JustJ Posted July 13, 2008 Share Posted July 13, 2008 (edited) [quote name='Galloglasses' post='1599313' date='Jul 13 2008, 05:20 PM']Thanks for derailing the topic JustJ[/quote] I'm not derailing the topic. My posts were directly related to his argument which was very much on topic. As such, my posts were on topic, discussing his post. I just like to make long strings of questions like that where I lead someone through the logic spaced out among many posts, allowing people to agree or disagree at each step, keeping me accurate and spotting any errors in my logic before it is published in a potentially flawed form. When I do eventually tie it all up, it becomes clear that I am on topic in that I'm still discussing a post in the thread. Just give me some time to get there. Edited July 13, 2008 by JustJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galloglasses Posted July 13, 2008 Author Share Posted July 13, 2008 Which in turn, leads the topic away from the point and into a battlefield of your own terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustJ Posted July 13, 2008 Share Posted July 13, 2008 (edited) [quote name='Galloglasses' post='1599337' date='Jul 13 2008, 05:41 PM']Which in turn, leads the topic away from the point and into a battlefield of your own terms.[/quote] It allows me to be stopped before I make a mistake. Is there any reason I shouldn't do that? Edit: And how is this a bad thing in any way that it is "on my terms" (id est, a rather advantageous position for me to take)? If I'm going to seriously attack any line of logic, I would rather do it methodically and fully break it down into each individual piece, examine it individually as well as in the context of the whole, and allow someone else who disagrees with me to double-check me at every step of the way. It is the only honest and the most comprehensive way I can think of to look at any argument. Edited July 13, 2008 by JustJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted July 13, 2008 Share Posted July 13, 2008 [quote name='JustJ' post='1599326' date='Jul 13 2008, 04:34 PM']Me: You said that "Angels are Spirit and Will. They have no corporeal form, so it's not going to happen." The Holy Spirit is Spirit and Will. It has no corporeal form. Therefore, your argument is invalid. Your conclusion is correct, but I'm trying to show you why that is not a good enough explanation.[/quote] The Holy Spirit is the 3rd being of God, who is uncreated. The Angels are spirits but they are still creatures, created without the ability to reproduce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustJ Posted July 13, 2008 Share Posted July 13, 2008 [quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1599345' date='Jul 13 2008, 05:46 PM']The Holy Spirit is the 3rd being of God, who is uncreated. The Angels are spirits but they are still creatures, created without the ability to reproduce.[/quote] This is a valid argument (if you accept the standard of faith and the bible, which is not the topic, and as such, it would be better for me to argue it somewhere else). Good job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted July 13, 2008 Share Posted July 13, 2008 [quote name='JustJ' post='1599346' date='Jul 13 2008, 04:47 PM']This is a valid argument (if you accept the standard of faith and the bible, which is not the topic, and as such, it would be better for me to argue it somewhere else). Good job. [/quote] Thanks buddy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted July 13, 2008 Share Posted July 13, 2008 Disclaimer: I am going to use biological terms in attempting to deal with serious spiritual matters, and what is probably the most serious of all, the Incarnation. in no way should this be seen as demeaning the Incarnation of God's mechanism for causing it, nor does any error in my presentation intentionally deny the Dogmas of the Catholic Church. Any truth is Gods; and error, my own. Nor should any of this be perceived as intentionally condescending. I think I have to build my argument. Angelic beings, which include both angels and demons, are spirit and will. They lack any material form. They haven't any DNA. Being creatures, they are incapable of creation, though we don't know the scope of their ability to affect the physical world, or the depth of their understanding. Humans are spirit and body. We have DNA and the capability of reproduction. Our physical attributes are made up of existing matter--determined in form by DNA, environment, nutrition, etcetera. Our souls are not material, hence they are not something readily in existence to manipulate. Our souls make us human. We do not know the time of ensoulment. Jesus Christ is wholly Man and wholly God. He has a human soul. He is not merely a God driven machine, a golem, if you like. God had to create that soul, which is human and therefore in possession of free will. Without the soul, God would never have been man. The mechanics of Mary's becoming with child are a mystery. We know she remained a virgin--there was no sexual act which resulted in her bearing a child. Virginity is not merely wrapped up in