For those who defend Trump

[little2add]

The following script is from "Heroin in the Heartland" which aired on Nov. 1, 2015, and was rebroadcast on Aug. 7, 2016. Bill Whitaker is the correspondent. Tom Anderson and Michelle St. John, producers.

Federal officials have also estimated that nearly 80-90 percent of illegal drugs entering the United States come from Mexico. Most of these drugs are smuggled in by illegal immigrants. In 2005, federal law-enforcement seizure counts for cocaine and marijuana alone were astounding.

Federal and local authorities all over the country say it's the biggest drug epidemic today. Not methamphetamines or cocaine, but heroin.

You might think of heroin as primarily an inner-city problem. But dealers, connected to Mexican drug cartels, are making huge profits by expanding to new, lucrative markets: suburbs all across the country. It's basic economics. The dealers are going where the money is and, as we first reported last fall, they're cultivating a new set of consumers: high school students, college athletes, teachers and professionals.

Heroin is showing up everywhere -- in places like Columbus, Ohio . The area has long been viewed as so typically Middle American that, for years, many companies have gone there to test new products. We went to the Columbus suburbs to see how heroin is taking hold in the heartland.

 

Link: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/heroin-in-the-heartland-60-minutes-3/ 

[little2add]

The open border is not a good thing

 

 

The National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependency estimates that over 23 million Americans (age 12 and older) are addicted to alcohol and other drugs. According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), just under 11% (2.5 million) received care at an addiction treatment facility in 2012. SAMHSA also estimates that the market for addiction treatment is about $35 billion per year.

 

[Peace]

27 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

People have a natural right to live, and that entails living somewhere. But that does not entail living anywhere, or specifically living wherever one wants. I am generally pretty in favour of migration for various circumstances, but the state has the right and the obligation to have laws in place that establish reasonable limits. If some are more restrictive than others, if some people do not prefer a particular way of doing things, that does not necessarily mean that way is unjust. The details are all shades of prudential judgments on the part of civil authorities.

How about my hypothetical? By what rationale would you use to assert that the infant does not have a natural right to live in the USA, Mexico, or any other specific country?

It seems to me that God made the Earth for men. The infant has a right to live on the Earth. If place A and place B are equal, then why should the child naturally have any any less of a right to live in place A than it does place B?

If place A and B are unequal (for example, place A is overpopulated and has widespread famine, while place B is not) then we would say that it is just that the infant should be allowed to live in place B, but not place A. But these are prudential considerations, and in the absence of those reasons, the infant naturally has just as much of a right to live in place A as place B.

FWIW - even if we assume that there is a natural right to live anywhere, I would not say it is an absolute right. A state can put restrictions on the natural right where justified. It is also a right that can be forfeited. I think property is an example of this. You might say that men have a natural right to property, but the state may put limitations on that right by way of taxation, eminent domain, etc. Similarly, the USA can put limitations on the natural right that men have to live here (such as by restricting terrorists, etc). I do not think that these restrictions are necessarily unjust.

27 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

We could possibly parse out a natural right to migrate in a general sense, but that still is not equivalent to having a natural right to migrate to the United States specifically.

I don't see why not.  If there is a natural right to migrate, naturally the person has to have a destination to which he is able to migrate. I can't think of any natural reason why he should be allowed to migrate to location X, but not location Y (although there may be various prudential reasons why he should be allowed to migrate to place X and not place Y). If a man has a natural right to migrate, why would that right not naturally apply to the USA?

27 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

I think it is a bit of a false equivalence to say that the redeemed earth will not have national borders. The point is we do live in a polity now, in the real world, and that the state does have a positive right to exist, to make laws, and to enforce those laws. It is not a bad thing we will eventually get rid of; it is a good thing (theoretically) according to the natural order, but one which will pass away after the general judgement.

This is a good point. I would guess that the right of the state to make and enforce laws is subservient to the natural right that a man has to live anywhere. That is, the natural right that the man has to live anywhere on the Earth can only be limited by the state for reasons that are just.

But I am not sure if it is really such a false equivalence. It is not as though the redeemed earth is just some destination that we are to just sit back and wait for.  It is our duty as Christians and stewards of God's creation to make the Earth as God intends it to be. I do not know, but I would guess that God's intent for his creation (the real world in which we currently live) is that all men should be able to travel freely within it and that there should be harmony among all people. "Open borders" or an Earth where all men are welcomed by their neighbors would then be the ideal that we (and our laws) should strive for as a general principle. I would not call restrictions on immigration to be "good things" in and of themselves. They would seem to be good only so far as they serve some other purpose, such as preventing terrorism, etc.

