedes our hope, hope in its turn precedes a virtuous charity. And, as St. Paul tells us, this is God’s goal, “the commandment is charity from a pure heart, and a good conscience, and an unfeigned faith.” (1 Tim 1:5). Charity can be said the greater (Cf. 1 Cor. 13:13) because it brings about faith and hope in others, i.e. the ‘fruits’ of our faith.


Understanding the relationship between faith, hope and charity, we can safely put aside the Protestant understanding of a faith that brings the future into the present; however hope can reside in the present. We will never know if we receive the grace of salvation in this world, but we can know the receipt of the ‘real’ Christ only in the sacraments; we labor in the sacraments (Cf. 1 Tim 4:10). All of which brings me back again to our persevering in works. Because in these saving sacraments we find our adoption; “we are now the sons of God; and it hath not yet appeared what we shall be”. For it is only in God’s grace do we dare HOPE for salvation. This hope precedes HIs charity adopting His sons, “every one that hath this hope in him, sanctifieth himself, as he also is holy.” (1 John 3:3)

JoeT

[De Maria]

the assistance we are give to understand his Word is the Holy Spirit,

Correct.

he is given to counsel us and lead us into all truth.

True.

The essential difference is the RCC has determined that it is in the place of the Holy Spirit to intrepret Scripture and lead us into truth

Not true. The Catholic Church also claims the assistance of the Holy Spirit leading her to all truth. The difference is that you and I are not mentioned in Scripture as Pillars of Truth.

Example:
You and I may both claim the assistance of the Holy Spirit in interpreting Scripture. But you may interpret a verse to mean "A" and I might interpret the same verse to mean "B". But the Holy Spirit does not contradict Itself, does it?

Therefore, one of us or both of us may be wrong that the Holy Spirit has anything to do with our interpreting any Scripture.

How do we know if the Holy Spirit has assisted us in the interpreting of Scripture? If we our interpretation agrees with or at least does not contradict the interpretation of the Church. That is why Scripture says:

Matthew 18:17
And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

I hope that made sense.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[De Maria]

*tiptoes in and quietly mentions* That's probably the main difference between Catholicism and Protestantism.

That's true Wondergirl. The main difference between Catholicism is that we believe in Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium.

Whereas Protestants believe in Scripture alone.

Well, there's also a major difference in how we view justification. We believe it is by faith and works, while Protestants mostly believe it is by faith alone.

[De Maria]

I agree if, in fact, you mean what Eph. 2:8,9 says, justification ("grace") is a gift from God, with no effort or work on our part. Works are then our thank you to Him. We do not participate in the act of justification; it has been done for us and apart from us.

You're actually very close to the truth. But do you understand that if we do not work, we will not be justified?

Romans 2:13
(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Let me give you an example. Lets say that I see an orphan and that orphan is hungry and I buy that orphan a sandwich.

I can't then take that sandwich and wipe sin from my soul with it. No. God does that. But if I don't feed orphans or do other good deeds in conformity with the will of God, God will not purify my soul. And if I commit wicked deeds, i.e. sins, God will judge me accordingly. Even if I claim to believe in Him:
Matthew 7:21
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Therefore, without faith, we will not be saved. But neither will we be saved by faith alone, because faith alone is a dead faith.

We will only be saved by faith and works. Not BY our faith and works themselves. That is only a manner of speaking. But saved BY GOD because we obeyed His Word and kept His Commands.

Hebrews 5:9
And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

[De Maria]

I don't know that you can seperate salvation into 'work' and 'no work'. Pope Benedict's opening line in the encyclical letter Spe Salvi, (Hope Saves) is; “in hope we were saved, says Saint Paul to the Romans and likewise to us (Rom 8:24). According to the Christian faith, “redemption”—salvation—is not simply a given.” .... This hope precedes HIs charity adopting His sons, “every one that hath this hope in him, sanctifieth himself, as he also is holy.” (1 John 3:3)

JoeT

Hi Joe,

You've said a lot of good things, but in most you missed the point. I agree with 99.9% of what you've said above, so no need to repeat it.

Unfortunately, the one thing you said which spoke to the point of this discussion is the one with which I disagree. You said:
... Faith is like the seed of a mustard tree of redemption, you can't separate chaff from the kernel and expect to sprout holiness. To grow and bear fruit it must receive the waters of baptism and the light of knowledge. In short to click our heels in belief only bruises the heels.. .

Now, here's the heart of the matter. Do you agree that there are certain things which we do and there are certain things which God does?

Lets take for instance the baptism to which you refer above. You approach the Church and ask for Baptism, someone pours water over your head and YOU wash your soul clean. Is that correct? I think you would say, "NO!."

