*
*
1 Like
It helps if you read something to the end. I wasn’t defending sola scriptura. I was blaming it.
You are correct but this is a caricature of my view. I would say as members of the body of Christ, we should always desire continuity with the church. We should not freely dismiss things almost universally held the first 1500 years, and we should defer to Her authority with trust and faith in the Spirit unless there is an insurmountable mountain of evidence – of any kind– indicating something they believed was incorrect. This applies even if you reject a Magisterium. Note that I accept a literal Adam and Eve for such reasons. There is not enough evidence to overturn a genealogical model so I side with the Church and scripture, as opposed to modernity on this issue
It just so happens that a global flood is an example of where we have enough evidence to disagree with the church and this evidence just happens to be physical. Please note I accept it is quite possible --under the genealogical model-- to accept a universal flood with respect to ensouled humans as well. One does not have to jettison that aspect of the story.
I would say slavery may be another example of this but my hesitancy comes from a caveat. While acceptance of slavery seems to have been the norm, the belief was not as universal as the real presence. A number of fathers saw it as an evil instituon only in existence because of the fall and some decried it altogether. Gregory of Nyssa (379) offered a categorical and well known rejection of slavery in 379 AD, Augustine described it as being against God’s intentions and so on. A number of Christians clearly saw something wrong here and that is remarkable given how normative slavery was in the world at the time. There is enough precedence within the early, historical Church to disagree with this social institution. I think there is plenty of ammo within scripture as well and it can be done through pure metaphysics alone (it is objectively wrong to own another human). You can see an overview of Christian views here.
But there is another problem with your comparison. So to lay it all out lets say we can choose to disagree with the dominant interpretation of the Church on the following three issues:
- The extent of the Genesis flood
- Slavery being acceptable
- The Real Presence in the Eucharist.
Do you mean to tell me the evidence leading to your interpretation of scripture without a real presence is nearly as strong as the evidence a worldwide, global flood did not occur?
Do you mean to tell me the evidence leading to your interpretation of scripture without a real presence is as strong as your conviction/belief that slavery is wrong and a moral crime?
I would be astounded if you answered yes to either one. I don’t think there is any comparison and you are grasping at straws. You don’t have a mountain of evidence against the real presence. I’m guessing you have none besides “I just take scripture this way.” Besides this, a modern anti-miracle bias or irrational desire to distance oneself from Rome, there isn’t much else.
Vinnie
1 Like
I finally got around to reading Ecclesiastes, and it is very much something. For one, there is a lot of advice that I didn’t expect to see in the Bible.
When he talks about the vanity of things, and how nothing lasts forever and how one man cannot make anything new, it reminded of Carl Sagan’s “Pale Blue Dot” poem:
The whole concept of wondering if anything we do will ultimately matter is very scary, and unfortunately something we must accept. My life is fleeting and despite everything I may contribute to friends and family, they will ultimately become forgotten. Actually for my A&P class, we had a briefly cover the history of aviation. Turns out that one man (whose name I cannot recall nor find because my book is at my classroom) had collected all the available information on manned flight into a single book, back at the turn of the 20th century. The Wright Brothers would find inspiration from this and from them we would have powered flight. Yet, I cannot help but wonder whether that man’s efforts are now in vain. We have developed so much extra information from the bare basics they had available to them over a century ago, and we haven’t gone back to any of his works in decades. Did he spend his lifetime pursuing aviation only for aviation to outpace him in the grand scheme of history?
Another concept that always gets me is the idea within sci-fi worldbuilding that some other planet than the one a species was raised one will likely become the “space capital” of that empire. At first it doesn’t seem like that would be the case, until you realize that the most populated areas of Earth are not in Africa (where humanity was raised) but in more ideal locations. Theoretically, if humanity were to find a planet more ideal for life (which, if we are being honest is a huge hypothetical), this planet could become forgotten. Even if we think over massive stretches of time, how much of human history will we actually remember?