I am not sure if we really disagree though. We seem to be just talking about the same thing in a different manner, to a certain extent.

[Nihil Obstat]

7 minutes ago, Peace said:

How about my hypothetical? By what rationale would you use to assert that the infant does not have a natural right to live in the USA, Mexico, or any other specific country?

It seems to me that God made the Earth for men. The infant has a right to live on the Earth. If place A and place B are equal, then why should the child naturally have any any less of a right to live in place A than it does place B?

If place A and B are unequal (for example, place A is overpopulated and has widespread famine, while place B is not) then we would say that it is just that the infant should be allowed to live in place B, but not place A. But these are prudential considerations, and in the absence of those reasons, the infant naturally has just as much of a right to live in place A as place B.

FWIW - even if we assume that there is a natural right to live anywhere, I would not say it is an absolute right. A state can put restrictions on the natural right where justified. It is also a right that can be forfeited. I think property is an example of this. You might say that men have a natural right to property, but the state may put limitations on that right by way of taxation, eminent domain, etc. Similarly, the USA can put limitations on the natural right that men have to live here (such as by restricting terrorists, etc). I do not think that these restrictions are necessarily unjust.

I don't see why not.  If there is a natural right to migrate, naturally the person has to have a destination to which he is able to migrate. I can't think of any natural reason why he should be allowed to migrate to location X, but not location Y (although there may be various prudential reasons why he should be allowed to migrate to place X and not place Y). If a man has a natural right to migrate, why would that right not naturally apply to the USA?

This is a good point. I would guess that the right of the state to make and enforce laws is subservient to the natural right that a man has to live anywhere. That is, the natural right that the man has to live anywhere on the Earth can only be limited by the state for reasons that are just.

But I am not sure if it is really such a false equivalence. It is not as though the redeemed earth is just some destination that we are to just sit back and wait for.  It is our duty as Christians and stewards of God's creation to make the Earth as God intends it to be. I do not know, but I would guess that God's intent for his creation (the real world in which we currently live) is that all men should be able to travel freely within it and that there should be harmony among all people. "Open borders" or an Earth where all men are welcomed by their neighbors would then be the ideal that we (and our laws) should strive for as a general principle. I would not call restrictions on immigration to be "good things" in and of themselves. They would seem to be good only so far as they serve some other purpose, such as preventing terrorism, etc.

I am not sure if we really disagree though. We seem to be just talking about the same thing in a different manner, to a certain extent.

“How about my hypothetical? By what rationale would you use to assert that the infant does not have a natural right to live in the USA, Mexico, or any other specific country?”

I think it can be said that said infant has a right to live somewhere, but rights are tempered by responsibilities. Obviously the infant himself cannot exercise his rights or responsibilities, so we will assume that some advocate does so for him… but the natural right to live somewhere is informed by the responsibility to, as far as it is possible, respect the laws of the state. Of course there are times when laws are justly broken. But as a whole the right to live somewhere is informed by the responsibility to follow the laws, so certainly the infant must be given a place to live, perhaps the US does in fact have a moral obligation to take him in, but in your hypothetical there is really nothing special about the duties of the US compared to any other country. The actual fulfilment of the infant’s rights seems to be dictated mostly by circumstance. The nationality of whomever finds him, most likely. I do not really think that the practical difficulties of the hypothetical have much to do with the objective rights and responsibilities that guide the case.

“It seems to me that God made the Earth for men. The infant has a right to live on the Earth. If place A and place B are equal, then why should the child naturally have any any less of a right to live in place A than it does place B?”

For a practically stateless infant like this hypothetical case, I think we can simply say that his natural right to live somewhere will pass on a moral obligation of guardianship, at least temporarily, to whomever happens to recover him. If it is, for instance, the American navy, that may well impart a moral duty to bring the infant to the US. Not because he has more of a right to be American, but simply because whomever finds him now has a duty to see to his rights being respected.

“If place A and B are unequal (for example, place A is overpopulated and has widespread famine, while place B is not) then we would say that it is just that the infant should be allowed to live in place B, but not place A. But these are prudential considerations, and in the absence of those reasons, the infant naturally has just as much of a right to live in place A as place B.”

