Being Gay

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Jack4 said:

In case you haven't understood it yet, it is is not "my theology", but a friend's. He is a Thomist, not a Calvinist. He strongly disagrees with Calvinists, eg., on (merely) sufficient grace. 

Jack, I could not call myself an anything theologically, but I don't think that your friend could call himself a Thomist meaning to hold on to everything St Thomas Aquinas stated.

What are we discussing, your concept or your friend's concept? Your first statement some time back (God hates the damned) which I took to mean was your own concept (you did not put it in inverted commas to indicate a quote from somewhere).  I am confused.

  Who are we discussing and do you hold to your friend's concepts or do you not?  And what your friend states below is definitely not Church Teaching to my knowledge.

 

 

and then you posted this to back up your concept (that God hates the damned):

 

 

Jack said: "I agree with the last sentence; yet I hold on to what I said. The following are from a theologian friend (who is faithful to the Church):

Quote

... I HATE the damned souls, here and now. I curse them. God HATES the damned souls, He damned them after all. He loves them only as a use. What use? As instruments to glorify those in heaven. Nothing more. If they were unknown by the blessed, then they would not serve that purpose, through the manifestation of God's justice and their continued existence would be for nothing.

What your friend states above is definitely not Church Teaching to my knowledge.

Edited September 21, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[Guest]

It just occurred to me:

James Chatper 1:17" the Father of lights, with whom there is no alteration or shadow caused by change."  Since there is no change in God, who IS Love (not has Love) First Letter St James Chapter 4:9 "God is Love"

.....then how can God be said to hate or be anything but Love. His very nature is Love, nothing else.

I know the definition of Love as love and hate.  I think being a parent especially teaches one about the love/hate relationship.  I can love my child with an absolutely unconditional love, but at the same time, I can hate what he or she might do.   I think God eternally loves and holds in existence (Colossians 1:17) what He has created (and the damned remain in existence) but 'hate' what they might do or have done.  But even that to my mind is an anthropomorphism of God and hence to be rejected.  My love is something that I do, not what I am - two completely different subjects.  God is Absolute Being and Absolute Being that IS Infinite Love (no beginning, no end).

It can come down to a definition of "hate".  How I might experience hate - or how any other human being might experience it and no matter the definition, it can have nothing to do with what God IS, for He Is Love and in human terms, we can only grasp hate as somehow in opposition or different to love, no matter our definition of either. However, in God "there is no alteration or shadow caused by change".

As St Paul said: "For now we see in a mirror, darkly"

If we want to understand in human terms insofar as we can, the Mystery of God as Love - all we need do is reflect on His Son, Jesus.  Truly man, Truly God.  "No one comes to The Father, except through Me".

_________________

A priest scripture scholar I knew said that when Jesus firmly castigated (even possibly swore at them in His colloquial) the Pharisees, it was not because He did not love them, but because He did.  He wanted them to wake up to themselves and what they were really about and doing - and in waking up and amending their ways, they would be truly pleasing God and lifting unjust heavy burdens off the people.

 

[Jack4]

On 9/21/2016 at 10:04 AM, BarbaraTherese said:

Jack, I could not call myself an anything theologically, but I don't think that your friend could call himself a Thomist meaning to hold on to everything St Thomas Aquinas stated.

What are we discussing, your concept or your friend's concept? Your first statement some time back (God hates the damned) which I took to mean was your own concept (you did not put it in inverted commas to indicate a quote from somewhere).  I am confused.

  Who are we discussing and do you hold to your friend's concepts or do you not?  And what your friend states below is definitely not Church Teaching to my knowledge.

 

 

and then you posted this to back up your concept (that God hates the damned):

 

 

Jack said: "I agree with the last sentence; yet I hold on to what I said. The following are from a theologian friend (who is faithful to the Church):

What your friend states above is definitely not Church Teaching to my knowledge.

The reasoning and explanations are my friend's. I do not understand them fully. But, I trust him. He is faithful to the Church, he knows a lot of theology and I don't. 

What do you mean when you say, "I don't think that your friend could call himself a Thomist meaning to hold on to everything St Thomas Aquinas stated"? 

On 9/21/2016 at 8:57 AM, BarbaraTherese said:

Yes.

