IS love an act of volition?

[fhansen]

I contend that Love is not an act of volition but a state of being dissociated from the will.
Can I get some counter arguments please.

Love is desire for the good. We cannot help but desire/love that which we perceive to be the greatest good once we become aware of it. Then the will orients itself towards that good.

 

[Richca]

It couldn’t be both IF it can be established that the will alone initiates volition and Love itself is not the will.

 

[setarcos]

Anyone who has done Theology/Philosophy of Man 101 knows that “love” can refer to either the sensual or rational appetites and most of us get them mixed up and confused even as adults.

Dear Blue Horizon,
You seem to have the annoying knack of not only not contributing constructively to a discussion but also of insulting the originator of the discussion. I don’t know if this is a defensive tactic used to distract someone away from your ignorance of the subject or merely a natural result of your abrasive nature but it would behoove you to not be so quick to declare a discussion closed based on your own merits of understanding, declaring conclusively that this discussion is no longer worthy of consideration.
I don’t think you’ve stopped to consider what 101 classes are actually for. The purpose of 101 classes are in general not only to establish “basic” terms and definitions but more importantly to establish methods of inquiry with which one may agreeably discuss ideas and concepts further. The classes are for an introduction to current thoughts not a forum for drawing definitive conclusions on those thoughts.
Now that being said, you start out with a logical fallacy. Its called the “Any schoolboy knows” logical fallacy.
Your assuming that anyone who has been “fortunate” enough to have survived a ‘Theology/Philosophy of Man 101’ class has come to the same conclusion as you - That “love” can refer to either sensual (emotional), or rational appetites and that ‘rational appetites’ equate with the will and the will with volition - if not they must be a failure as a student in the class. Though I may not be smarter than most students, I give myself some credit, I myself have taken a philosophy 101 class which involved such matters and have concluded differently without failing the class I might add.

The “rational appetite” is but a sophisticated way of saying “will” and therefore “volition”.

Let us consider firstly that I have earlier defined the Love I am talking about as encompassing both the sensual and rational “appetites” as defined by the Greeks. I use the term “encompassing” since while Love encompasses aspects of both the rational and the strictly sensual neither of them of themselves originates Love. Secondly I have already shown at least through scripture if not through reason that strictly speaking the “will” is not always rational nor what may be deemed rational always what one “wills”. The “rational appetites” it would seem are a separate “faculty” of the person than the will. For instance the initiation of ones will to action in an altruistic manner does not always involve rational thought. A parent who can’t swim may willfully jump into a river to their near certain doom, and consequentially, the childs, in order to save a drowning child. I may willfully eat loads of junk food though rationally I realize how bad it is for me. I can rationalize but willfully do the opposite. Also depending on if you completely by definition equate volition with will I believe one may separate ones volitional actions from ones will as well. I can by volition shoot a member of my family in order to save the other members from being killed by them but I would not be freely willing to do this. My will would be that other means could be found. If by volition we mean “deliberate action taken” then we must consider it separate from “desired action taken” i.e., While my action would be deliberate it would not be desired. It is worth noting St. Paul and his struggles with his own free will and actions, see his letter to the Romans. Now do we actually have “free will” and therefor volition with which we may exercise through our free will? I would argue no, but this is not the thread to do that. In this thread I am merely contending that Love is a state of being given by Gods grace to those he will and not a state of being created through our own acts of volition. Address some of my arguments in my earlier posts if you disagree.
I guess though that since you deem there is nothing new here since you’ve addressed all these arguments before or have seen them addressed conclusively then we should all just move along. I only wish that before we move along to other things that you would share some of them for my sake.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Dear Blue Horizon,
You seem to have the annoying knack of not only not contributing constructively to a discussion but also of insulting the originator of the discussion. I don’t know if this is a defensive tactic used to distract someone away from your ignorance of the subject or merely a natural result of your abrasive nature but it would behoove you to not be so quick to declare a discussion closed based on your own merits of understanding, declaring conclusively that this discussion is no longer worthy of consideration.
I don’t think you’ve stopped to consider what 101 classes are actually for. The purpose of 101 classes are in general not only to establish “basic” terms and definitions but more importantly to establish methods of inquiry with which one may agreeably discuss ideas and concepts further. The classes are for an introduction to current thoughts not a forum for drawing definitive conclusions on those thoughts.
Now that being said, you start out with a logical fallacy. Its called the “Any schoolboy knows” logical fallacy.
Your assuming that anyone who has been “fortunate” enough to have survived a ‘Theology/Philosophy of Man 101’ class has come to the same conclusion as you - That “love” can refer to either sensual (emotional), or rational appetites and that ‘rational appetites’ equate with the will and the will with volition - if not they must be a failure as a student in the class. Though I may not be smarter than most students, I give myself some credit, I myself have taken a philosophy 101 class which involved such matters and have concluded differently without failing the class I might add.