Generally I would agree with this. But I think that the most proximate consideration is going to be the person or people who take on the responsibility of caring for the hypothetical infant. In our case of the child drifting in the ocean this may very well have been an accidental or even unwilling acceptance of that responsibility, so in that sense it is kind of a fluke or providence of some sort. If sailors from country A picked up this infant, it seems that country A has a prima facie responsibility to him, but the sailors could just as easily been from country B. Of course the prima facie responsibility could be overridden by other factors, according to prudence.

“FWIW - even if we assume that there is a natural right to live anywhere, I would not say it is an absolute right. A state can put restrictions on the natural right where justified. It is also a right that can be forfeited. I think property is an example of this. You might say that men have a natural right to property, but the state may put limitations on that right by way of taxation, eminent domain, etc. Similarly, the USA can put limitations on the natural right that men have to live here (such as by restricting terrorists, etc). I do not think that these restrictions are necessarily unjust.”

Fully agreed.

“I don't see why not.  If there is a natural right to migrate, naturally the person has to have a destination to which he is able to migrate. I can't think of any natural reason why he should be allowed to migrate to location X, but not location Y (although there may be various prudential reasons why he should be allowed to migrate to place X and not place Y). If a man has a natural right to migrate, why would that right not naturally apply to the USA?”

A man’s natural right to migrate applies to every particular place equally, but his right to migrate is restricted by his responsibility to obey the laws of the state. So if we say, to use a handy expression, that man in the state of nature has equal natural rights to migrate to the US or to Famineland, nevertheless the state which governs the US says that he must fill out such and such papers subject to approval, and the state of Famineland does not. Then the man’s duty to obey the laws of the state says that he does not have the right to migrate to the US yet (but may in the future), but he does have an unrestricted right to migrate to Famineland.

“This is a good point. I would guess that the right of the state to make and enforce laws is subservient to the natural right that a man has to live anywhere. That is, the natural right that the man has to live anywhere on the Earth can only be limited by the state for reasons that are just.”

I would agree that a state’s laws regarding immigration need to correspond with justice. Humanitarian migration is certainly a concern. I do not necessarily agree that laws are subservient to natural rights; I think it is more correct to talk about corresponding rights and responsibilities. Certain virtues are especially appropriate to the state, and some to the individual, and generally speaking every agent ought to act in conformity with the virtues appropriate to him. I think it is more accurate to say that both the state and the individual have certain rights that must be respected – some to a more absolute extent than others – and they each have certain duties towards the other, again with some being more absolute.

“But I am not sure if it is really such a false equivalence. It is not as though the redeemed earth is just some destination that we are to just sit back and wait for.  It is our duty as Christians and stewards of God's creation to make the Earth as God intends it to be. I do not know, but I would guess that God's intent for his creation (the real world in which we currently live) is that all men should be able to travel freely within it and that there should be harmony among all people. "Open borders" or an Earth where all men are welcomed by their neighbors would then be the ideal that we (and our laws) should strive for as a general principle. I would not call restrictions on immigration to be "good things" in and of themselves. They would seem to be good only so far as they serve some other purpose, such as preventing terrorism, etc.”

I disagree with your point about the redeemed earth. This is something that only comes about after the general judgement, after the resurrection, and therefore after the death of concupiscence. We cannot bring about the redeemed earth before that occurs. And in fact we cannot bring it about afterwards; it will be God’s work. Our redeemed existence will be fundamentally different than our current one. There will be no marriage in heaven either, but that does not mean that marriage now is something we strive to eliminate. It simply means that in our resurrection the purpose of marriage passes away. The state is the same; it exists as a positive good now (notwithstanding how badly it is abused in practice), but its purpose will be fulfilled after the general judgement. I think that Leo XIII’s teaching in his social encyclicals does establish the state as being a positive good in the sense I am referring to here. Man forms polity in accordance with natural law, the state legislates in accordance with the virtue of justice, the citizens obey in accordance with the virtue of obedience, etc. I would agree that restrictions on immigration, specifically, are good in themselves. They are contingent goods, yes. But just laws of the state as a principle are inherently good, so the specific laws are contingently good to the extent that they agree with the virtues appropriate to the state.

“I am not sure if we really disagree though. We seem to be just talking about the same thing in a different manner, to a certain extent.”

Yes, more or less. I used to be a radically open-border anarchist. Did you know that? God help me.