" St. Thomas Aquinas defines it as "willing the good of the other" — the simplest definition of love I've ever seen. Agape is an act of the will, not the feelings."  (see quotation below from Catholic Culture with link - and quoted previously)

 

  Reveal hidden contents

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=9375  Excerpt only: "(1) THE FIRST AND MOST usual misunderstanding of agape is to confuse it with a feeling. Our feelings are precious, but agape is infinitely more precious, because our feelings are not infinite but agape is. Feelings come from us, but agape comes from God as its ultimate source. Feelings also come to us, passively. They are "passions." Agape comes from God and is accepted actively by our free choice. St. Thomas Aquinas defines it as "willing the good of the other" — the simplest definition of love I've ever seen. Agape is an act of the will, not the feelings. That is why we are responsible for it, and commanded to do it, to choose it. We are not responsible for our feelings. Only an idiot would command us (That's why sexual feelings and desires, whether heterosexual or homosexual, are not sins in and of themselves. Feelings can be "disordered," but sins can come from acting on them.) We are responsible for our agape or lack of it, for agape comes from our free will, our deliberate choice, while feelings come from wind, weather, hormones, advertisements, and digestion. "Luv" comes from spring breezes; real love (agape) comes from the center of the soul, which Scripture calls the 'heart' (another word we have sentimentalized and reduced to feeling). Liking is a feeling. But love (agape) is more than strong liking. God does not merely like us; He saves us, He dies for us. Agape is a deed. Love is "the works of love."

Jesus had different feelings toward different people. But he loved them all equally and absolutely.

But how can we love someone if .we don't like him? Easy — we do it to ourselves all the time. We don't always have tender, sweet, comfortable feelings about ourselves; sometimes we feel foolish, stupid, asinine, or wicked. But we always love ourselves: we always seek our own good. Indeed, the only reason why we feel dislike toward ourselves and berate ourselves is precisely because we do love ourselves! We care about our good, so we are impatient with our bad.

We fall in love but we do not fall in agape. We rise in agape." (to read entire text, go to above link).

  Reveal hidden contents

 

How can God give Himself to the damned? Alternatively, how can He will the good of of the damned? 

[Guest]

49 minutes ago, Jack4 said:

The reasoning and explanations are my friend's. I do not understand them fully. But, I trust him. He is faithful to the Church, he knows a lot of theology and I don't. 

What do you mean when you say, "I don't think that your friend could call himself a Thomist meaning to hold on to everything St Thomas Aquinas stated"? 

Hi Jack -   If "Thomist" has some theologically strictly defined meaning of its own, I would not know. Personally, I do not think that your friend is faithful to what The Church teaches.  I have a lot to get done tonight for our parish St Vincent de Paul Conference - as well as a load of ironing to be picked up tomorrow.  I think we are getting nowhere really in this thread - for reasons stated at the end of the thread.

When I said what I said above, I meant that statement by your friend you posted was not the thinking of St Thomas Aquinas including that he himself hates and curses damned souls and that God hates them too.  In the Summa below, St Thomas says "hatred is opposed to love" and God IS LOVE from whom "there is no alteration or shadow caused by change" (James Chapter 1:176).  Jack, if God does indeed hate, then there is a shadow in Him caused by a change from Love to hate...........which statement personally sends shivers down my spine.

God who is Love brings all into existence and sustains all in existence (no time to find the Scripture quotation, but its in my files somewhere).  Those souls in Hell exist and have been brought into existence and sustained in existence by God who IS LOVE.  If that does not make logical sense then it proves the rule that God is totally beyond our understanding.

Jack, please read this post :

Quote

 

Summa: Question 34 "Hatred"  

I answer that, Hatred is opposed to love, as stated above (I-II, 29, 2); so that hatred of a thing is evil according as the love of that thing is good. Now love is due to our neighbor in respect of what he holds from God, i.e. in respect of nature and grace, but not in respect of what he has of himself and from the devil, i.e. in respect of sin and lack of justice.

Consequently it is lawful to hate the sin in one's brother, and whatever pertains to the defect of Divine Justice, but we cannot hate our brother's nature and grace without sin. Now it is part of our love for our brother that we hate the fault and the lack of good in him, since desire for another's good is equivalent to hatred of his evil. Consequently the hatred of one's brother, if we consider it simply, is always sinful

 

.I really think that we are starting to go round in circles and that nothing whatsoever is being achieved by this thread, Jack, because you keep asking questions without addressing the answers, either agreeing or disagreeing and if disagreeing stating why.  By clinging to your friend's statements that have been shared with us, I do think that you are on dangerous ground and internalising what is not Church Teaching at all.  I do not mean to be offensive in any way whatsoever.  

