Total posts: 330
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
My understand of privation is that one's needs and wants are simply unavailable, and that this is a constant, i.e., never has been, is not, and never will be available. Death is deprivation; i.e., needs and wants have been and are available, but ultimately will not be available, primarily because body systems do not sustain throughout life. At a cellular nucleus level, the telomeres, the protective "sleeves" at the ends of the DNA double helix in each nucleus breaks down and cannot be repaired, interrupting normal bodily function, allowing aging and death to occur; something I endure, now., on my way to ultimate demise
A privation in philosophy is a lacking of proper being. Meaning it cannot exists by itself. Death is such. Evil is such. To say God created death is to say God created nothing.
y "imperfect purpose," I mean that God did not create perfect systems, and that was not a failure, but for a purpose. His purpose was for us, by free agency and dominion, to figure out how to improve the imperfections we were given. Simple example. God made a simple box, and this represents the Earth and all that is n it, for our use. Ir has a bottom and four perpendicular sides. Maybe the sides are not all the same size, or some sides have holes in them. It's our job to apply critical thinking to improve the box, ultimately to be a better container to protect all that is in it - maybe even by adding a lid. We are supposed to return Earth to God, beiter than we were given, thus proving our willingness to be obedient to him, and to improve ourselves [who are also imperfect] and our box.
Ok so purpose is imperfect because it is not yet completed. Ok that's fine. I do not disagree with that.
Sure it is. Get a sharper pencil with an infinitely smaller point. Why do we restrict ourselves thinking up [poorly] that we are limited? Why think that? "The greatest sin is to limit the Is. Don't" - Richard Bach. One idea is to consider perfection as a process rather than a destination. Some things we do are already done perfectly. The trick is to agh capability - an infinite process, not ever fully achieved. God is just further along on the same path. His God is father along than him, because we have progressively sharper pencils. And so on...
No, infinite regress is impossible. We can talk of hypothetical things in certain realms of knowledge like mathematics being infinite, but those are only analytical and not real and are limited by what we are studying.
Also, a thing is what it is. that puts a limit on it. Also, matter is limited by how it is organized. That puts a limit on it. We are limited by what we are meant to do (you cannot do everything in a lifetime). We also have only two parents and come from one place ultimately. That is a limit.
We are defined by our limits. That is not a bad thing. In fact, If I did not have limits I would never rest content in a job well done, or in a life full of hard work and love for my family and spouse. I think the best thing in life is actually finding out that your limits went farther than you expected. But I would certainly be discouraged if there was no end or if I never found that limit. There is a saying that is rather stupid in my opinion: "There is no finish line." Which first makes me wonder why they put the period at the end of that quote and then why would anyone run that kind of metaphorical race? We act for an end. Always.
There is a book called "Who designed the Designer?" by Michael Augros. I think you would find it very fascinating.
God has to have always been God in order to be God.Who says that's his condition? Do they know what they're talking about, or is this just poor critical thinking? Progress What's wrong with a progressing God who is more perfect today than he was yesterday, last year, last epoque, last... We progress, don't we? I'm smarter and more cap[able than I was twenty years ago, ands so on... Why not God? Does God always act with all the power in his possession, or only the power needed to do stuff? Some stuff is more difficult that other stuff, just as we encounter stuff to do.
Aristotle said that in his Metaphysics Book XII when discussing God.
The thing is this. If you cannot see that there is an end, then of course, you will see God as something that can change. But that means that God is not All-Perfect, All-Knowing, All-Powerful and All-Loving. That means He is not God.
When We speak of God we speak of absolute, perfect and complete Being itself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
What do you think death is?
Not a creation. It is what we call a privation in philosophy. They cannot be created ex nihilo. they have to be caused in something.
The entire creation of heaven and earth is to an interim, imperfect purpose, to be resolved by our efforts in free agency and dominion to return a heaven and earth, and all in it/them to God in perfection.
Now this is definitely more fascinating! I do not mean that sarcastically I am actually quite interested in what you mean here.
The thing is when you say: "imperfect purpose" that could mean two things. Imperfect in its becoming or imperfect in it being known. Or more simply: imperfect because it hasn't happened yet or imperfect because we do not know the end in its entirety. Which do you mean?
This is an eternally repeating process. God was once likes us; imperfect, and mortal. He also had a God in a heaven above him, who created his "heaven and earth... and so on...
This definitely wrong because one: infinite regress is not possible. Two: God has to have always been God in order to be God. One does not become God. That is not possible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Interesting. So God created something imperfect? How do you explain that one when it would imply an imperfection on His part which mean He would not be God?