[Peace]

2 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

I disagree with your point about the redeemed earth. This is something that only comes about after the general judgement, after the resurrection, and therefore after the death of concupiscence. We cannot bring about the redeemed earth before that occurs. And in fact we cannot bring it about afterwards; it will be God’s work. Our redeemed existence will be fundamentally different than our current one. There will be no marriage in heaven either, but that does not mean that marriage now is something we strive to eliminate. It simply means that in our resurrection the purpose of marriage passes away. The state is the same; it exists as a positive good now (notwithstanding how badly it is abused in practice), but its purpose will be fulfilled after the general judgement. I think that Leo XIII’s teaching in his social encyclicals does establish the state as being a positive good in the sense I am referring to here. Man forms polity in accordance with natural law, the state legislates in accordance with the virtue of justice, the citizens obey in accordance with the virtue of obedience, etc. I would agree that restrictions on immigration, specifically, are good in themselves. They are contingent goods, yes. But just laws of the state as a principle are inherently good, so the specific laws are contingently good to the extent that they agree with the virtues appropriate to the state.

I don't read the bible verses about the world passing away so literally as to think that it will vanish out of existence, and that a new Earth will be created from nothing. I view the creation of the new Earth as more of a process of transforming the world in which we live, and which God will complete at the end of time. It is a process in which the Christian participates. I wouldn't think that there is a fundamental difference or a fundamental disconnect between the Earth on which we currently live and the "new Earth" on which we hope to live. I would not think that our existences will be fundamentally different.

I suppose that view comes partly from the resurrected body to a certain extent. It was Jesus's same body (wounds and all) that rose from the tomb and was glorified. So I would not think that we get new bodies that have no physical connection to the bodies that we have now. I would guess that God takes the bodies that we have now and transforms them into a higher state, as when Jesus's body was glorified. I tend to think that it should be the same with the Earth, since the creation of the new Earth seems to happen almost concurrently with the resurrection.

My view also seems to fit in with the Catholic idea that justification is more of a process than a one time event. Our process of becoming perfect begins at our baptism, it continues until the end of our life, and for most of us is completed in purgatory. But even though God will bring about the ultimate perfection (of the saved) during purgatory no matter how far they may be from it, they are not absolved of the responsibility of working (with God's grace) to bring about that perfection here and now to the extent that they can. I wouldn't see why we would not have that same responsibility with respect to the restoration of God's creation, since he has made man a steward over it.

If you look at the relevant section of the Catechism, it seems to speak about the "new Earth" as our Earth transformed or renewed into something greater, rather than another Earth being created out of nothing. And it seems to suggest that our work here on Earth contributes to the new creation.

Quote

VI. Hope of the New Heaven and the New Earth

1042 At the end of time, the Kingdom of God will come in its fullness. After the universal judgment, the righteous will reign for ever with Christ, glorified in body and soul. the universe itself will be renewed:

The Church . . . will receive her perfection only in the glory of heaven, when will come the time of the renewal of all things. At that time, together with the human race, the universe itself, which is so closely related to man and which attains its destiny through him, will be perfectly re-established in Christ.629

1043 Sacred Scripture calls this mysterious renewal, which will transform humanity and the world, "new heavens and a new earth."630 It will be the definitive realization of God's plan to bring under a single head "all things in [Christ], things in heaven and things on earth."631

1044 In this new universe, the heavenly Jerusalem, God will have his dwelling among men.632 "He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away."633

1045 For man, this consummation will be the final realization of the unity of the human race, which God willed from creation and of which the pilgrim Church has been "in the nature of sacrament."634 Those who are united with Christ will form the community of the redeemed, "the holy city" of God, "the Bride, the wife of the Lamb."635 She will not be wounded any longer by sin, stains, self-love, that destroy or wound the earthly community.636 The beatific vision, in which God opens himself in an inexhaustible way to the elect, will be the ever-flowing well-spring of happiness, peace, and mutual communion.

1046 For the cosmos, Revelation affirms the profound common destiny of the material world and man:

For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God . . . in hope because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay.... We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.637

1047 The visible universe, then, is itself destined to be transformed, "so that the world itself, restored to its original state, facing no further obstacles, should be at the service of the just," sharing their glorification in the risen Jesus Christ.638

1048 "We know neither the moment of the consummation of the earth and of man, nor the way in which the universe will be transformed. the form of this world, distorted by sin, is passing away, and we are taught that God is preparing a new dwelling and a new earth in which righteousness dwells, in which happiness will fill and surpass all the desires of peace arising in the hearts of men."639