 

 

 

Edited September 22, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[Jack4]

On 9/21/2016 at 8:57 AM, BarbaraTherese said:

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=9375  Excerpt only: "(1) THE FIRST AND MOST usual misunderstanding of agape is to confuse it with a feeling. Our feelings are precious, but agape is infinitely more precious, because our feelings are not infinite but agape is. Feelings come from us, but agape comes from God as its ultimate source. Feelings also come to us, passively. They are "passions." Agape comes from God and is accepted actively by our free choice. St. Thomas Aquinas defines it as "willing the good of the other" — the simplest definition of love I've ever seen. Agape is an act of the will, not the feelings. That is why we are responsible for it, and commanded to do it, to choose it. We are not responsible for our feelings. Only an idiot would command us (That's why sexual feelings and desires, whether heterosexual or homosexual, are not sins in and of themselves. Feelings can be "disordered," but sins can come from acting on them.) We are responsible for our agape or lack of it, for agape comes from our free will, our deliberate choice, while feelings come from wind, weather, hormones, advertisements, and digestion. "Luv" comes from spring breezes; real love (agape) comes from the center of the soul, which Scripture calls the 'heart' (another word we have sentimentalized and reduced to feeling). Liking is a feeling. But love (agape) is more than strong liking. God does not merely like us; He saves us, He dies for us. Agape is a deed. Love is "the works of love."

Jesus had different feelings toward different people. But he loved them all equally and absolutely.

But how can we love someone if .we don't like him? Easy — we do it to ourselves all the time. We don't always have tender, sweet, comfortable feelings about ourselves; sometimes we feel foolish, stupid, asinine, or wicked. But we always love ourselves: we always seek our own good. Indeed, the only reason why we feel dislike toward ourselves and berate ourselves is precisely because we do love ourselves! We care about our good, so we are impatient with our bad.

We fall in love but we do not fall in agape. We rise in agape." (to read entire text, go to above link).

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Sorry about that, Barb. Wish you the best for the SVdP conference.

 It seems I need more time to articulate myself in this discussion which is already a semantic problem. Hope you can understand. Thank you. 

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, Jack4 said:

Sorry about that, Barb. Wish you the best for the SVdP conference.

 It seems I need more time to articulate myself in this discussion which is already a semantic problem. Hope you can understand. Thank you. 

Hi Jack - our Parish Conference of SVP is just our local group of St Vinnies members in our parish.  The term used by SVP is not a group but "a Conference" at parish level.........semantics!  Hence our Conference is merely a group of oldies who are the Vinnies members in our parish.  Hence, the minutes are merely that of our monthly parish SVP meeting.  My bad.

Jack, you are still so very young and when I was 16yrs of age, life was like a jigsaw to me that I just could not put together.  You are beyond that I think.  It is always possible to be talking at cross purposes because of the meaning of words and true for the very best of whoever and whatever I think.

Today, each of the sciences has a precise language and often word meaning all of its own -  including theology.  I can't speak the language of theology.

Well, I have got the SVP Minutes out and if MSN would only stop changing around how emails are compiled and sent, I would be very happy and life much easier for this 71year old almost.  I'm too old for such nonsense as change for the sake of it.......it seems to me.  

Cheers, Jack - from southern downunder...........Barb  

 

Edited September 22, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[Peace]

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3025.htm#article11

Quote

Article 11. Whether we are bound to love the demons out of charity?

Objection 1. It would seem that we ought to love the demons out of charity. For the angels are our neighbors by reason of their fellowship with us in a rational mind. But the demons also share in our fellowship thus, since natural gifts, such as life and understanding, remain in them unimpaired, as Dionysius states (Div. Nom. iv). Therefore we ought to love the demons out of charity.

Objection 2. Further, the demons differ from the blessed angels in the matter of sin, even as sinners from just men. Now the just man loves the sinner out of charity. Therefore he ought to love the demons also out of charity.

Objection 3. Further, we ought, out of charity, to love, as being our neighbors, those from whom we receive favors, as appears from the passage of Augustine quoted above (Article 9). Now the demons are useful to us in many things, for "by tempting us they work crowns for us," as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xi, 17). Therefore we ought to love the demons out of charity.

On the contrary, It is written (Isaiah 28:18): "Your league with death shall be abolished, and your covenant with hell shall not stand." Now the perfection of a peace and covenant is through charity. Therefore we ought not to have charity for the demons who live in hell and compass death.

I answer that, As stated above (Article 6), in the sinner, we are bound, out of charity, to love his nature, but to hate his sin. But the name of demon is given to designate a nature deformed by sin, wherefore demons should not be loved out of charity. Without however laying stress on the word, the question as to whether the spirits called demons ought to be loved out of charity, must be answered in accordance with the statement made above (A2,3), that a thing may be loved out of charity in two ways. First, a thing may be loved as the person who is the object of friendship, and thus we cannot have the friendship of charity towards the demons. For it is an essential part of friendship that one should be a well-wisher towards one's friend; and it is impossible for us, out of charity, to desire the good of everlasting life, to which charity is referred, for those spirits whom God has condemned eternally, since this would be in opposition to our charity towards God whereby we approve of His justice.