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Why does free will have to be something material? Your whole argument rests on the a priori assumption that it is something material. Is there a reason why?
Created:
Dang.
I wanted to debate you at some point.
Chow!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I do not concede to your statements. Obviously.
Your bold assertions are at best amusing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
If you want to discuss philosophy, sure. Many philosophers were literally insane. Zeno made pointless arguments about how movement is impossible. Plato believed that you cant actually learn anything except what you already know. Aristotle believed in the existence of soul and made some works of fiction about it. To put it simply, philosophers dont seek truth. They seek to be absurd and mock general knowledge. Philosophers arent really something you go for when seeking truth.
Yeah, this post shows a lot about how much philosophy you understand. Maybe if you stopped half-assing your pursuit of knowledge with superficial AI summaries and actually took the time to study philosophy you would realize how stupid this post is.
By the way, the method of science is based on a certain philosophy of knowledge.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@baggins
I understand what you are saying, but my whole point is that I do not see it as faith unless there is authority or credibility behind it. Of course people have used it other ways but I do not consider that faith.
I understand you are trying to give a definition that fits all uses of the word, but that is not the point if this thread. Not to mention that general definitions while helpful are not limiting the word to its exact meaning.
There are different degrees of defining something. The point of this thread was to find out what exactly you mean by faith.
If you simply mean it as "a belief without certitude" fine, not a problem. That is not what I see it as.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@baggins
That is the whole point of a definition. To put a limit to what you you mean by a word. When it comes to definitions a limitation is a clarification. That was the whole idea behind word "definition" - "de fine": concerning the limits/ends
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@baggins
Well yeah obviously it can be different from person to person, but that does not mean it cannot be in a definition.
To me, to accept something as true from someone who has no credibility or authority on what they are saying is not faith, but stupidity.
Not to mention you can define things differently. You can define it by material cause- which is the weakest of definitions, efficient cause which is next, final cause which is good but not complete and formal cause which is a metaphysical (or close to it) definition.
I totally disagree it cannot be in a definition. In fact, I would argue adding details like that further clarifies how someone is using the word.
There is no way I could go and check every single thing scientists say. It is impossible to go and check all the evidence they have gathered. I take it on faith, because of their authority. As soon as they go out of their league, I am immediately more suspicious.
Certain things too, we accept based on authority. Like history documents or that I was born on this day. That to me is still faith.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@baggins
Interesting.
Why do you think someone could not reasonably put in, say authority or credibility in the definition of faith?
Created:
Posted in:
I would define faith as to accept the veracity of a statement based on the authority and/or credibility of the one who makes the statement.
What would you define it as?
Created:
Posted in:
I do bot think it is an assumption based on a set of collective criteria (a phrase which seems a little ambiguous).
Don't get me wrong, I do think there is a subjective element to the question of right or wrong, but that does not mean there can't be something objective to it also.
Regardless of ones perception, murder is still always wrong, for example. There is no amount of collective criteria that can change that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
person does something, the right or wrong of it is an assumption based upon a set of collective criteria.
This one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I dont really think that. A collective ruling can still be wrong.
Practically speaking, this understanding would be disastrous for society. Common sense dictates it cannot be the right idea.
I certainly do not accept this idea of yours.
Practically speaking, this understanding would be disastrous for society. Common sense dictates it cannot be the right idea.
I certainly do not accept this idea of yours.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Ok, it was as I thought.
I would definitely disagree with that idea of goodness.
Your idea of it is purely subjective, giving it no real foundation in reality as seperate from our mind.
That would fall into the "good to him but not to me" problem which destroys any basis to morality and not to mention puts on the same level as opinion a things worth in existence. There alot of problems with that. If I apply that practically I could say that this person, who has done nothing wrong, should be murdered because I think it is good.
That is the problem of taking an objective thing and making it subjective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Definitely your definition of nature.
Other ones like beauty and evil are not really a definition.
Your definition of goodness does not seem to explain what it is.
The other ones all give me the impression you think reality is a computer which is highly debatable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I read your definitions.
This thread was for those on this sight to give their definitions of these common philosophical terms.
I did not ignore them. I read them. They help me when reading your debates to understand what you are saying.
We could discuss them if you wished as I see more than enough in them to discuss, but I will leave that up to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Do you have definitions of the the list I gave at the beginning of this thread?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Why don't you show everyone on this sight you have at least are not trolling and give a definition (or description if you cant quite put it in a definition) of the list I gave at the beginning of this thread, which is what this thread is for.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
1 Animals don’t have free will but can choose to do whatever they want without consequences. Humans have free will but have to face consequences for their actions. We forgive our pets when they do something wrong. But hold our neighbours fully responsible for their actions.2 Animals go to heaven because Jesus died for their sins. But humans are not guaranteed to go to heaven unless they accept Jesus died for their sins too.3 Jesus like animals had no free will He had to follow Gods instructions. Therefore like animals he was not held accountable for his actions.4 By accepting Jesus we become like animals. We give up our free will and follow his instructions.5 But once in heaven we will still control our animals.