1049 "Far from diminishing our concern to develop this earth, the expectancy of a new earth should spur us on, for it is here that the body of a new human family grows, foreshadowing in some way the age which is to come. That is why, although we must be careful to distinguish earthly progress clearly from the increase of the kingdom of Christ, such progress is of vital concern to the kingdom of God, insofar as it can contribute to the better ordering of human society."640

1050 "When we have spread on earth the fruits of our nature and our enterprise . . . according to the command of the Lord and in his Spirit, we will find them once again, cleansed this time from the stain of sin, illuminated and transfigured, when Christ presents to his Father an eternal and universal kingdom."641 God will then be "all in all" in eternal life:642

True and subsistent life consists in this: the Father, through the Son and in the Holy Spirit, pouring out his heavenly gifts on all things without exception. Thanks to his mercy, we too, men that we are, have received the inalienable promise of eternal life.643

It also seems fitting that man should play a role in the restoration of God's creation, since it was man that corrupted creation through sin. Restoration of creation is fundamentally God's work but I think we that we are called to participate in it, and I think that the process of restoring creation has already begun with through Jesus's sacrifice and the establishment of his Church here on Earth. I am not sure if you see this explicitly stated in the Catechism, but the general idea of man cooperating with God to perfect creation seems to be there:

Quote

Providence and secondary causes

306 God is the sovereign master of his plan. But to carry it out he also makes use of his creatures' co-operation. This use is not a sign of weakness, but rather a token of almighty God's greatness and goodness. For God grants his creatures not only their existence, but also the dignity of acting on their own, of being causes and principles for each other, and thus of co-operating in the accomplishment of his plan.

307 To human beings God even gives the power of freely sharing in his providence by entrusting them with the responsibility of "subduing" the earth and having dominion over it.¹⁶⁸ God thus enables men to be intelligent and free causes in order to complete the work of creation, to perfect its harmony for their own good and that of their neighbors. Though often unconscious collaborators with God's will, they can also enter deliberately into the divine plan by their actions, their prayers and their sufferings.¹⁶⁹ They then fully become "God's fellow workers" and co-workers for his kingdom.¹⁷⁰

308 The truth that God is at work in all the actions of his creatures is inseparable from faith in God the Creator. God is the first cause who operates in and through secondary causes: "For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure."¹⁷¹ Far from diminishing the creature's dignity, this truth enhances it. Drawn from nothingness by God's power, wisdom and goodness, it can do nothing if it is cut off from its origin, for "without a Creator the creature vanishes."¹⁷² Still less can a creature attain its ultimate end without the help of God's grace.¹⁷³

I am not going to sit here and say that my view is correct. I would call my view a bit speculative, but I don't think it is totally without support. I don't think it is a crazy view.

As for the marriage point that you raise - I am not sure how I would respond to that honestly. It is a good objection. If I were to venture a response, I would say that here and now ideally we would all seek the unmarried state. I think the NT (e.g. 1 Cor. 7) is fairly clear that it is a state that is superior to the married state, but is not a state that is obtainable for each of us here and now.

Quote

Yes, more or less. I used to be a radically open-border anarchist. Did you know that? God help me.

I'm much more worried about you being Canadian. J/K

[Nihil Obstat]

We can certainly speak about a process of bringing about a new earth, but objectively speaking the "new earth" occurs after the general judgement, after the Second Coming of Christ, after the apocalypse, and after our bodily resurrections. Whether it is in every sense a new earth created from nothing, or the same material redeemed, the point is that after the apocalypse everything is different. No death, no sin, no concupiscence, no scarcity, but an eternity of union with God. My impression of your view here is that it is too materialist and too this-world oriented. After the apocalypse there will be no polity in the sense that we have now, because we will simply live in eternal happiness in God's presence. I do not even think we can reasonably talk about 'society' in the sense that we have now, after the resurrection. Heavenly choirs engaged in unending praise and contemplation, not society, not cooperation that we experience now. We live in a vale of tears, and Satan has wide dominion over our world. When that is finally swept away (defeated at cavalry, but the last moments of sin's reign are yet to come) everything about human existence changes. Remember, this is not just 'going back' to the garden of Eden; this is in every sense greater. God offers us something infinitely greater than the perfect natural happiness that Adam and Eve rejected. Justification is a process, yes, but the apocalypse is not. It is a literal end of the world event by which sin faces its final defeat.

I agree that the vowed celibate state is an objectively higher calling, but it still remains fundamentally the case that marriage is an objective good for us in this world, and that it will also pass away after the eschaton. There is no contradiction here, but I think your view insists that there must be a contradiction.