Secondly, we love a thing as being that which we desire to be enduring as another's good. On this way we love irrational creatures out of charity, in as much as we wish them to endure, to give glory to God and be useful to man, as stated above (Article 3): and in this way too we can love the nature of the demons even out of charity, in as much as we desire those spirits to endure, as to their natural gifts, unto God's glory.

Reply to Objection 1. The possession of everlasting happiness is not impossible for the angelic mind as it is for the mind of a demon; consequently the friendship of charity which is based on the fellowship of everlasting life, rather than on the fellowship of nature, is possible towards the angels, but not towards the demons.

Reply to Objection 2. In this life, men who are in sin retain the possibility of obtaining everlasting happiness: not so those who are lost in hell, who, in this respect, are in the same case as the demons.

Reply to Objection 3. That the demons are useful to us is due not to their intention but to the ordering of Divine providence; hence this leads us to be friends, not with them, but with God, Who turns their perverse intention to our profit.

From my take on it, in a nutshell, St. Thomas indicates that it would be wrong for us to hope that people who are eternally damned should receive everlasting life (i) because that is an impossibility and (ii) because that would contradict God's judgment ("it is impossible for us, out of charity, to desire the good of everlasting life, to which charity is referred, for those spirits whom God has condemned eternally, since this would be in opposition to our charity towards God whereby we approve of His justice").

If by "God hates the damned" Jack4 means that "God wills the damned to remain in Hell due to justice" that seems fine by me.

But if by "God hates the damned" Jack4 means that God desires people to be in Hell in an absolute sense (for reasons other than justice) then I think the statement becomes Calvinistic. I do not think that there is anything to be delighted about, other than the fact that a just judgment has been rendered. It is not as though God has a big bucket of popcorn in the sky and watches people getting roasted in Hell for entertainment.

But it is not clear what Jack4 means.

Edited September 22, 2016 by Peace

[Guest]

Jack, just about to lock up and head to bed (12.19am and about time!).  I consulted Mr. Google and came across below the 2.19 minute I think it was (i.e. very short) video from Jimmy Akin "Does God Love Lucifer?". 

 

 

[Peace]

See Also:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5094.htm
 

Article 2. Whether the blessed pity the unhappiness of the damned?

Objection 1. It would seem that the blessed pity the unhappiness of the damned. For pity proceeds from charity [Cf. II-II, 30]; and charity will be most perfect in the blessed. Therefore they will most especially pity the sufferings of the damned.

Objection 2. Further, the blessed will never be so far from taking pity as God is. Yet in a sense God compassionates our afflictions, wherefore He is said to be merciful.

On the contrary, Whoever pities another shares somewhat in his unhappiness. But the blessed cannot share in any unhappiness. Therefore they do not pity the afflictions of the damned.

I answer that, Mercy or compassion may be in a person in two ways: first by way of passion, secondly by way of choice. In the blessed there will be no passion in the lower powers except as a result of the reason's choice. Hence compassion or mercy will not be in them, except by the choice of reason. Now mercy or compassion comes of the reason's choice when a person wishes another's evil to be dispelled: wherefore in those things which, in accordance with reason, we do not wish to be dispelled, we have no such compassion. But so long as sinners are in this world they are in such a state that without prejudice to the Divine justice they can be taken away from a state of unhappiness and sin to a state of happiness. Consequently it is possible to have compassion on them both by the choice of the will--in which sense God, the angels and the blessed are said to pity them by desiring their salvation--and by passion, in which way they are pitied by the good men who are in the state of wayfarers. But in the future state it will be impossible for them to be taken away from their unhappiness: and consequently it will not be possible to pity their sufferings according to right reason. Therefore the blessed in glory will have no pity on the damned.

Reply to Objection 1. Charity is the principle of pity when it is possible for us out of charity to wish the cessation of a person's unhappiness. But the saints cannot desire this for the damned, since it would be contrary to Divine justice. Consequently the argument does not prove.

Reply to Objection 2. God is said to be merciful, in so far as He succors those whom it is befitting to be released from their afflictions in accordance with the order of wisdom and justice: not as though He pitied the damned except perhaps in punishing them less than they deserve.

Article 3. Whether the blessed rejoice in the punishment of the wicked?