Then our author mentions how, no matter what you do, everyone meets the same end. So, if you spend your life pursuing evil and wickedness, you’ll die. If you spend your life healing the sick and learning as much as you can, you’ll die. The author notes this and concludes that, given the circumstances we are in, we should try to simply enjoy our lives to the best of our abilities. Don’t try to be perfect but also don’t give in to every evil. Don’t speak to speak but always think before you say something. Don’t live life lonely, rather find someone to spend time with you.
In a way, this kinda reminds me of Jesus’ commandment to not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Some parts of this text seem to remind me of some YOLO philosophies about living. Yet I cannot help but feel that some messages seem to contradict what Jesus may say. The author says we should devote our lives to enjoying our toil with others. I feel Jesus tells us to devote our lives to doing good for others. I cannot exactly put my finger on it but something in the reeds is throwing me off.
Either way, I kinda gleaned a bit about the longevity of life, and not letting any time go to waste.
1 Like
I disagree in that every natural substance has intrinsic teleology. It seems there are some difficulties with pinning down a precise definition of an organism (the same for life as I understand it). For me an organism conjures up images of homeostasis and will involve things like repairing tissue, taking in nutrients or copying genetic material and so on. Otherwise it’s not an organism to me, just a decaying heap of chemicals (which exist as such and decay as such in a regular fashion due to intrinsic teleology). An organism is an intrinsic unity with a real substantial form to me which is radically different than an accidental aggregate (e.g. pile of rocks or decaying chemicals). I see intrinsic teleology at two levels.
-
The underlying physical/chemical substrate itself which is the regularity we observe in nature (B seems to follow A).
-
The organism as a whole which requires formal and final causality in addition to materialand efficient causes.
You are explaining which organisms subsist but not really doing away with teleology. A rock in a windy desert will erode over time. We can say the environment selects against the rock’s shape but the rock is inert. An amoeba on the other hand will try to survive. It has immanent causation. The rock doesn’t fail when it erodes into sand but the amoeba can fail since its ends can be frustrated . Failure and success are inherently teleological terms.
For the environment to filter out a trait, there must first be organisms performing operations that succeed or fail at staying alive in the first place. As an analogy, a coin sorting machine separates nickels and dimes based on the properties they already have, it doesn’t confer those properties. For me, natural selection is an extrinsic sieve that presupposes teleology, not an intrinsic engine.
I think both of those examples (aiding kin and a bee being directed towards the flourishing/survivial of a hive) support intrinsic teleology or goal directedness. How could they not?
Vinnie
I am sorry but you seem to have concluded before the conclusion.
In a nutshell the author is warning against singlemindedness and devoting all your efforts in one direction, be it self, education, pleasure, even religion, however God should underpin whatever you do.
Richard
But that’s only your opinion, there is no actual support for it.
Viruses don’t do any of those things, but they aren’t decaying heaps of chemicals.
There is difficulty in precisely defining what a living organism is, precisely because there are edge cases like viruses.
Again, that’s just your opinion.
This opinion, however, contradicts available evidence, such as the existence of colonial organisms, gut bacteria and mitochondria - none of which seem to have ‘intrinsic unity’.
You are explaining which organisms subsist but not really doing away with teleology. A rock in a windy desert will erode over time. We can say the environment selects against the rock’s shape but the rock is inert.
[/quote]
You could say that the environment selects against the rock’s shape, but that would be conferring on the environment an ability that it doesn’t actually have.
Teleology of what? The process, or the organisms it affects? Natural selection can be simulated on programmed ‘organisms’ which can lack teleology.
I think both of those examples (aiding kin and a bee being directed towards the flourishing/survivial of a hive) support intrinsic teleology or goal directedness. How could they not?
[/quote]
That’s not what they are exceptions to.
One of my favorite books, as I too have questions. When reading, we see most of the text is expounding on how life is seen from a materialistic standpoint, with more than a touch of cynicism. It is attributed in my church tradition to Solomon, but I doubt it, so guess my cynicism is at play there. Whether him or not, the teacher is speaking from his viewpoint, not necessarily God’s, until you get to conclusion. This is a wonderful and entertaining little summary of the book: Book of Ecclesiastes Summary | Watch an Overview Video
1 Like
Have you reached “the conclusion of the matter?” To me, it can amplify what Jesus is saying and flesh out the real Christian day-to-day.