[Peace]

19 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

We can certainly speak about a process of bringing about a new earth, but objectively speaking the "new earth" occurs after the general judgement, after the Second Coming of Christ, after the apocalypse, and after our bodily resurrections. Whether it is in every sense a new earth created from nothing, or the same material redeemed, the point is that after the apocalypse everything is different. No death, no sin, no concupiscence, no scarcity, but an eternity of union with God. My impression of your view here is that it is too materialist and too this-world oriented. After the apocalypse there will be no polity in the sense that we have now, because we will simply live in eternal happiness in God's presence. I do not even think we can reasonably talk about 'society' in the sense that we have now, after the resurrection. Heavenly choirs engaged in unending praise and contemplation, not society, not cooperation that we experience now. We live in a vale of tears, and Satan has wide dominion over our world. When that is finally swept away (defeated at cavalry, but the last moments of sin's reign are yet to come) everything about human existence changes. Remember, this is not just 'going back' to the garden of Eden; this is in every sense greater. God offers us something infinitely greater than the perfect natural happiness that Adam and Eve rejected. Justification is a process, yes, but the apocalypse is not. It is a literal end of the world event by which sin faces its final defeat.

Your view strikes me as a bit gnostic. It sounds as though you perceive heaven to be some zen-like state rather than an actual physical place where men do physical things with their bodies (such as work or acts of charity). But perhaps I am reading you wrong. Sorry if I have.

In your view what is the reason for having a physically resurrected body? Angels can engage in unending praise and contemplation. . . one need not have a physical body to do those things. If God intends for us to be fundamentally different creatures at the end of time why give us bodies at all (let alone the same body that we have here and now)?

I don't know if we will have countries, governments, companies, jobs, "society", sports clubs, movie theaters etc. in heaven. But I don't see why not. God created us as physical beings with unique personalities, cultures, talents, preferences, etc. and enabled us to express ourselves in different ways, create, and experience those things. The fact that we will share in the beatific vision and therefore have perfect happiness does not necessarily exclude them. They will not be in competition with God, or take away from our union with God, but rather, they will be things that bring glory to Him. We will love our neighbor perfectly and welcome our neighbor into our home or our land and that will bring glory to God.

If that is the case then it seems to me that we should be attempting to do the same thing here and now.

[Nihil Obstat]

Hm. No, I very strongly disagree that there will be anything resembling society in heaven/post-general judgement. If someone shows me a Patristic commentary to the contrary I will happily change my view, but I have not seen it.

There is nothing higher than contemplation and praise of God in His presence. No 'personality', no culture, no talent, no preference is meaningful or in fact even valuable if it is not from God, thus if it is not from God it will be burned away, and if it is from God it will be experienced directly in His presence.

Our bodies are created by God and are therefore fundamentally good, therefore it is good and right that we will be reunited with them in the resurrection. But it does not follow that we need to use our bodies for 'society-like things' after the resurrection. Like everything else, the ultimate purpose for our bodies is to praise God. After the judgement there is nothing else, simply eternal life in His presence. What else could there be?

[Jack4]

10 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Hm. No, I very strongly disagree that there will be anything resembling society in heaven/post-general judgement. If someone shows me a Patristic commentary to the contrary I will happily change my view, but I have not seen it.

There is nothing higher than contemplation and praise of God in His presence. No 'personality', no culture, no talent, no preference is meaningful or in fact even valuable if it is not from God, thus if it is not from God it will be burned away, and if it is from God it will be experienced directly in His presence.

Our bodies are created by God and are therefore fundamentally good, therefore it is good and right that we will be reunited with them in the resurrection. But it does not follow that we need to use our bodies for 'society-like things' after the resurrection. Like everything else, the ultimate purpose for our bodies is to praise God. After the judgement there is nothing else, simply eternal life in His presence. What else could there be?

I agree. The Kingdom of God is not food and drink. 

10 hours ago, Peace said:

It sounds as though you perceive heaven to be some zen-like state rather than an actual physical place where men do physical things with their bodies (such as work or acts of charity). 

After the Last Judgement, which works of charity will remain, in your opinion? 

 

Quote

In your view what is the reason for having a physically resurrected body?

My soul =/= me

My soul + My body = Me

 

Quote

Angels can engage in unending praise and contemplation. . . one need not have a physical body to do those things. If God intends for us to be fundamentally different creatures at the end of time why give us bodies at all (let alone the same body that we have here and now)?