You should change your profile to pseudo-catholic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Do you understand what "truth" and "relative" mean?
Truth itself has to be objective. Man's perception of truth is something different.
If you accept that something is, then you have to accept an objective veracity attributed to it.
If not, everything you say is stupid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Truth is relative.
If that is true, then there is a truth that applies to all people.
Use a little common sense please.
If this is your philosophy then you are hopeless. it is a self-contradicting statement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
There is no such thing as truth, since people dont have all knowledge.
Is that true?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
what is Hughes' reference? The quote you gave is Hughes explaining St. Thomas in his own words. What is the reference from St. Thomas he is using?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
St Thomas Aquinas repeatedly used the word same/sameness when comparing the three.
No. He did not. Because he was speaking philosophically.
The quote you gave is from Hughes. I dont know how else to say this but. St. Thomas Aquinas is not Hughes. Make sense?
God the Father is a title given to God in Christian...
No. God the Father is a title given to the first Person who shares the nature of God with two other Persons. That is not to say the same thing as they are all each other because they are all God. That is sabellionism.
Therefore God the father is the son and is the Holy Spirit, and that these are not three but one God.
How does this conclude from what I said???????
You are digging yourself deeper by trying to impose what YOU think the correct answer is. Not a very good catholic spirit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
The video you posted is people screaming in English. Which means it is not of Fatima, because Fatima is in Portugal...
So how does this, or other videos discredit the Miracle of the Sun???? Because some crazy people think they see a miracle when it is not, therefore all sun miracles are false?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
There is nothing about the trinity that is determined by nature or even considered natural.
He is using the word "natural" analogically. You would have known that if you understood what he was talking about.
Thomas Aquinas' Trinitarian theology has been criticized as proposing an abstract notion of God that is divorced from salvation history and that is supported by tedious and ultimately incomprehensible explication.
Says who? You? The Council of Trent did not seem to think so.
What is the nature of someone mean?Someone's nature is their character, which they show by the way they behave. Just how do the managers harness their energy, rivalry and ambitious nature into winning teamwork? She trusted people. That was her nature. Synonyms: temperament, character, personality, disposition More Synonyms of nature.
That is not what it means in philosophy or theology. Further showing you don't know what you are talking about.
God the Father is a title given to God in Christianity. In mainstream trinitarian Christianity, God the Father is regarded as the first Person of the Trinity. It is a title given to God.
"God" is a term that is universally applied to the Three persons. However, when you apply it to one you are saying that person has the nature of God. Saying: "God the Father" is a particular and then to say "is a title applied to God" You are using the term "God" here universally. To then go from there to say that "God the Father is God the Son" is to say two particulars are the same thing because of a universal nature. That is a fallacy.
The first says there is no real distinction in Persons.
This is what I said and the "the first" refers to your post #143:
Therefore God the father is the son and is the Holy Spirit, and that these are not three but one God.
So I was referencing you as I said.
Note even Jesus calls God the Father
Yeah, when he was referring to the First Person of the Trinity. I am not saying The First Person is not God. I am saying the Second Person is not God the Father because that is what the church teaches.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Suppositum Definition: Something supposed to be true; an assumption. Suppositum Latin From the past participle of supponere, to suppose.
No. That is not what it means.
Sub ponere. To be placed under.
It developed into the latin word supponere which has the primary meaning of "to place under"
Which transfered to the philosophical meaning of that which is placed under the appearances of something or substance. In other words: what the thing is. Which is determined by nature. So yes,
He was talking about nature. St. Thomas assumes you have already read his philosophical works and can tell when he is talking about certain concepts in A treatise about God. Which further points to the fact that you haven't studied this, because you don't understand what is being said.
You did not complete the sentence God the father is the son and is the Holy Spirit. God the father means god is the father.
"God the Father" is the combination of words referring to the First person of the Trinity.
"God is the Father" means we are applying a nature to a person.
THEY DO NOT MEAN THE SAME THING.
This tells me you haven't studied the basic philosophy and logic or theology behind this.
The first says there is no real distinction in Persons.”
This is referring to what YOU said.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
means only a distinction of "suppositum";
He is speaking here of a suppositum which is a philosophical concept that means a real distinct being having a nature. You and I are suppositums of a human nature.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Difference between what is true as an assumption.