As Phil said, the author is thinking the issue through, and he’s being a bit cynical, or even “down-to-earth”. He concludes that the end of human efforts is the same, be they good or bad, at least from the ground perspective. But God is still a figure in the book, and we believe that God holds all things and gives commands, which the end tells us are things we ought to keep… wouldn’t that include loving our neighbor? And wouldn’t there still be value in doing so because God holds those actions even if they fade into forgotten history?
I suppose I don’t see “enjoying our toil with others” and “doing good for others” as contradictory, but rather existing together in a fulfilling life. They even intersect at places, and perhaps the latter can inform how we view and carry out the former.
A good deal of people here believe that the Bible converses with itself, and parts inform each other (whether you think it’s because God arranged it that way or God encourages free dialogue about Himself to give rise to truth).
LOL!
- Single-mindedness is the quality of having one unwavering goal or purpose and directing all your thoughts and energy toward it, often ignoring distractions.
- Key Characteristics
- Singular focus: Concentrating exclusively on a single objective or interest.
- Determination: Showing extreme resolve and refusing to give up, regardless of obstacles.
- Exclusion of distractions: Tuning out competing interests, alternative paths, or unrelated tasks.
- Key Characteristics
- The opposite of single-mindedness is ambivalence or indecisiveness, which means having mixed feelings or being unable to commit to a single goal.
- Common Antonyms
- Ambivalence: Having mixed feelings or contradictory ideas about something.
- Indecisiveness: Being unable to make a clear choice or take action.
- Unfocusedness: Lacking a single, clear direction of attention.
- Multifacetedness: Having many different aspects, features, or motivations instead of just one.
- Idiomatic Opposites
- Of two minds: Being torn between two conflicting options or opinions.
- Conflicted: Having mixed or opposing feelings that prevent a clear choice.
- Common Antonyms
1 Like
Eccl 1
I said to myself, “Look, I have increased in wisdom more than anyone who has ruled over Jerusalem before me; I have experienced much of wisdom and knowledge.” **17 **Then I applied myself to the understanding of wisdom, and also of madness and folly,
Eccl 2
I denied myself nothing my eyes desired;
I refused my heart no pleasure.
My heart took delight in all my labor,
and this was the reward for all my toil.
Eccl 5
Whoever loves money never has enough;
whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with their income.
This too is meaningless.
**11 **As goods increase,
so do those who consume them.
And what benefit are they to the owners
except to feast their eyes on them?
Eccl 7
Do not be overrighteous,
neither be overwise—
why destroy yourself?
**17 **Do not be overwicked,
and do not be a fool—
why die before your time?
**18 **It is good to grasp the one
and not let go of the other.
Whoever fears God will avoid all extremes.[
Eccl 8
. No one can comprehend what goes on under the sun. Despite all their efforts to search it out, no one can discover its meaning. Even if the wise claim they know, they cannot really comprehend it.
Eccl 11
Invest in seven ventures, yes, in eight;
you do not know what disaster may come upon the land. ff
Sow your seed in the morning,
and at evening let your hands not be idle,
for you do not know which will succeed,
whether this or that,
or whether both will do equally well
Eccl 12
Of making many books there is no and much study wearies the body.
here is the conclusion of the matter:
Fear God and keep his commandments,
for this is the duty of all mankind.
**14 **For God will bring every deed into judgment,
including every hidden thing,
whether it is good or evil.,
The point being that no matter what you concentrate on, or how focussed you are you will never find satisfaction be it wealth, happiness, wisdom, pleasure, even religion
There is a fatalism based on the Jewish belief in God being in complete control and that humanisty cannot affect this.
It does not matter whether humanity has proved otherwise, this is still the thrust of Ecclesiastes, that we try, and fail because ultimately our striving is meaningless (without God)
Now if you find this funny I feel sorry for you
Richard