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/143019-why-does-god/

 

[Peace]

 

@Nihil Obstat

Your view seems to take an overly narrow view of praise, and to set God at competition with His creation in a certain sense. “Society-like” things such as our work or acts of loving charity can at the same time be things that we enjoy and bring us pleasure, and things that also bring glory to God. Things like painting the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, for example, would fall into that category. And I do not see why more everyday things like having a friendly conversation with a loved one do not also bring glory to God.

Let’s say that God creates a million stars, or a mountain range. I go out and marvel at their beauty. I marvel at the beautiful things that God has created. I recognize his love for beauty and his magnificent design. My recognition and enjoyment of the things God has created gives glory to God.

Let’s say that you have two palaces. In the first palace there is no art on the walls. There is no music. There are no people there to welcome you. The palace contains nothing but an empty room with the King sitting in the center.  On the other hand, when you enter the second palace, on the way to see the King you stop to look at the exquisite art on the walls. You stop to listen to the magnificent orchestra. You see that there are children playing happily, and that there are people all around enjoying themselves in sport and other forms of recreation. Then you enter the room of the King, who has made possible the art, the orchestra, the sports, etc. and delights in them. Which King is more glorious? Your new Earth seems to be like the first palace, while my new Earth is like the second palace.

Those who share in the beatific vision have infinite happiness, but I don’t see why you conclude that this must therefore exclude all things material or render them superfluous. For one, we will have our perfected physical bodies, and there is joy and happiness to be found in that. Wouldn’t you find joy in being reunited with a lost loved one? Seeing him or her again? These are not things that take away from or distract from the infinite happiness that you find in the beatific vision. They are ultimately good things given to us by God, and they add to or complement the infinite happiness that is found in the beatific vision.

I took a look through the last part of the supplement to the Summa. It certainly does not say anything like “Peace will play a game of basketball with his younger brother in Heaven” but I think there are a few things in the Summa that suggest that there is more to post-resurrection life than the beatific vision itself.

For example, Q 93. Art. 1 asks "Whether the happiness of the saints will be greater after the judgment than before?" The author concludes that:

Quote

On the contrary, A gloss on Apocalypse 6:9, "I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain," says: "At present the souls of the saints are under the altar, i.e. less exalted than they will be." Therefore their happiness will be greater after the resurrection than after their death.

Further, just as happiness is bestowed on the good as a reward, so is unhappiness awarded to the wicked. But the unhappiness of the wicked after reunion with their bodies will be greater than before, since they will be punished not only in the soul but also in the body. Therefore the happiness of the saints will be greater after the resurrection of the body than before.

Here, one of the objections seems to match your line of thinking (that because man will share in the beatific vision, there is nothing else beyond that which could contribute to his happiness):

Quote

Objection 4. Further, nothing can be greater than the infinite, and so the addition of the finite to the infinite does not result in something greater than the infinite by itself. Now the beatified soul before its reunion with the body is rendered happy by rejoicing in the infinite good, namely God; and after the resurrection of the body it will rejoice in nothing else except perhaps the glory of the body, and this is a finite good. Therefore their joy after the resumption of the body will not be greater than before.

Here is how the author responds to that objection:

Quote

Reply to Objection 4. Although finite added to infinite does not make a greater thing, it makes more things, since finite and infinite are two things, while infinite taken by itself is one. Now the greater extent of joy regards not a greater thing but more things. Wherefore joy is increased in extent, through referring to God and to the body's glory, in comparison with the joy which referred to God. Moreover, the body's glory will conduce to the intensity of the joy that refers to God, in so far as it will conduce to the more perfect operation whereby the soul tends to God: since the more perfect is a becoming operation, the greater the delight [Cf. I-II:32:1], as stated in Ethic. x, 8.

At least as far as I understand it, the author indicates that although the joy experienced by the saints in the beatific vision is infinite, they will nevertheless experience a greater extent of joy through the body's physical glorification at the resurrection.

The idea that you can take from this is that although the joy that man experiences through the beatific vision is infinite, it does not exclude him from experiencing joy by other means as well. We experience infinite joy through the beatific vision, but that does not preclude joy from other (more "material") sources as well, such as the body’s glorification.

