Catholic Theology: Thomas Aquinas and Predestination

[AgnosTheist]

A good is that end toward which a thing tends (or in the case of things with a will, that which should tend, when there is contingency). For a ball that falls, it is the ground. For a cup, it is in the holding of water. For man, it is virtue.

i dont understand.

Love is the desire of good for something, or the desire of something for the sake of a good.

…

He reprobates some to hell, not by hating them, but by loving them to a degree such that the good He desires for them does not include the beatific vision.

what good is desired for those who are tortured in hell for all eternity?

 

[Saul.Tentmaker]

Though potentially G_d can know the endtime result, like Schroedinger’s cat, which is neither alive nor dead, but both, as long as the box is closed, G_d can only know the endtime situation when the box is opened, but opening the box will end the time.

Well, here’s the problem: God can know exactly where and what everything is, because God operates on the order of infinite energy. As such, God is not bound by Quantum Mechanics, which fails for relatively low energies (whenever Lorentz invariance becomes a consideration), nor is He bound by any quantum field theory (as every field theory predicts its own failure by the cutoff in its renormalization group). Rather, God exists in a realm of unknown physics.

If He is outside space and time, then all quantum wave-functions, insofar as they exist (and not as field-operators on the vacuum or as I believe ideas in the mind), collapse to all states the would be measured to have. In other words, as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle only applies in a single-time scenario, from the perspective of eternity momentum and position commute (and all operators commute), so God knows the position and momentum of all things exactly at all times.

So predestination does not imply (quantum mechanics or no) a determinism. Quite the contrary, it allows for the beauty of quantum chaos, butterfly patterns, bird migrations, and even human free will (a mystery far deeper than the others), and this within a framework of divine providence, with God as Head and King of all, for all time.

 

[Saul.Tentmaker]

i dont understand.

I don’t know how else to explain it. If you ask a specific question, or can frame your confusion in a more expressive way, I might be able to help clarify.

what good is desired for those who are tortured in hell for all eternity?

The good of life, which they once had. The good of the immortal soul, which they shall always have.

 

[AgnosTheist]

I don’t know how else to explain it. If you ask a specific question, or can frame your confusion in a more expressive way, I might be able to help clarify.

perhaps you can describe ‘good’ from a different angle?

The good of life, which they once had. The good of the immortal soul, which they shall always have.

are you saying its for their good that they be kept alive only to be tortured?

 

[Saul.Tentmaker]

perhaps you can describe ‘good’ from a different angle?

Let’s just look at things humans have made. A book. Books are made for reading. A picture. Pictures are made for looking at, maybe studying or reflecting upon. They may be made to remind us of something. A cup. Cups are made for holding water.

So a cup that holds water well is a good cup. The end of the cup, however, is defined both by its own objective nature, and by the one who made it. A picture may be bad because it is fuzzy, or it may be bad because it doesn’t evoke the memories the photographer wished.

That which better meets its end is more good. A good cup holds water well. A bad cup holds water poorly. Something that cannot hold water at all is not a cup (in this sense).

are you saying its for their good that they be kept alive only to be tortured?

No. Nor is this what I said.

Rather, the good God willed for them, in His love, was life, and the immortal soul.

Their suffering is also a good, but it is not a good for them; rather it is right justice for their sins.

 

[AgnosTheist]

That which better meets its end is more good. A good cup holds water well. A bad cup holds water poorly. Something that cannot hold water at all is not a cup (in this sense).

so ‘good’ is quantified according to the degree by which an object fulfills its intended function.

No. Nor is this what I said.

Rather, the good God willed for them, in His love, was life, and the immortal soul.

Their suffering is also a good, but it is not a good for them; rather it is right justice for their sins.

thats a pretty sadistic opinion. that you make people suffer, and you keep them alive to endure this suffering. and calling such a ‘life’ as an act of love. thanks but no thanks. most people cant even bear for an animal to live through suffering. and most people in such a situation would rather die. and its called a ‘mercy killing’ for this reason. wicked.

this is one of the unreasonable qualities of christianity. to justify hell, they would call evil as good, and good as evil.

 

[Saul.Tentmaker]

so ‘good’ is quantified according to the degree by which an object fulfills its intended function.

I agree almost entirely. I would simply change the word “quantified” to “qualified”. Something may be better than something else, objectively, but there are no good units of measure.

For clarification about hell, I am not a sadist. I do not take pleasure in the torment of others (except in weaker moments), but rather feel sorrow for their situation. I fear with anguish that many of my family, including an atheist uncle, are in hell now. But I yet know that God is just, and hell is a right consequence for the insult of the human race upon God, though by His mercy, and in His Grace, He offers us salvation from hell, and eternal life in His presence. I pray all find rest and solice in His arms.

 

[AgnosTheist]

I fear with anguish that many of my family, including an atheist uncle, are in hell now. But I yet know that God is just, and hell is a right consequence for the insult of the human race upon God, though by His mercy, and in His Grace, He offers us salvation from hell, and eternal life in His presence. I pray all find rest and solice in His arms.

How is hell a right consequence? Its eternal torture. The justice system calls that ‘excessive punishment’.

