|
作者
|
內容
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2004/11/22 下午 10:44:24
|
|
|
若望福音一章十六節：
「從祂的滿盈中，我們都領受了恩寵，而且恩寵上加恩寵」。
若按這節聖經推論，恩寵似乎是可以增加的。
以前有人以太陽的光芒作為比喻在嘗試解析天主的恩寵：陽光相對於大地的萬物，其光芒無限；但每件事物所接受光的能力、及因之以發揮光芒的能力都各有不同。
為此，基於人作為受造物的有限性，恩寵可以增加和減少。但這所謂多或少的「量」，該作何解呢？
相信這不是可用一斤兩斤或一蚊兩蚊作為單位來計算的。但的的確確如西滿兄所言，與「愛」一般，可以拿來與其他人比較。
靚仔兄所言的恩寵不可量化，相信是針對「天主恩臨」的非受造恩寵（gratia non creata）而言。
不知小弟對兄們議論的理解，是否正確？
奧兄作為數學專家，亦應發表一下高論吧？
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2004/11/26 下午 01:15:16
|
|
|
Concerning various degrees (in Cantor's sense) of Infinity, I have explained in the discussion about "unchangeable/ changeable parts of Mass".
If I didn't misunderstood: we should do 2 things:
(1) Clarify the meaning of infinity are we refering to supernatural realities. I.e., what do we mean when we say that uncreated grace is "infinite".
Of course we are using analogy on finite created things, but is this the common extension of finite numbers to countable infinity (Aleph-0), or the types of Aleph-n infinity described by Cantor's THeorem (put forward by 髶豝)?
It seems to me that using Cantor's Alephs to argue that you may add (mathematically) to infinity is unnecessary. Cantor's alephs simply illustrates that the infinity is truly "infinite".It can't explain the operation like "+" of infinities on infinities.
If you want to explain why supernatural grace could become more and more abundant, Cantor's Alephs is not a good model of this phenomenon.
(2) Clarify the meaning of "+" here. In algebra, the usage of "+" is inseparable from the mathematical objects to which "+" or "*" apply. Everything is defined before you actually "add" anything.
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2004/11/26 下午 01:44:39
|
|
|
Some of my opinions:
Q:「恩寵加恩寵，真的不可能嗎？」
A: Yes, it is possible for uncreated grace to be more abundant by Scripture and Tradition.
If you think otherwise, I would like to ask: is it necessary to model this more abundant grace like we model numbers (in the sense like 3>2 SO 3 is more than 2)?
viz: Are we compelled to understand supernatural realities in the way we understand finite numbers?
Analogy is still an analogy.
------------------------------------------------------
Q:恩寵不能量化。把「不能量化」的東西加起，超越了人腦範疇?
A: Quantifibility (量化) is NOT a condition for comparability of modes of beings. As Handsome said, like charity/Love, there are many modes of beings that can be compared without being measured by numbers, I also think likewise.
We don't need to scale every modes of beings into numbers, this is the error of Positivism, something is not-measurable by numbers doesn't mean it is impossible to compare them, and consequently it is possible to add them up without any number/units assigned to them.
In a word, numbers are just models FOR and after the realities like extension, time...etc.(Not the other way round), they are used to model our everyday experience. But we are not governed by them.
Nobody needs the Celsius Sacle to tell Africa is hotter than Canada!
------------------------------------------------------
Q:"超越了人腦範疇?"
A: Why do we use analogy to discuss theology? Why don't we just sit back and sleep like an Agnoctic?
------------------------------------------------------
Q:「圓滿」可以用數學上的「無限大」來作比喻.
A: 比喻 still is a 比喻. Is it a full picture? I don't think so.
------------------------------------------------------
Q: 問「無限大」之上有沒有「更無限大」。這是一條「虛假的問題」?
A: 問「無限大」之上有沒有「更無限大」。這是一條「虛假的問題」:Positive.
But is 「圓滿」simply「無限大」? I don't think so.
Is temperature simply the Celsius/Fahrenheit? Negative.
The old saying: Analogy is still an analogy.
------------------------------------------------------
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2004/11/28 下午 09:00:17
|
|
|
奧兄：
Thanks a lot.
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2004/11/29 上午 12:36:11
|
|
|
Augustine,
依你的觀點，怎樣理解「圓滿」和「更圓滿」？
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2004/11/30 上午 10:22:45
|
|
|
Linguistically there is no such thing as 更圓滿,the term being already in the superlative sense. 再圓滿however is permissible logically, since one 圓滿having lapsed, it is always possible to re-achieve it, so there can be room for subsequent 再圓滿.
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2004/12/1 下午 11:28:14
|
|
|
Cecil，
我同意你的說法。
「更圓滿」一詞，是虛假的。和人討論哲學或神學問題時，我最害怕人們說一些他們自己也不能定義或解釋的詞語。
比方說：「你畫的圓形，確是絕對的圓，但我畫的圓形，比你那個更圓。」誰能明白此話何解？我就不能了。
比圓滿更圓滿，比圓形更圓，實在不知所云。
Augustine說了那麼一大堆，還沒有表達他對「更圓滿」一詞的意見。可惜。
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2004/12/2 上午 07:34:52
|
|
|
覆西滿兄：
本題所旨在討論的，是恩寵的可否加增及量化的問題。
「更圓滿」這個詞是小弟首先題出的，當然還大有可以討論的地方。
關於「圓滿」、「不圓滿」、「更圓滿」的概念，也許在以下一個題目討論更為妥當。
實領與神領
|