Let us consider firstly that I have earlier defined the Love I am talking about as encompassing both the sensual and rational “appetites” as defined by the Greeks. I use the term “encompassing” since while Love encompasses aspects of both the rational and the strictly sensual neither of them of themselves originates Love. Secondly I have already shown at least through scripture if not through reason that strictly speaking the “will” is not always rational nor what may be deemed rational always what one “wills”. The “rational appetites” it would seem are a separate “faculty” of the person than the will. For instance the initiation of ones will to action in an altruistic manner does not always involve rational thought. A parent who can’t swim may willfully jump into a river to their near certain doom, and consequentially, the childs, in order to save a drowning child. I may willfully eat loads of junk food though rationally I realize how bad it is for me. I can rationalize but willfully do the opposite. Also depending on if you completely by definition equate volition with will I believe one may separate ones volitional actions from ones will as well. I can by volition shoot a member of my family in order to save the other members from being killed by them but I would not be freely willing to do this. My will would be that other means could be found. If by volition we mean “deliberate action taken” then we must consider it separate from “desired action taken” i.e., While my action would be deliberate it would not be desired. It is worth noting St. Paul and his struggles with his own free will and actions, see his letter to the Romans. Now do we actually have “free will” and therefor volition with which we may exercise through our free will? I would argue no, but this is not the thread to do that. In this thread I am merely contending that Love is a state of being given by Gods grace to those he will and not a state of being created through our own acts of volition. Address some of my arguments in my earlier posts if you disagree.
I guess though that since you deem there is nothing new here since you’ve addressed all these arguments before or have seen them addressed conclusively then we should all just move along. I only wish that before we move along to other things that you would share some of them for my sake.

I am signalling that libraries have been written precisely on this topic…And on the supplementary questions you’ve just added. The roads are extremely well travelled. Your 101 courses do not seem to have been good enough to lead you to Aquinas who answers all your questions very well in my mind…though it would take a dedicated course in his philosophy of man and virtue to quickly bring you up to speed with his complete founding system.

There is absolutely nothing knew here and the Church has adopted Aquinas’s definitions and conclusions which are more than satisfactory for most people except the most erudite and learned who after many years see some holes.

If you are the sort of person who likes to reinvent the wheel for the sheer fun of it by all means do so here but be aware that you won’t in your own lifetime invent one better than the one you can buy down the road.

Myself, I would rather try and improve on the one in the shop down the road. But first I would need to buy it. Such specialist knowledge cannot be easily gained on a CAF philosophy forum…though persons experienced in professionally making and selling wheels may give you pointers as to where to go.

As indicated you will gain greater and quicker and more solid answers from a serious study of Aquinas at a Catholic Uni.

But as I say, if you are simply the sort who likes taking things to bits and putting them back together again for the sheer fun of it even if you won’t really get much in the way of “answers” go for it. I am certainly not wanting to rain on that parade…I am merely indicating it’s a methodology more suitable for a pursuit of fun rather than serious truth.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The will is the cause of its act or its willing but it is moved by its object which is the good. True, love itself is not the will but an act of the will. Love is also a passion in the sensitive appetite and more specifically the concupiscible power or appetite of the soul which is also found in brute animals. The will is called the intellectual appetite.

Its object which is the good which is presented to the will by the intellect. It is in this way that the intellect moves the will by presenting its object to it which in the intellect is the apprehended or understood good.

Love resides in the will, it is an act or passion (change) as it were of the will and what initiates this change or act of love in the will is some apprehended good in the intellect such as God, truth, a beautiful woman, food, etc. which apprehended good is presented to the will by the intellect as its object which moves it. The good is the object of the will and which is the cause of love in the will. The good or some object perceived as good draws or attracts the will towards itself and Aquinas says that the first change caused in the will by some good object which attracts it is what is called love which consists in complacency in that object. From this follows movement towards the appetible object which is desire and lastly follows rest or the attainment of the appetible object which is joy.

Speaking of love as a passion which is properly so called as it is in the concupiscible faculty; in a wider and extended sense, according as it is in the will, St Thomas Aquinas says “Although love does not denote the movement of the appetite in tending towards the appetible object, yet it denotes that movement whereby the appetite is changed by the appetible object, so as to have complacency therein.”

An excellent summary of Aquinas.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Do you believe they are?

When you love, heart and will are the same. When you hate, your heart is divorce from your will.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Thanks for your reply.
In what way? I need you to follow through with your thinking. How is it that we distinguish the side effect from the cause?

Well, now that I’ve read some of your other posts I have a better idea of what your getting at.