No. That is not what it means. That is most certainly not what St. Thomas means either.
God the father is the son and is the Holy Spirit...
does not mean:
God is the father,
Do you speak English?!?!?!?!
If all 3 persons have the same nature. There is no distinction in persons, they have the same nature.
Wrong again showing you are either making stuff up and doing google searches to try and justify yourself. Nature is not the same thing as personhood. You and I have the same nature, but we are not the same person.
You cannot even grasp the concept of the Trinity.
I never said I could. Nor did I say anything that says I have.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Firstly we are discussing theology and not philosophy. The word distinct does not appear in St Thomas Aquinas thesis. The word same/sameness is repeated throughout his article.
All of Theology is studied under the light of philosophy. If it isn't it becomes sentimental.
This does not address St Thomas Aquinas use of the word same/sameness in describing the Trinity.
He is using that idea in the Respondeo. Do you know how to follow ideas when you read? Just because he is not using the term "sameness" does not mean he is not talking about it.
St Thomas Aquinas sees the same sameness in the Trinity.
In divinity, not in personhood
Aquinas says that the alleged consequence would follow only if the persons were the same both in thing and in concept. But they are not; they are merely the same thing.This move is puzzling. Aquinas holds that the three are not merely similar or derived from the same source, but are in some strong sense the same, but not identical (i.e. numerically the same) which he appears to understand as sameness in both thing and concept. Even this last is surprising; one would think that for Aquinas “sameness in thing” just is identity, and that “sameness in concept” would mean that we apply the same concept to some apparent things (whether or not they are in fact one or many). Christopher Hughes holds that Aquinas is simply confused, his desire for orthodoxy having led him into this (and other) necessary falsehoods. On Hughes’s reading, Aquinas does think of “sameness in thing” as identity, but he incoherently holds it to be non-transitive (i.e. if A and B are identical, and B and C are identical, it doesn’t follow that A and C are identical), while in some contexts assuming (correctly) that it is transitive (Hughes 1989, 217–40).
You can copy and paste and bold all you want. Hughes is profoundly missing the point as so many other Thomists philosophers have pointed out.
Lets do a little experiment:
means only a distinction of "suppositum";
What does this mean? Do you know? Do you actually understand what he is saying here?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Aquinas says that the alleged consequence would follow only if the persons were the same both in thing and in concept. But they are not; they are merely the same thing.This move is puzzling. Aquinas holds that the three are not merely similar or derived from the same source, but are in some strong sense the same, but not identical (i.e. numerically the same) which he appears to understand as sameness in both thing and concept. Even this last is surprising; one would think that for Aquinas “sameness in thing” just is identity, and that “sameness in concept” would mean that we apply the same concept to some apparent things (whether or not they are in fact one or many). Christopher Hughes holds that Aquinas is simply confused, his desire for orthodoxy having led him into this (and other) necessary falsehoods. On Hughes’s reading, Aquinas does think of “sameness in thing” as identity, but he incoherently holds it to be non-transitive (i.e. if A and B are identical, and B and C are identical, it doesn’t follow that A and C are identical), while in some contexts assuming (correctly) that it is transitive (Hughes 1989, 217–40).
I have heard of Professor Hughes and there are many Thomists who disagree with him on his understanding of Thomistic Doctrine.
Gardail
Grenier
Hugon
to name a few...
I answer that, Since as Jerome remarks [In substance, Ep. lvii.], a heresy arises from words wrongly used, when we speak of the Trinity we must proceed with care and with befitting modesty; because, as Augustine says (De Trin. i, 3), "nowhere is error more harmful, the quest more toilsome, the finding more fruitful." Now, in treating of the Trinity, we must beware of two opposite errors, and proceed cautiously between them—namely, the error of Arius, who placed a Trinity of substance with the Trinity of persons; and the error of Sabellius, who placed unity of person with the unity of essence.
Thus, to avoid the error of Arius we must shun the use of the terms diversity and difference in God, lest we take away the unity of essence: we may, however, use the term "distinction" on account of the relative opposition. Hence whenever we find terms of "diversity" or "difference" of Persons used in an authentic work, these terms of "diversity" or "difference" are taken to mean "distinction." But lest the simplicity and singleness of the divine essence be taken away, the terms "separation" and "division," which belong to the parts of a whole, are to be avoided: and lest quality be taken away, we avoid the use of the term "disparity": and lest we remove similitude, we avoid the terms "alien" and "discrepant." For Ambrose says (De Fide i) that "in the Father and the Son there is no discrepancy, but one Godhead": and according to Hilary, as quoted above, "in God there is nothing alien, nothing separable."