Objection 1. It would seem that the blessed do not rejoice in the punishment of the wicked. For rejoicing in another's evil pertains to hatred. But there will be no hatred in the blessed. Therefore they will not rejoice in the unhappiness of the damned.

Objection 2. Further, the blessed in heaven will be in the highest degree conformed to God. Now God does not rejoice in our afflictions. Therefore neither will the blessed rejoice in the afflictions of the damned.

Objection 3. Further, that which is blameworthy in a wayfarer has no place whatever in a comprehensor. Now it is most reprehensible in a wayfarer to take pleasure in the pains of others, and most praiseworthy to grieve for them. Therefore the blessed nowise rejoice in the punishment of the damned.

On the contrary, It is written (Psalm 57:11): "The just shall rejoice when he shall see the revenge."

Further, it is written (Isaiah 56:24): "They shall satiate [Douay: 'They shall be a loathsome sight to all flesh.'] the sight of all flesh." Now satiety denotes refreshment of the mind. Therefore the blessed will rejoice in the punishment of the wicked.

I answer that, A thing may be a matter of rejoicing in two ways. First directly, when one rejoices in a thing as such: and thus the saints will not rejoice in the punishment of the wicked. Secondly, indirectly, by reason namely of something annexed to it: and in this way the saints will rejoice in the punishment of the wicked, by considering therein the order of Divine justice and their own deliverance, which will fill them with joy. And thus the Divine justice and their own deliverance will be the direct cause of the joy of the blessed: while the punishment of the damned will cause it indirectly.

Reply to Objection 1. To rejoice in another's evil as such belongs to hatred, but not to rejoice in another's evil by reason of something annexed to it. Thus a person sometimes rejoices in his own evil as when we rejoice in our own afflictions, as helping us to merit life: "My brethren, count it all joy when you shall fall into divers temptations" (James 1:2).

Reply to Objection 2. Although God rejoices not in punishments as such, He rejoices in them as being ordered by His justice.

Reply to Objection 3. It is not praiseworthy in a wayfarer to rejoice in another's afflictions as such: yet it is praiseworthy if he rejoice in them as having something annexed. However it is not the same with a wayfarer as with a comprehensor, because in a wayfarer the passions often forestall the judgment of reason, and yet sometimes such passions are praiseworthy, as indicating the good disposition of the mind, as in the case of shame pity and repentance for evil: whereas in a comprehensor there can be no passion but such as follows the judgment of reason.

Edited September 22, 2016 by Peace

[Jack4]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3025.htm#article11

From my take on it, in a nutshell, St. Thomas indicates that it would be wrong for us to hope that people who are eternally damned should receive everlasting life (i) because that is an impossibility and (ii) because that would contradict God's judgment ("it is impossible for us, out of charity, to desire the good of everlasting life, to which charity is referred, for those spirits whom God has condemned eternally, since this would be in opposition to our charity towards God whereby we approve of His justice").

If by "God hates the damned" Jack4 means that "God wills the damned to remain in Hell due to justice" that seems fine by me.

But if by "God hates the damned" Jack4 means that God desires people to be in Hell in an absolute sense (for reasons other than justice) then I think the statement becomes Calvinistic. I do not think that there is anything to be delighted about, other than the fact that a just judgment has been rendered. It is not as though God has a big bucket of popcorn in the sky and watches people getting roasted in Hell for entertainment.

But it is not clear what Jack4 means.

I mean the first one and not the second. 

[Jack4]

3 hours ago, BarbaraTherese said:

Hi Jack - our Parish Conference of SVP is just our local group of St Vinnies members in our parish.  The term used by SVP is not a group but "a Conference" at parish level.........semantics!  Hence our Conference is merely a group of oldies who are the Vinnies members in our parish.  Hence, the minutes are merely that of our monthly parish SVP meeting.  My bad.

Jack, you are still so very young and when I was 16yrs of age, life was like a jigsaw to me that I just could not put together.  You are beyond that I think.  It is always possible to be talking at cross purposes because of the meaning of words and true for the very best of whoever and whatever I think.

Today, each of the sciences has a precise language and often word meaning all of its own -  including theology.  I can't speak the language of theology.

Well, I have got the SVP Minutes out and if MSN would only stop changing around how emails are compiled and sent, I would be very happy and life much easier for this 71year old almost.  I'm too old for such nonsense as change for the sake of it.......it seems to me.  

Cheers, Jack - from southern downunder...........Barb  

 

 

Thank you, and and best wishes to you too.  

[4588686]

Ok, thanks. I got my answer. This thread is now closed