I’ll follow through with my thinking. I was thinking that a disassociation of the will can happen when love is the reason by which we find ourselves doing things that we wouldn’t normally do.

That being said, I thought you were using the word “being” as a verb, but now I see you were using it as a noun. Anyway, I see what you are postulating, and I don’t know if there is an English word for what you’re describing. It sounds like you’re describing a spiritual instinct that arises from synderisis, but would that be in keeping with your description of love being a gift given out from time to time by God.

I think you might be using the word love to define something that may be related to love but not typically ascribed to love by Thomistic standards, because the emphasis is on will, not yearning, in Thomistic standards. Am I on the right track, or hopelessly lost?

 

[setarcos]

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Second Part of the Second Part,Question 23 Charity, considered in itself, Article 2. Whether charity is something created in the soul?

newadvent.org/summa/3023.htm#article1

“Therefore it is most necessary that, for us to perform the act of charity, there should be in us some habitual form superadded to the natural power, inclining that power to the act of charity, and causing it to act with ease and pleasure.”

Thank you for the reference to Thomas’s suma… I’d be really interested in your understanding of his words on how this is a counter argument to my claim. I understand what he has said but I’d like to discuss his claims with you on your terms. If you would care to.

 

[setarcos]

When you love, heart and will are the same. When you hate, your heart is divorce from your will.

Could you clarify what you mean by heart. It has been said that the will is of the rational appetites. Would you say the heart then is of the passionate? How do you mean divorced? Are you saying the heart has a “will” of its own? If hate is an action taken by the person and the will is the active potential in a person how then can we divorce the hate “housed” in our heart from our will?

 

[setarcos]

I am signalling that libraries have been written precisely on this topic…And on the supplementary questions you’ve just added. The roads are extremely well travelled. Your 101 courses do not seem to have been good enough to lead you to Aquinas who answers all your questions very well in my mind…though it would take a dedicated course in his philosophy of man and virtue to quickly bring you up to speed with his complete founding system.

Dear Blue,
I’m sure we’re all aware of how well-worn the paths are. After all “there is nothing new under the sun” as Ecclesiastes puts it and this was stated before Thomas came along. However some old paths are new to some and some paths that are old to some may be made new to them by others. Simply because the path is well warn doesn’t ensure that it cannot be traveled again with fresh insight. Why do you believe I am not familiar with Aquinas’s opinions on such things? Has it crossed your mind that contrary to your conclusions mine has led me to some opposite conclusions, that Aquinas’s answers do not answer my questions very well and this is the discussion I am attempting to have on here?

There is absolutely nothing knew here and the Church has adopted Aquinas’s definitions and conclusions which are more than satisfactory for most people except the most erudite and learned who after many years see some holes.

Why is it that you believe that these threads are for your benefit and because you already have the truth no one else should tread the same path you have taken? I could care one wit what the Catholic Church has “adopted” about Aquinas except in light of my understanding why it has been adopted. Simply because most people find a thing satisfactory doesn’t by default make a thing true. It may make it more likely to be true but only in so much as the most people we’re talking about happen to understand what they are trusting to be true. It’s been my experience that most people passively let others do their thinking for them especially when you travel so far down the rabbit hole that it becomes very difficult to follow. I am wondering if this isn’t the case with yourself since you haven’t directly addressed any of my assertions with counter arguments of your own. Making reference to other scholars who have commented on the subject is not itself a counter argument of your own unless you can explain why it applies to what I have said.

If you are the sort of person who likes to reinvent the wheel for the sheer fun of it by all means do so here but be aware that you won’t in your own lifetime invent one better than the one you can buy down the road.

I am not “reinventing” the wheel. I am making comments about the nature of said wheel. If someone has said this wheel runs better when it is flat I can most rightly claim that that isn’t true and demonstrate as much. If someone claimed this wheel was made by John down the road on Wednesday but I can show John was not working at the factory on Wednesday then it is well that I can say that claim was false and prove that too. I do find enjoyment in testing claims. I don’t necessarily find it fun to be wrong but my main aim is to establish a true belief whether this belief has been well established for others for a long time or this well established belief needs to be looked at afresh for its validity because of newly discovered flaws. I certainly wouldn’t buy the wheel down the road based on claims of superiority over another wheel unless I made some inquiries into that claims validity.

 

[setarcos]

Myself, I would rather try and improve on the one in the shop down the road. But first I would need to buy it. Such specialist knowledge cannot be easily gained on a CAF philosophy forum…though persons experienced in professionally making and selling wheels may give you pointers as to where to go.