the physical retention of the hyman, so it was not sex that caused her to be with child, hence my reluctance to use the term "impregnate" because that indicates the sex act. Now. Angels have not physical form. They cannot pass along DNA. Their souls are not human souls and souls do not possess any physicality--souls are created and no creature is capable of creation, but instead must work with what is already in existence, whether matter or energy, to accomplish tasks. Were we able to create matter, we would still be left with the problem of creating a soul. It is beyond the powers of angelic beings to create souls. If an angel had the understanding and the capability to cause a woman's pregnancy, by whatever means, he would not be capable of passing along some angelic nature because there is no physicality in angelic nature. Nor would the angel be able to create an angelic soul to inhabit the human as creation of souls is God's power alone. Demons are capable of possession. A possessed person could, in theory impregnate a woman. This would result in a human child. The human soul would have as one of its faculties, free will. It would be wrong to terminate a human pregnancy, no matter its origins. I know of nothing that would prevent a demon from possessing a fetus, barring the Will of God. But even then, this would be a possessed human and a procured abortion would still be morally wrong. If an angelic being caused a pregnancy and had the understanding to influence the development in such a way as to insure psychosis, the human soul would still have the faculty of free will, no matter the impediment provided by chemical imbalaces in the brain. This would be a human, and we would have no right to terminate the pregnancy. Christ's human soul is human. His body is human. He is also God. No part of Christ's human nature possesses a "God" DNA. Nor did God possess a human and steer the human about like a puppet. Christ's human and God nature are united--it's called the hypostatic union, if I remember. For an angel to accomplish something analogous, he would have to be capable of creating a soul, which he is not, and it would have to have the characteristics of the angelic nature, which do not include the presence of a body, or it would have to be like Jesus, with an angelic and human nature. The creation of angels is finished. God, being the only one capable of such creation, won't be making any more. This leaves only the possibility of a human soul, which would have to be created by God. Any human life resulting by the intervention of an angel would be a human, not an angel, and abortion would be unacceptable. But a demon could always lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted July 13, 2008 Share Posted July 13, 2008 Or you could go with Knight of Christ's more succinct answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted July 14, 2008 Share Posted July 14, 2008 Yeah, contrary to Hollywood, angels (including devils) can't reproduce. But, like some movie reviewer I read said, "According to Hollywood, Satan's chief preoccupation is fathering more offspring than Kevin Federline." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted July 14, 2008 Share Posted July 14, 2008 I hope no one minds, but I want to 'derail the topic' on different terms. Accepting that angels (ergo demons) cannot biologically reproduce, how do we believe the antichrist will come into the world? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted July 14, 2008 Share Posted July 14, 2008 the antichrist will be an ordinary human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustJ Posted July 14, 2008 Share Posted July 14, 2008 (edited) Hitler and Nero were, as far as I'm aware of, regular humans. Edit: so I'm saying it's not like humans can't be pretty evil without needing some demonic lineage. Edited July 14, 2008 by JustJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted July 14, 2008 Share Posted July 14, 2008 [quote name='JustJ' post='1599742' date='Jul 14 2008, 01:56 AM']Hitler and Nero were, as far as I'm aware of, regular humans. Edit: so I'm saying it's not like humans can't be pretty evil without needing some demonic lineage.[/quote] Hitler, and Nero where thought to be possessed by the demonic. But no, not born of the devil. The Antichrist would be possessed by Satan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aalpha1989 Posted July 14, 2008 Share Posted July 14, 2008 [quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1599745' date='Jul 14 2008, 03:01 AM']Hitler, and Nero where thought to be possessed by the demonic. But no, not born of the devil. The Antichrist would be possessed by Satan.[/quote] I think nero was pretty messed up, anyway, what with the incest in the roman imperial line... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galloglasses Posted July 14, 2008 Author Share Posted July 14, 2008 Hitler was a political genius in his early years, but then driven mad by a mixture of severe paranoia, delusions and drugs. Nero however, I dunno, he seemed pretty crasy to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now