>Sociopaths would act differently than saints in the same >circumstances, because they bring to the moment, a different frame of >reference, different viewpoint and different foundation for action.
Saints would act differently than other saints in any given circumstance, and for the same reason. There is a problem in the definition of saints. Are you placing your own subjective value on someone else? "That man is a saint!" Dogmatically orthodox? "He bore up saintly under the pressure of new evidence." Or are you using the catholic definition of a person being sainted posthumously for actions that may or may not have occurred or some advancement of doctrine? Saint Christopher as an example. I'm not picking bones, these are all very different terms with very different definitions. For instance: do you consider a man that slaughtered and persecuted hundreds of innocent people for no crime other than owning a bible that they could read, to be a good saint? John Paul did and sainted the murderer. Or what about Mother Theresa? Will she become (deservedly in my opinion) a saint for the manner in which she lived and helped others? Does it matter that she lost faith in God and quit believing decades before her death? As John Mahoney stated once in a movie, lack of belief in god has no bearing on being a good catholic. In the subject as a whole my opinion should be clear, and I won't offend you further with them unless asked. I was intrigued by your assertion and definition, as if there were no sociopathic saints or which definition of saint you are using. On Jan 8, 11:25 am, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > Merriam-Webster defines the word “do” as ways we act, behave, get > alone, fare, manage, happen, finish and serve, among others. Often > our actions require our ability to rationally ascertain the context of > our actions, the possible consequences of our actions and the ethics > of our actions before we do anything. Or do they? Our actions, I > think, like our words, are very clear indications of our state of > mind. Sociopaths would act differently than saints in the same > circumstances, because they bring to the moment, a different frame of > reference, different viewpoint and different foundation for action. > > There are psychologies to both doing and doing nothing. Yes, there > are rational-emotional models of the factors that predispose humans to > do nothing. And there are theories of the psychology of action, > which take into account reasoning abilities, emotion, attitude and > other factors. > > When our belief system holds God and Divine Action, our state of mind > is very different than states that do not hold that belief, and our > actions may reflect these differences. To understand and bridge these > differences, The Vatican Observatory (VO) and the Center for Theology > and Natural Sciences (CTNS) jointly sponsor a series of conferences on > divine action. The theme of each conference is an area of the natural > sciences: quantum cosmology and the laws of nature (1992), chaos and > complexity (1994), evolutionary and molecular biology (1996), > neuroscience (1998), and quantum mechanics (2000). This brings > specificity and precision to the discussions of divine action. In one > of the papers from these conferences, along with summaries of many > others, is posted on the CTNS website: In “The Metaphysics of Divine > Action,” John Polkinghorne notes that any discussion of agency > requires the adoption of a metaphysical view of the nature of reality. > He claims that there is no “deductive” way of going “from epistemology > to ontology,” but the strategy of critical realism is to maximize the > connection. This leads most physicists, he claims, to interpret > Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle as implying an actual indeterminacy > in the physical world, rather than an ignorance of its detailed > workings. Polkinghorne’s summary on the nature of Divine Action > includes the insight that divine agency has its own special > characteristics and that God’s knowledge of the world of becoming will > be truly temporal in character. > > In his book, Religion in late Modernity Robert C. Neville, suggests > that these inquires “concerning divine action takes its rise from > people who affirm as a supposition the belief that God is a personal > being of some sort.” > > In A Search for God In Ancient Egypt, by Jan Assmann, divine action > and religious experience are part of the cosmic dimension of the > mystic experience. Here, divine action is implicit in all contact > with the divine once transcendence into Divine Presence has been > realized. In other words, our actions become Divine Action, while in > the presence of the One within. > > To Bernard de Clairvaux, mysticism is the highest degree of the scale > of love and “a perfect participation in the love which God has from > Himself in the unity of the Spirit…to become thus is to be deified.” > Our actions are naturally inspired from this unity of the Spirit that > pervades our state. > > This idea is similar to the mystical divine action, our own action, > taken as a result of our mystical union with the God with us. The > mystic Jan Ruysbroeck suggests in mystical union God “breathes us out > from Himself that we may love and do good works; and again he draws us > into Himself, that we may rest in fruition.” > > Our efficacy and actions then, may be defined by whether or not we > believe in God, and if we believe that God is external and personal, > or a state of being within ourselves. What do YOU think?
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