What about you? Would you rather burn in hell for all eternity, or would you rather cease to exist permanently? Me, i’d choose the latter any day.

And about the offer for salvation, I’d prefer hearing that offer directly from God or from one of his leutenants, than from an obscure little book who I cant even trust whether or not its a corrupted man made propaganda.

And about being insulted, I could not comprehend how an eternally all powerful and all knowing being be a little bit more mature than that.

 

[cpayne]

And about the offer for salvation, I’d prefer hearing that offer directly from God or from one of his leutenants, than from an obscure little book who I cant even trust whether or not its a corrupted man made propaganda.

This seems like another thread topic, but before answering comments like this I would really like to know how much actual research the writer has done on the topic. For example, how does the manuscript evidence for the New Testament compare to other books written at approximately the same time? Even a rough estimate will be fine.

 

[cpayne]

Your definition of “good” (something fulfilling its innate function) is pretty good, and philosophically quite classical.

 

[mgrfin]

Sounds a little worse thant “unless I can put my fingers into the imprint into the nails, and my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

That is your perfect right. But do you get direct visitation from legislators to tell you what laws they have passed? If every event must be presented to you personally, nothing would get done in this world. Seemingly, you want the world to revolve around you.

As for God’s ‘lieutenants’, how about Pope Benedict xvi. Is he high enough for you?

peace

 

[Saul.Tentmaker]

How is hell a right consequence? Its eternal torture.

Another poster was right. This is best relegated to another topic. Though it deals with predestination and reprobation, it does so only tangentially, and really digs at more fundamental, dogmatic issues.

If you would like to talk this over further with other Catholics (and possibly myself) then starting a new thread may be a good idea.

If, however, you are interested in my own slant on the issue, and my own arguments for the dogmas about Judgment, Heaven, and Hell (though they are far older than I), please PM me.

 

[cynic]

You could also ask what kind of God creates sentient beings for the sole purpose of glorifying himself, get’s insulted when they don’t fulfill this purpose, and punishes them with eternal torment as a result.

 

[mgrfin]

You could also ask what kind of God creates sentient beings for the sole purpose of glorifying himself, get’s insulted when they don’t fulfill this purpose, and punishes them with eternal torment as a result.

Apparently you’re not accepting of that “Justification by faith alone” doctrine, or that OSAS thingy?

peace

 

[Saul.Tentmaker]

You could also ask what kind of God creates sentient beings for the sole purpose of glorifying himself, get’s insulted when they don’t fulfill this purpose, and punishes them with eternal torment as a result.

A very petty and human god indeed. A god borne of error.

 

[AgnosTheist]

how does the manuscript evidence for the New Testament compare to other books written at approximately the same time? Even a rough estimate will be fine.

none of the existing NT manuscripts today were original authorships. what you have today are translations and alleged transmissions. thats a big minus points on the credibilitiy of the NT.

other original manuscripts (like the Ancient Art of War by Sun Tzu) was able to survive.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Your definition of “good” (something fulfilling its innate function) is pretty good, and philosophically quite classical.

a gun is good if it kills somebody.

a homosexual is good if the person is able to have sex with the mae gender.

agree?

IMO, i’ve heard more sensible definitions of ‘good’.

 

[Saul.Tentmaker]

none of the existing NT manuscripts today were original authorships. what you have today are translations and alleged transmissions. thats a big minus points on the credibilitiy of the NT.

other original manuscripts (like the Ancient Art of War by Sun Tzu) was able to survive.

This is far far off the beaten track.

The subject of this discussion is “Catholic Theology: Thomas Aquinas and Predestination”. It is not about the authority, the authorship, or anything with the history of the Bible, except as they would directly relate to St. Thomas’s arguments on predestination and providence.

If you want to talk about the history of the Bible, or about the existence of hell, start your own thread. But don’t do it here; it’s disrespectful to the topic of this thread.

 

[AgnosTheist]

That is your perfect right. But do you get direct visitation from legislators to tell you what laws they have passed? If every event must be presented to you personally, nothing would get done in this world. Seemingly, you want the world to revolve around you.

The legislators, no. But I get to meet their enforcers, the Police officers. I also get to visit government buildings. I see the Mayor on T.V. Those, I can verify. What is there about the bible that I can verify? NONE.

As for God’s ‘lieutenants’, how about Pope Benedict xvi. Is he high enough for you?

IMO, he’s just a wannabe. I wanna see a real badge.

 

[Saul.Tentmaker]

a gun is good if it kills somebody.

The primary purpose of guns is not to kill people, but to accelerate bullets. This may be used to kill people, animals, or to destroy property, either with the consent or without the consent of the owner. But a gun that doesn’t shoot is not a good gun. You are right there.

a homosexual is good if the person is able to have sex with the [same] gender.

If one assumes that homosexuals by their nature have sex with with same-gendered people, then it would be a good for a homosexual to do so.

However, natural law, based on reason and observation, has clearly shown (given the number of celibate and stable and happy people in the world) that humans by their nature do not even need sex.

Furthermore, the right end of sex is procreation, and procreation is impossible in homosexual activity, and so unnatural. No unnatural thing can be part of a things nature. So homosexuality (as you defined) is not natural. It is a defect.

Is this starting to make more sense?