Brutally Honest

A Trusty and True Friday

Guest posted by tim the Godless Heathen

Catholicism restrains error

From the pages of David Fagerberg's "The Size of Chesterton's Catholicism".

Looks like a good read.

Carry on.

(Thanks Tod!).

Crossposted at Wizbang.

Hell raiser

BadCatholic, aka Marc Barnes, is raising Hell, quite literally:

The logic of the Inferno has always seemed simple enough. It arrives without drama, by way of a boring syllogism. I am made to be with God in an eminently personal relationship. As with all loving relationships, I must freely enter into it. Being-coerced or being unable to do anything but love God contradicts the nature of love. I can no more be “forced to love” then draw a square circle or rip out the hair of a bald man. The possibility of a loving relationship with God necessarily includes the possibility ofnot entering into a loving relationship with God. This not-being-with-God we call Hell.

If I am going to effectively deny the possibility of Hell, I must deny that my relationship with God can ever really be one of love. I must deny my ability not to choose Him. This would avoid the problem of Hell, but only by making human existence hellish. It would make a good God easier to believe in, but only by making Him unworthy of worship — and thus no God at all. I, at least, will not bow to a God who damns me to paradise, deludes me into the experience of being-free, and acts, in the final analysis, as a rapist of souls.

This is why I have never been particularly impressed by those who don’t believe in God because of the doctrine of Hell: For my part, I refuse to believe in God (or at the very least I defy him) unless there is the possibility of Hell. Different strokes, I suppose.

Regardless, here I am, free to enter into loving relation with God despite John Calvin and Sam Harris. Entering into this loving relationship requires one thing only: That I love. I hardly deny that it is a complicated affair, figuring exactly how to love my Creator. (It is not enough, it seems, to love him in the same manner that I love my cat.) But this much is certain: To be in a relation of love, one must love.

The above premises are hotly contested, but again — the logic seems simple. Hell is a possibility I may choose by not loving God.

The paradox is this — I am the only person I may know, with certain knowledge, as “not loving God.” I do it rather often. I resent him, ignore him, insult him, delight in what he detests, detest what delights him, and I do it willfully, as a free choice of the will, a choice present to me by virtue of the nature of the God-relationship. Whether my neighbor loves God or not is not “data” given to me in the same manner. I do not know whether my neighbor did, does, or will love God with any certain knowledge. The evidences of her words and actions, no matter how strong, do not provide me the same certainty by which I know my own choice not to love God — for choosing and willing are secrets of the human heart. I may fear her eternal destination, I may hope for the same, but I cannot judge it with certainty.

Marc's got more at the link.

Thoughtful stuff about that which usually gets not much more than an eye-roll.  

Give it a read instead.

Carry on.

Crossposted at Wizbang.

Related articles

"I don't believe that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus"

I suck at being holy.

“On that day you will cry out because of the king whom you have chosen, but the LORD will not answer you on that day.”

This Politico piece is quite revealing... and in many ways, quite troubling:

If I asked you what most defines Donald Trump supporters, what would you say? They’re white? They’re poor? They’re uneducated?

You’d be wrong.

In fact, I’ve found a single statistically significant variable predicts whether a voter supports Trump—and it’s not race, income or education levels: It’s authoritarianism.

That’s right, Trump’s electoral strength—and his staying power—have been buoyed, above all, by Americans with authoritarian inclinations. And because of the prevalence of authoritarians in the American electorate, among Democrats as well as Republicans, it’s very possible that Trump’s fan base will continue to grow.

My finding is the result of a national poll I conducted in the last five days of December under the auspices of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, sampling 1,800 registered voters across the country and the political spectrum. Running a standard statistical analysis, I found that education, income, gender, age, ideology and religiosity had no significant bearing on a Republican voter’s preferred candidate. Only two of the variables I looked at were statistically significant: authoritarianism, followed by fear of terrorism, though the former was far more significant than the latter.

