Military Necessity Must Prevail, Hence
Simplicity (Apollonian, 30 Dec 15)
Yes, I think there's a
difficulty here for theology, perhaps, possibly (see below-copied). But to heed
and get to the philosophic/theologic core of the literature, we should remember
the basic inspiration, Christ = truth, (Gosp. JOHN 14:6) which then upholds the
Aristotelian, objective, hence deterministic reality, necessary
criterion/premise for such truth (= Christ).
Christ vs. Pharisees is
parallel to Aristotle vs. Plato. Objective vs. subjective; reason vs.
mysticism.
So to follow fm this, human is willful, hence subject to
HUBRIS, sinful and requiring grace fm God--and this brings up huge problem for
Christ, though not Mary. "Sinful" may mean "mortal" sin, so it could hold that
Mary and Christ were "sinless" in that way. For HOW could Christ, who's God, be
hubristic or needing grace?--impossible, inconceivable.
But Christ may
have committed venial sin for his enthusiastic beating and whipping of the
money-changers at the Temple--IF it was "enthusiastic."
For that basic
philosophic/theologic CORE to Christianity (Christ = truth) is what's most
important and must be preserved and given precedence--thus Mary being sinless
can easily be conceded, but it doesn't require too intensive defense as it
runs-up against determinism (absolute cause-effect).
Problem for
Christianity is in times of peace it tends to get elaborate and complex, thus
engendering confusion, thus breeding dis-unity, which isn't necessarily
bad--except in times of urgency as present, satanism raging and ravaging openly
as we see now in hip-hop music and other places too (professional wrestling, for
example, of all places).
Another problem is the "Vatican" (and Jesuits)
pretending they're the Church, or that they must be upheld for any reason or
purpose--they're just a bunch of corrupt homosexuals and perverts who ought to
be dealt with in summary fashion.
Thus the sort of extended logical sort
of reasoning as presented here for Mary's "necessary" sinlessness is
questionable and dangerous. For humanity is necessarily sinful, as I note and (I
trust) St.s Paul and Augustine affirm. For military purposes, simplicity is
best, easiest.
-----------------------above by ap in response to
below-copied-----------------
Liberty Bell December 30, 2015 at 2:11
PM
You give a second objection, according to which you seem to argue as
follows.
A. "[H]umans are sinners, necessarily, by nature...". B. Mary
was human. C. Therefore, Mary was a sinner, necessarily, by
nature.
But *are* human beings "sinners, necessarily, by nature..."?
For any "nature," a property that is essential (or necessary) for that
nature is one that, if it is lacked, disqualifies an entity from possessing that
nature. If a property is necessary for being human, then an entity lacking that
property cannot count as human.
If premise A. is correct, then it is
necessary to be a sinner, in this sense, in order to count as a
human.
One problem with this, from the point of view of historic
Christianity, is that if it is correct, then Jesus could not have been a human
unless he was a sinner also.
A. "[H]umans are sinners, necessarily, by
nature...". D. Jesus was [truly] human. E. Therefore, Jesus was a sinner,
necessarily, by nature.
According to received Christology - whether
Protestant or Catholic - E. is false. Jesus was sinless.
But E. follows
from A. and D. Therefore, either A. or D. must be rejected. If we are to hold
that Jesus was truly human, then we must reject A.
Here I’ll follow
philosopher Thomas Morris and distinguish between *common human properties* and
*necessary human properties*.
Consider "being born on the earth." It
seems that every human who has ever lived has had this property. But is it
*necessary* for being human? Imagine a couple giving birth to a child on Mars.
Would that child not be human because she did not have the property - which
every other human who had ever lived before had - of "being born on the earth"?
I suggest that the answer is "no."
This shows that some properties can
be exemplified by all entities with a particular nature without being
*necessary* for that nature.
Christians have held that Jesus was human
even though he did not exemplify the property "being a sinner." If this is
possible, then "being a sinner" cannot be necessary for being human.
It
is obvious that "being a sinner" is *common* property for human beings to have.
But if there can be found a single, bona fide human who did not exemplify it,
then it is not a necessary property for human-ness. All Christians agree that
Jesus was a bona fide human who lacked the property "being a sinner." It
follows, then, that "being a sinner" is not necessary for being human. It is
possible to exist without it.
Catholics just think that we have two
exceptions: Jesus, who was necessarily sinless; and Mary, who was contingently
sinless.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
(Apollonian, 30 Dec 15)
Yes, I think there's a difficulty here for theology, perhaps, possibly (see below-copied). But to heed and get to the philosophic/theologic core of the literature, we should remember the basic inspiration, Christ = truth, (Gosp. JOHN 14:6) which then upholds the Aristotelian, objective, hence deterministic reality, necessary criterion/premise for such truth (= Christ).
Christ vs. Pharisees is parallel to Aristotle vs. Plato. Objective vs. subjective; reason vs. mysticism.
So to follow fm this, human is willful, hence subject to HUBRIS, sinful and requiring grace fm God--and this brings up huge problem for Christ, though not Mary. "Sinful" may mean "mortal" sin, so it could hold that Mary and Christ were "sinless" in that way. For HOW could Christ, who's God, be hubristic or needing grace?--impossible, inconceivable.
But Christ may have committed venial sin for his enthusiastic beating and whipping of the money-changers at the Temple--IF it was "enthusiastic."
For that basic philosophic/theologic CORE to Christianity (Christ = truth) is what's most important and must be preserved and given precedence--thus Mary being sinless can easily be conceded, but it doesn't require too intensive defense as it runs-up against determinism (absolute cause-effect).
Problem for Christianity is in times of peace it tends to get elaborate and complex, thus engendering confusion, thus breeding dis-unity, which isn't necessarily bad--except in times of urgency as present, satanism raging and ravaging openly as we see now in hip-hop music and other places too (professional wrestling, for example, of all places).
Another problem is the "Vatican" (and Jesuits) pretending they're the Church, or that they must be upheld for any reason or purpose--they're just a bunch of corrupt homosexuals and perverts who ought to be dealt with in summary fashion.
Thus the sort of extended logical sort of reasoning as presented here for Mary's "necessary" sinlessness is questionable and dangerous. For humanity is necessarily sinful, as I note and (I trust) St.s Paul and Augustine affirm. For military purposes, simplicity is best, easiest.
-----------------------above by ap in response to below-copied-----------------
Liberty Bell December 30, 2015 at 2:11 PM
You give a second objection, according to which you seem to argue as follows.
A. "[H]umans are sinners, necessarily, by nature...".
B. Mary was human.
C. Therefore, Mary was a sinner, necessarily, by nature.
But *are* human beings "sinners, necessarily, by nature..."?
For any "nature," a property that is essential (or necessary) for that nature is one that, if it is lacked, disqualifies an entity from possessing that nature. If a property is necessary for being human, then an entity lacking that property cannot count as human.
If premise A. is correct, then it is necessary to be a sinner, in this sense, in order to count as a human.
One problem with this, from the point of view of historic Christianity, is that if it is correct, then Jesus could not have been a human unless he was a sinner also.
A. "[H]umans are sinners, necessarily, by nature...".
D. Jesus was [truly] human.
E. Therefore, Jesus was a sinner, necessarily, by nature.
According to received Christology - whether Protestant or Catholic - E. is false. Jesus was sinless.
But E. follows from A. and D. Therefore, either A. or D. must be rejected. If we are to hold that Jesus was truly human, then we must reject A.
Here I’ll follow philosopher Thomas Morris and distinguish between *common human properties* and *necessary human properties*.
Consider "being born on the earth." It seems that every human who has ever lived has had this property. But is it *necessary* for being human? Imagine a couple giving birth to a child on Mars. Would that child not be human because she did not have the property - which every other human who had ever lived before had - of "being born on the earth"? I suggest that the answer is "no."
This shows that some properties can be exemplified by all entities with a particular nature without being *necessary* for that nature.
Christians have held that Jesus was human even though he did not exemplify the property "being a sinner." If this is possible, then "being a sinner" cannot be necessary for being human.
It is obvious that "being a sinner" is *common* property for human beings to have. But if there can be found a single, bona fide human who did not exemplify it, then it is not a necessary property for human-ness. All Christians agree that Jesus was a bona fide human who lacked the property "being a sinner." It follows, then, that "being a sinner" is not necessary for being human. It is possible to exist without it.
Catholics just think that we have two exceptions: Jesus, who was necessarily sinless; and Mary, who was contingently sinless.