4. The Divine-level

[Manuel]

How can we surrender our I to God? What is faith? What is Grace? Are we capable of self-transcendence?

[Jill]

I made many fewer notes on this section, not sure if it all seemed like stuff I'd heard before or I'm not there yet.
These comments are all on chapter 17, beyond the merely human.

I like his comparison of faith to a telescope or microscope, not creating realities but better being able to see what's there. And a magnet to organize what are otherwise random facts/events.

I find it a little presumptuous of him to say only Christianity is rational/reasonable and those who believe in other religions are somehow either ignorant or unwilling to be convinced. Surely proofs for God aren't as airtight as that!

As a pacifist, I am appalled by the statement that I may have to kill an enemy in combat but I still love him. What kind of love is that??

[Manuel]

Jill wrote: "I find it a little presumptuous of him to say only Christianity is rational/reasonable and those who believe in other religions are somehow either ignorant or unwilling to be convinced."

Remember that this book was first published in 1950, before the II Vatican Council, when Catholics were used to say things like this.

I'm not sure that not daring to say things like this, isn't a proof of our cowardice, rather than of our tolerance.

[Manuel]

Jill wrote: "As a pacifist, I am appalled by the statement that I may have to kill an enemy in combat but I still love him. What kind of love is that??"

OK, look at it in this other way: what would you do if you found a man trying to murder your mother or your daughter, and the only way you can prevent it is by shooting him in the head? You are still ordered by Christ to love him, but would you kill him anyway?

Loving someone means doing your duty. What if it's your duty to kill?

[Jill]

I don't think killing is ever one's Christian duty--or the only alternative to stopping violence.

[Jill]

Once convinced, you don't have to believe other viewpoints are equally true and valid, but as the author himself realizes, syllogisms alone don't produce conviction, and there are always other ways of looking at and marshalling facts and arguments.

[John]

Jill wrote: "I don't think killing is ever one's Christian duty--or the only alternative to stopping violence."

I understand the first half of that statement, though I disagree with it. The second half is, I think, an incorrect statement of pacifist principle, which is, as I understand it, that it is better to suffer violence than to use violence to stop violence. To phrase it as a categorical imperative that there are always nonviolent means to stop violence seems to me to be an attempt to avoid acknowledging hard cases: Is it better to allow a murder/rape than to kill the would be murderer/rapist? Should a Christian society then have no police?

[John]

Jill wrote: "Once convinced, you don't have to believe other viewpoints are equally true and valid, but as the author himself realizes, syllogisms alone don't produce conviction, and there are always other ways..."

I also found that statement to be a bit much. The flaw with other faiths is their faith is misdirected. To say they are irrational seems to me, on first reflection, to be going too far, at least with respect to some other faiths. But if Christianity, and more particularly Catholicism, is true, then to the extent that our reason is supposed to be able to lead us to revealed truth, any falling short of that is to some extent irrational, isn't it? (Though it is certainly impolitic to say so out loud.)

[Manuel]

John wrote: "Should a Christian society then have no police?"

Exactly. And Jill, remember what John the Baptist answered the soldiers who asked him "What should we do?" He didn't say "leave the army," or "don't kill the enemy," but "don't abuse of your power to get money."

Pacifism can take us too far.

[Jill]

Reason alone can't lead us to truth, or there wouldn't be any need for revelation!