Authoritarianism is not a new, untested concept in the American electorate. Since the rise of Nazi Germany, it has been one of the most widely studied ideas in social science. While its causes are still debated, the political behavior of authoritarians is not. Authoritarians obey. They rally to and follow strong leaders. And they respond aggressively to outsiders, especially when they feel threatened.

Read the whole thing... would love to hear thoughtful responses to this... my view is Mr. MacWilliams has nailed things... and it honestly doesn't bode well.

The title of the post is a reference to the Old Testament's first book of Samuel, the 8th chapter.  The biblically challenged may not be familiar with the outcome of ancient Israel's desire to be led by a king but should take comfort in knowing God redeems those wayward inclinations, ultimately in Christ, but not without first allowing Israel to suffer and badly.

Is there a lesson here?

Of course.

Are we open to believing it?

Time will tell.

Carry on.

Crossposted at Wizbang.

Related articles

"We have to become honest about this"

"What was once a request to live and let live has now become a demand for approval."

"Once the cycle starts, it gets uglier and uglier..."

Well... it is pretty convincing... I must say...

Seven Reasons to Vote for Donald Trump

That should be enough to convince any Trump hater, any naysayer.

Trump 2016 baby!

Now... for a similar, perhaps a little more thoughtful piece, you could read Peter Wehner.

Or not.

Carry on. 

Crossposted at Wizbang.

"Authentic beauty... unlocks the yearning of the human heart..."

Too often, though, the beauty that is thrust upon us is illusory and deceitful, superficial and blinding, leaving the onlooker dazed; instead of bringing him out of himself and opening him up to horizons of true freedom as it draws him aloft, it imprisons him within himself and further enslaves him, depriving him of hope and joy…. Authentic beauty, however, unlocks the yearning of the human heart, the profound desire to know, to love, to go towards the Other, to reach for the Beyond. If we acknowledge that beauty touches us intimately, that it wounds us, that it opens our eyes, then we rediscover the joy of seeing, of being able to grasp the profound meaning of our existence.

~Pope Benedict XVI (Meeting with Artists)

Ladies and gentlemen, enjoy some authentic beauty... through your eyes and ears... highly recommend watching in full screen and on a decent sound system.

Carry on.

 

Crossposted at Wizbang.

Related articles

What can supplant all the ugliness in the world?

That Pope Francis, he sure is a communist

“If you don’t want to do what other people want you to do, screw ’em.”

David Mills has a counter to the prevailing philosophy of the day:

A few days ago The Guardian ran an article titled “Drowning in commitments? It’s time to stop giving a damn.” An excerpt from an upcoming self-help book, it mixed good advice about setting boundaries with the promotion of narcissism and selfishness in defining those boundaries. It promised freedom from guilt in an attractively bright and breezy style.

It wasn’t satisfying. The writer had no clear idea what man is for and therefore what we should do for others and what we should do for ourselves. Her argument wasn’t founded on any coherent anthropology. It left unanswered the question of by what criterion we can decide how to treat others, and it left unsatisfied both the human instinct for self-sacrifice and the human desire for the friendship and community that depends upon mutual deference. Her answer was mostly “If you don’t want to do what other people want you to do, screw ’em.”

A Reason for Hope

It isn’t satisfying, and thereby gives one small example of the Church’s continuing appeal, and a reason for hope when anxious Catholics are wringing their hands and triumphant secularists are crowing. People find themselves overwhelmed by the demands other people make on them, yet also want the community mutual sacrifices enable and want to be the kind of people who sacrifice for others, because they believe the good life requires it. Look at most movie heroes. The best the world—weirdly enough the same world that produces and consumes the movies—can typically provide is spirited instruction to stop giving a damn.

In this case, the Church provides the criteria the world wants. It helps you see what you, as a human being and as a particular individual, are for, what you were made to be and do. It helps you discern and order the demands placed upon you. It helps you see what sacrifices are good and needed and which divert you from doing what you are called to do. It doesn’t directly answer every specific question, but it can come close to doing so. It does so with a depth and coherence the Guardian’s writer and her peers, even the more sophisticated and less selfish ones, can’t match.

He's not done.  He's offering up an antidote to the poison the world is offering.

Have some.  Pass it on.

Then carry on.

Crossposted at Wizbang.

Related articles

What do Catholics believe about angels?

He who hates... is he who is weak

That Pope Francis, he sure is a communist

TGIF once again

Guest post by KathyB

Have a great one.

You said all that follow You may find
Comfort and pain, blessings in hard times
Were I to leave, where else would I go?
The words of life and of truth You hold

All I want is love
I confess to this
I will take it, Lord
All you have to give

Turn your eyes upon Jesus
Look full in His wonderful face
And the things of Earth
Will grow strangely dim
In the light of His glory and grace

And You give yourself away
And you give yourself away
And you give
And you give
And you give yourself away

All I want is love
And I confess to this
I will take it, Lord
All You have to give
All You have to give
All You have
All You have to give

Your love, oh Lord
Reaches to the heavens
Your faithfulness stretches to the sky
And Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains
Your justice flows like the ocean's tides

And I will lift my voice
To worship You, my king
And I will find my strength in the shadow of Your wings.

Foolish Friday

Guest post by tim, The Godless Heathen

What do Clark Kent, Superman and the God of Muslims and Christians have to do with each other?

Francis J. Beckwith addresses the question:

On December 17 on this page I addressed the question of whether Muslims and Christians worship the same God. I gave the same answer given by Vatican II, and by the Catholic Church since the Council: yes. Muslims and Christians do worship the same God, even though Islam holds an imperfect understanding of the divine, since it denies Christ’s divinity and thus, by implication, God’s triune nature.

As the Church declared in Nostra Aetate (1965): “[Muslims] adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men. . . .Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet.”

This argument prompted several critical replies, almost exclusively from non-Catholic Christians, including distinguished thinkers such as Albert Mohler, Andrew Walker, Matthew Cochran, and Peter Leithart. (To say nothing of a raft of outrage from TCT readers.) Each, with differing emphases, correctly documents what Christians believe are the inadequacies of Muslim theology given how God has progressively revealed himself through history as taught in Scripture. I do not dispute this point; it is actually consistent with my argument.

 

...

Consider this example: Lois Lane is in love with Kal-El (Superman’s birth-given name), and believes him to be non-human because he was born on Krypton. Now imagine that Lana Lang is in love with Clark Kent (Superman’s newspaper reporter alter ego), and believes him to be a human being because she thinks he was born of human parents, Martha and Jonathan Kent. Lois does not know that Kal-El is really Clark Kent, and Lana does not know that Clark Kent is really Kal-El.

Are Lois and Lana in love with the same man? Of course they are, even though one of them is clearly mistaken about some of her beliefs about Kal-El/Clark and his nature. The reason for this is that there is only one being that is essentially Kal-El.

In the same way, there is only one being that is essentially God: the uncaused, perfect, unchanging, self-subsistent, eternal Creator and sustainer of all that which receives its being from another. As St. Paul puts it in his sermon on Mars Hill, “The God who made the world and everything in it, he who is Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by human hands. . . .[I]n him we live and move and have our being.” (Acts 17: 24, 28)

If this is who you worship, you worship God. Nevertheless, you would do well to heed the concluding remarks St. Paul preached that day in Athens: “While God has overlooked the times of human ignorance, now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will have the world judged in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.” (Acts 17: 30-31)

            Deo Gloria.

 The ellipsis in the excerpt above represents much... go now and read the rest.

Lots of clarity offered on what has become serious fodder for blogs and social media of late, most of which is filled with bluster and ignorance.

Carry on.

Crossposted at Wizbang.

Related articles

"The global media are becoming less and less accountable"

I suck at being holy.