How about this? You approach the Church and ask for Baptism, someone pours water over your head and the PRIEST washes your soul clean. Is THAT correct? Again, I anticipate your answer is, "NO, NO, NO!!!"

You don't have to yell, Joe.

Ok, so far we agree. How about this? You approach the Church and ask for Baptism, someone pours water over your head and the GOD washes your soul clean. Is THAT correct? I anticipate that we agree the answer to that is an adamant, yes.

But what do we do when the water is poured? Do we do anything? Have you ever heard the saying, "be still and let God be God."? That's all we do, we must believe that God is God and can do the things promised for us in Baptism. That is what is called being disposed to receive His Grace. Which, in short, is the definition of having faith in God.

To paraphrase your own words, when that water is poured over our heads, "we click our heals in belief only". We believe that God washes away our sin. We don't wash it away ourselves.

Yes, we sanctify ourselves by our works, but that is before and after the Sacraments. That is why the Scripture says:
Ephesians 2:
[8] For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; [9] Not of works, that no man may glory. [10] For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them.

Meaning, in my opinion, that in the Sacraments, God has poured His grace in us and thus created us for good works.

This is why I say that justification by faith apart from works succinctly describes the Sacraments of Baptism, Reconciliation, Confirmation, Anointing and Eucharist. Because all of those works are works of God with which we have little to do accept to believe in Him and submit to His grace.

Am I making sense?

Sincerely,

[De Maria]

To me as a kid the whole faith and works thing just meant that you cannot be saved by works but you can be lost if you don’t have them.

Excellent point!

It’s as if we are rats swimming in a bowl and God decides who He finds favour in. Stop swimming and you’re toast. But don’t think that swimming is going to save you because that is arrogant. It’s fine to say that only works produced by faith count, but how does that work? Do we have to only hope and pray and then automatically works are produced, or do we actually have to put in some effort and will power? Or is it offensive to God to put in effort and will power?
The point is that God is not a moron. If even man is reasonable, how much more reasonable is God? He does not disregard a sincere or faithful act because it did not follow a set ritual, and He sees right through every insincere or unfaithful act regardless of the ritual. So just because you say you are doing works in response to the love that He first showed you, does not make it faith.

You are actually expressing Catholic teaching very well.

The answer to the dilemma is a psychological one. The seat of righteousness is not in the mind but in the heart. Therefore the law must be written on the heart. There must be true change and understanding, a real transformation and submission before our actions become sincere. In life we experience the pain of our own sins, until the point where we truly understand and want no more of it. It does not happen all at once, but one sin at time.

Conversion? One sin at a time? I don't follow.

The ego must die – the old nature of self-seeking and praise-dependence. We must submit to God and let go of sinful desires. When we try to please God and expect praise when our minds are able to temporarily override the sinful desires of our hearts, it is just a sign that the ego is still alive and well. Then we tend to compare ourselves to others and secretly pat ourselves on the back and point the finger at them. But with true change we seek salvation from sin itself, so that even if heaven’s doors were opened to all of mankind tomorrow we would not go back to our former ways.

I agree with this as well.

Ok, I agree with most of what you said, but some I didn't understand. I pointed that out above.

Now, I agree that without works we can be lost as you mentioned in the first part of your message.

But do you agree that in our journey of life, God accompanies us?
And that God is not idle during our journey but God works for us? Do you agree that during some of these occasions when God works, which we, Catholics, call the Sacraments (although there are other occasions as well) we don't need to do anything but believe in Him and in His promises?

Sincerely,

[De Maria]

Hi De Maria,


In a way it does make it subjective and herein lies the problem. Just briefly....

St Thomas reasoned that God would not give us commands through scripture and the church only to have them contradicted by our subjective experiences. Actions seem to have a type of 'to do' or 'not to do' about them.

Discovering things about God's commands is a bit like looking at rules from a third person perspective. Our emotional state is irrelevant as to the truth or falsity of such commands. They remain true regardless. In a way we are detached from morality, we don't decided which of God's commands are good and which are bad.

My point is there is a problem here. We want to talk about moral properties existing independently from us (objectively) yet the only way we can discover these properties is subjectively ( how we feel about actions based on experience).

It think this is the problem St. Thomas was trying to overcome yet it seems counter intuitive.

Regards

Tut

P.S I will get back to your other responses tonight.

Tut, you throw out St. Thomas' name quite easily. But, reference where he said any such thing. Not that I don't believe you, but I'm not quite understanding what you mean and if I could read his words, I will have a point of reference.

Sincerely,