To avoid the heresy of Sabellius, we must shun the term "singularity," lest we take away the communicability of the divine essence. Hence Hilary says (De Trin. vii): "It is sacrilege to assert that the Father and the Son are separate in Godhead." We must avoid the adjective "only" [unici] lest we take away the number of persons. Hence Hilary says in the same book: "We exclude from God the idea of singularity or uniqueness." Nevertheless, we say "the only Son," for in God there is no plurality of Sons. Yet, we do not say "the only God," for the Deity is common to several. We avoid the word "confused," lest we take away from the Persons the order of their nature. Hence Ambrose says (De Fide i): "What is one is not confused; and there is no multiplicity where there is no difference." The word "solitary" is also to be avoided, lest we take away the society of the three persons; for, as Hilary says (De Trin. iv), "We confess neither a solitary nor a diverse God."
This word "other" [alius], however, in the masculine sense, means only a distinction of "suppositum"; and hence we can properly say that "the Son is other than the Father," because He is another "suppositum" of the divine nature, as He is another person and another hypostasis.
St. Thomas is very clear here, if you understand the terms he is using from philosophy. The Persons are distinct and not each other.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Are you going to ignore Jesus and the Holy Spirit?
God will give you the grace if you do your part.
God does not just drop knowledge into our brains. We have to do our part in studying and reading what other great saints have said and done before us.
God also expects us to follow the teaching of the Catholic Church because He gave Her the authority to do so. He expects us to study and love our faith.
You have a Sola Scriptura attitude which is a protestant attitude.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Read your Bible.
I do.
I think I will stick with an actually approved Theologian of the Catholic Church to explain the teaching that the Catholic Church safeguards regarding the Bible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Your source should be the Bible and Jesus.
The authority behind the bible is the Catholic Church who has the mission to safeguard its true meaning. If the Church gives approval to someone's interpretation and explanation as they have with St. Thomas Aquinas, that interpretation and explanation is accepted as an authority right after the bible and carries the weight of the Church's authority. That is why they put the Summa Theologica on the Altar with the bible at the beginning of the Council of Trent.
So unless you want to deny The Church's authority, you might want to think twice about throwing out St. Thomas' work. I think he knows better than you do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
God the father is the son and is the Holy Spirit...
does not say the same thing as:
God is Father, God is Son, and God is Holy Spirit...
The first says there is no real distinction in Persons.
The second says All 3 Persons have the same nature.
Doesn’t look like you read it yourself.
Doesn't look like you can read.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Summa Theologica Prima Pars, Question 31, article 2.
Read the Respondeo. St. Thomas condemns what you said.
Go read it. I gave you the reference.
If you want, I can even take a picture from my own copy of the Summa and send it to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Thomas Aquinas quote: Therefore God the father is the son and is the Holy Spirit, and that these are not three but one God.
Where is the reference for this?
Do you have one?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
am backed by the Catholic Church.
No you are not. What you said "God the Father is the Son and The Holy Spirit" is explicitly condemned in the Council of Nicea.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Therefore God the father is the son and is the Holy Spirit, and that these are not three but one God.
This is sabellionism. This is what St. Thomas taught against. I am not calling St. Thomas a sabellionist.
What you said in the quote above is what St. Thomas said, but it is out of context and you clearly lack the understanding behind those words he is using. You are twisting them to your own understanding in order to save face.
Nature is not the same thing as personhood.
The nature of God is not determined by what function He is doing.
If you haven't studied the philosophy or theology of this, I would not recommend you keep posting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Look up "sabellionism" because that is the heresy you just stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
"The relations between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit should be thought of as real relations and not "merely mental relations." They are three persons and three hypostases, meaning they are "subsistent and complete." No divine person can proceed from God unless he proceeds "as the Word, whom we call the Son, or as love, whom we call the Holy Spirit." Therefore, there can never be more than three persons in God."
That means three distinct persons. The Father is not The Son, The Son is not The Holy Ghost,etc.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Did you read what he said about the term "God"?
If you did what did he say?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Not what you posted.
It is actually the same as what I posted but in different words. I was using the words of St. Thomas Aquinas there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Jesus was the second person who appeared in human form and could be seen and touched.
So did he suddenly lose being the Second Person when he became human?
There is this teaching that is in all the basic catechisms called the Hypostatic union. It means the Second Person of the Trinity took on a human nature and was hypostatically united into one person. It does not mean he lost his divinity.
The three were equal in nature, meaning equally important in their roles.
That is not what the church means when She says "equal in nature". Where did you get such an idea? have you actually studied this or are you trying to make up your own understanding?
Created: