Part One - God

[John]

Use this thread for discussion of Part One.

[Manuel]

In a debate with an atheist, he used the old argument of evil against the existence of God in the following way:

a) A God who is good would not want the existence on evil.
b) A God who is all-powerful would be able to prevent the existence of evil.
c) As evil exists, a God who is good and all-powerful cannot exist.

I answered him: your argument has a missing step. You must prove that it is logically possible to create a world [with intelligent beings] where evil does not exist.

He answered: No, for I define "all-powerful" as being able to do everything, even logical impossibilities.

I answered: Then your argument is the straw-man fallacy:

1. You define "all-powerful" in a way different from our definition.
2. You prove that such a definition is incompatible with evil.
3. You apply your conclusion to a different God, our God, who is all-powerful in a different sense.

This is a book-case of the fallacy.

This ended the discussion. He never answered.

Ratzinger's book, however, in his 5th chapter, provides an even stronger definition of "all-powerful" or "omnipotence":

The real meaning of "omnipotence" and "full dominion" can only be seen in the crib and on the cross. Only here, where God, Lord of the universe, enters the realm of impotence by surrendering to his tiny creatures, can the Christian concept of omnipotence really be formulated. A new concept of power, dominion and lordship is born.

[Manuel]

In this book there is no reference to what I have always considered the best illustration of the Trinity:

a) God has an image of Himself, in the same way as I have an image of myself. But where my image of myself is incomplete and imperfect, full of inconsistencies and even errors, on the other side God is perfect, His image of Himself is identical to Himself, therefore, His image is God. On the other hand, each of us engender our own image. Therefore God the Father, on building from eternity His own image, engenders from eternity God the Son, who can be called the Son because He is engendered.

b) God the Father and God the Son (His image of Himself) love one another. But as God is Love, this Love of the Father for the Son must also be equal to God, therefore He is the third Person of the Trinity. This Love of God for His image is the Holy Spirit, and therefore can be considered to "proceed" from the Father and the Son.

This explanation has always helped me.

[Jill]

I found his contrast/choice between God of the philosophers and God of religions interesting, especially that he says the Church comes down in favor of God of the philosophers.

I thought it was a big unexplained leap from God being freely creative to God being love/loving.

[John]

Manuel wrote: "In this book there is no reference to what I have always considered the best illustration of the Trinity:

a) God has an image of Himself, in the same way as I have an image of myself. But where my..."

In his acknowledgement of the difficulty of the Trinity - "Every one of the main basic concepts in the doctrine of the Trinity was condemned at one time or another; they were all adopted only after the frustration of a condemnation; they are accepted only inasmuch as they are at the same time branded as unusable and admitted simply as poor stammering utterances -- and no more" - I am reminded of Churchill's remark on democracy being the worst form of government, except for all the others. The Trinity - unity in relationship - is a mystery so profound, so ineffable, that it survives only because it alone explains our experience and the historical facts of our faith.

[John]

In chapter 2 of this part, Benedict explains the failure of traditional pantheism as the separation of the god of philosophy from the god of faith. This need for faith and reason to be joined together seems to be a key feature of Benedict's thinking, most famously expressed in his Regensburg address in which he criticized Islam as faith without reason and Modernism as reason without faith and demonstrated that both must ultimately fail.

[John]

In Chapter Four of this part, there is a discussion of Christianity as a philosophy of freedom. This, Benedict seems to suggest, arises from the structure of reality, from the rational nature of creation. That rationality expresses a freedom and love and is a rejection of determinism. If God gives man freedom, what are the implications for Christian political theory?

[John]

Manuel wrote: "In this book there is no reference to what I have always considered the best illustration of the Trinity:

a) God has an image of Himself, in the same way as I have an image of myself. But where my..."

But I do like Ratzinger's description of the Holy Spirit as "the manner in which God gives himself to us, in which he enters into us."

[John]

I am fascinated by his assertion that the idea and concept of "person" arose out of the struggle over the Christian conception of the triune God. That requires some thinking. I do believe that all of our "modern" concepts of human rights arise out of the Christian foundations of Europe. If we undercut those foundations, in Europe or elsewhere, those rights are all the less secure.

[Manuel]

John wrote: " I do believe that all of our "modern" concepts of human rights arise out of the Christian foundations of Europe. If we undercut those foundations, in Europe or elsewhere, those rights are all the less secure."

Starting by the right to life. A friend of mine, a little older than I am, is quite concerned about the possibility that one day he may be euthanized...

[John]

Manuel wrote: "John wrote: " I do believe that all of our "modern" concepts of human rights arise out of the Christian foundations of Europe. If we undercut those foundations, in Europe or elsewhere, those rights..."

Yes. We don't hear a lot about it here in the U.S., except for some Catholic sites and Right-to-Life sites, but I've heard some horror stories about euthanasia nightmares in some of the northern European countries. I also heard a report by a doctor who called to confirm coverage for a patient of his for a procedure - coverage was denied, but the insurance representative on the phone said they would cover euthanasia. When informed that euthanasia was not legal in California, he said it was legal in Oregon and they would cover the cost of a flight to Oregon. "The culture of death" is exactly the right name for our modern society.