The Summa also speaks to the idea of experiencing God in different manners after the resurrection – intellectually through the beatific vision, but also indirectly through the interaction of our physical senses with His material creation. One does not seem to exclude the other, but rather they seem to complement each other.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5091.htm

Quote

I answer that, We believe all corporeal things to have been made for man's sake, wherefore all things are stated to be subject to him [Psalm 8:5, seqq.]. Now they serve man in two ways, first, as sustenance to his bodily life, secondly, as helping him to know God, inasmuch as man sees the invisible things of God by the things that are made (Romans 1:20). Accordingly glorified man will nowise need creatures to render him the first of these services, since his body will be altogether incorruptible, the Divine power effecting this through the soul which it will glorify immediately. Again man will not need the second service as to intellective knowledge, since by that knowledge he will see God immediately in His essence. The carnal eye, however, will be unable to attain to this vision of the Essence; wherefore that it may be fittingly comforted in the vision of God, it will see the Godhead in Its corporeal effects, wherein manifest proofs of the Divine majesty will appear, especially in Christ's flesh, and secondarily in the bodies of the blessed, and afterwards in all other bodies. Hence those bodies also will need to receive a greater inflow from the Divine goodness than now, not indeed so as to change their species, but so as to add a certain perfection of glory: and such will be the renewal of the world. Wherefore at the one same time, the world will be renewed, and man will be glorified.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5092.htm

Quote

I say then that God can nowise be seen with the eyes of the body, or perceived by any of the senses, as that which is seen directly, neither here, nor in heaven: for if that which belongs to sense as such be removed from sense, there will be no sense, and in like manner if that which belongs to sight as sight be removed therefrom, there will be no sight. Accordingly seeing that sense as sense perceives magnitude, and sight as such a sense perceives color, it is impossible for the sight to perceive that which is neither color nor magnitude, unless we call it a sense equivocally. Since then sight and sense will be specifically the same in the glorified body, as in a non-glorified body, it will be impossible for it to see the Divine essence as an object of direct vision; yet it will see it as an object of indirect vision, because on the one hand the bodily sight will see so great a glory of God in bodies, especially in the glorified bodies and most of all in the body of Christ, and, on the other hand, the intellect will see God so clearly, that God will be perceived in things seen with the eye of the body, even as life is perceived in speech. For although our intellect will not then see God from seeing His creatures, yet it will see God in His creatures seen corporeally. This manner of seeing God corporeally is indicated by Augustine (De Civ. Dei xxii), as is clear if we take note of his words, for he says: "It is very credible that we shall so see the mundane bodies of the new heaven and the new earth, as to see most clearly God everywhere present, governing all corporeal things, not as we now see the invisible things of God as understood by those that are made, but as when we see men . . . we do not believe but see that they live."

Edited January 22, 2017 by Peace

[Nihil Obstat]

I will be reading this in more detail later today, but I may not be able to put my response together until tomorrow. 

[havok579257]

On 1/21/2017 at 2:39 PM, Socrates said:

Again, it appears you have no clue how the immigration system works.  No foreign person is granted U.S. citizenship at the border (nor, to my knowledge, is anyone granted citizenship of any other nation that way).

Being allowed to enter the U.S. over the border as a visitor (requiring only a visa, passport, or such), being allowed to live and work in the U.S. as a permanent legal resident (green card holder), and being granted U.S. citizenship are three separate things.

If you aren't a U.S. citizen by birth, you must legally live in the U.S. as a green card holder for at least five years before applying for citizenship (though it can be faster for spouses of U.S. citizens and those serving in the military).

And, as I pointed out earlier, you can appeal at an immigration court, if you believe you are being wrongly denied legal status or such.

You may not like this system, but that's how it works, and I don't think you can honestly claim the U.S.'s immigration laws are inherently unjust, and that people have a moral obligation to disobey them.  The Catechism states that immigrants must respect their host country's laws, and that nations have the right to place conditions on citizenship.

I will have to re-read up on this because I may have misunderstood the point I was trying to make.  I will have to get back to your response later.

[Nihil Obstat]

On 1/22/2017 at 2:03 PM, Nihil Obstat said:

I will be reading this in more detail later today, but I may not be able to put my response together until tomorrow. 

Yeah, I should be more realistic, this is not happening. Not that the debate is not a good one, but I simply do not have the requisite energy to continue. Classes always take more out of me than I anticipate.

[Peace]

12 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Yeah, I should be more realistic, this is not happening. Not that the debate is not a good one, but I simply do not have the requisite energy to continue. Classes always take more out of me than I anticipate.

Good luck with the classes.

[Nihil Obstat]

I appreciate it. They are good classes, but one of them (Special Topics in Philosophy of Science: Scientific Practice) really pushes my current skill level.

Edited January 26, 2017 by Nihil Obstat