I agree with you, these forums should not be used to gain in specialized knowledge but they can be used to share the knowledge you do have and increase in understanding of your beliefs and others. Whether it be to see flaws in your own understanding or try to educate others on the flaws you think you see in their understanding. Either way these forums can be used to enrich yourself and that is one reason I am here. I don’t need to have a certain level of competence in a subject in order to benefit from interaction with others in these forums. My level of incompetence will be shown soon enough if its there and if I am wise I will recognize that fact and correct it.

As indicated you will gain greater and quicker and more solid answers from a serious study of Aquinas at a Catholic Uni.

Again you assume my ignorance of Aquinas, why? Is it simply because I may not agree with everything he has said?

But as I say, if you are simply the sort who likes taking things to bits and putting them back together again for the sheer fun of it even if you won’t really get much in the way of “answers” go for it. I am certainly not wanting to rain on that parade…I am merely indicating it’s a methodology more suitable for a pursuit of fun rather than serious truth.

As I’ve said I do find a certain amount of enjoyment in the pursuit of truth but I wouldn’t consider it merely fun and not serious. It’s quite strenuous at times and I am most serious in finding the truth. I am not so arrogant as to believe I cannot be wrong how about yourself?

 

[setarcos]

Love is desire for the good. We cannot help but desire/love that which we perceive to be the greatest good once we become aware of it. Then the will orients itself towards that good.

I cannot but agree with your perception. I would only add that awareness precedes the will to act. Also it is demonstrable that the will does not always orient itself towards the good though I would say this is because the state of the beings awareness is not one of Love.
Thank you for your insight.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I agree with you, these forums should not be used to gain in specialized knowledge but they can be used to share the knowledge you do have and increase in understanding of your beliefs and others. Whether it be to see flaws in your own understanding or try to educate others on the flaws you think you see in their understanding. Either way these forums can be used to enrich yourself and that is one reason I am here. I don’t need to have a certain level of competence in a subject in order to benefit from interaction with others in these forums. My level of incompetence will be shown soon enough if its there and if I am wise I will recognize that fact and correct it.

Again you assume my ignorance of Aquinas, why? Is it simply because I may not agree with everything he has said?

As I’ve said I do find a certain amount of enjoyment in the pursuit of truth but I wouldn’t consider it merely fun and not serious. It’s quite strenuous at times and I am most serious in finding the truth. I am not so arrogant as to believe I cannot be wrong how about yourself?

By all means go for it.
No I do not consider you one of those most erudite and learned persons I mentioned who after many years see some holes in the conclusions of Aquinas.
I believe you disagree with Aquinas (which is obvious) because you likely haven’t learnt enough of Aquinas or of human nature yet to fully understand him.

As I opine, I do not believe you will remedy either acceptable enough weakness here.
But if you think you can good luck.

And no, before you ask, I am not interested in giving you a private tutorial - as I suggested if you are that serious do more guided study at a Catholic Uni, preferably Dominican.

 

[setarcos]

By all means go for it.
No I do not consider you one of those most erudite and learned persons I mentioned who after many years see some holes in the conclusions of Aquinas.
I believe you disagree with Aquinas (which is obvious) because you likely haven’t learnt enough of Aquinas or of human nature yet to fully understand him.

As I opine, I do not believe you will remedy either acceptable enough weakness here.
But if you think you can good luck.

And no, before you ask, I am not interested in giving you a private tutorial - as I suggested if you are that serious do more guided study at a Catholic Uni, preferably Dominican.

Sigh, this will be the last time I comment on what you think of me. I believe we can both agree on this…that we are wasting our time with such things. However I will say that since you have and ARE commenting on here and spending time doing so it might be better spent actually addressing my assertions with counter arguments of your own.

I will never fully understand Aquinas and neither will the greatest scholars studying him. The only thing that could possibly understand him fully as a human being is God. Simply because I disagree with Aquinas on some things doesn’t mean I disagree with him in total. You seem to have placed Aquinas beyond refutation. You also make a logical fallacy by claiming that since I disagree with Aquinas on some things 1) It must only be because I haven’t studied him enough otherwise I would most assuredly agree with him and/or
2) It must be that I don’t understand human nature enough by disagreeing with Aquinas because Aquinas most assuredly understands human nature more fully than any other person and thus can’t be wrong since I am another person who disagrees with him.

I would venture to guess that much progress would be lost if we did that with all the worlds “intellectuals”. Bear in mind that there are many well qualified scholars who have studied Aquinas that disagree with many of his assertions about human nature among other things. Actually much progress throughout history has been stymied because of peoples emotional attachment to one theory or another and refusal to think of further possibilities. They cease to think about it because they’ve emotionally entrenched themselves in a beliefs truth. This may be the case with you since you seem to be adept at answering my assertions by redirecting to someone else’s answer without yourself becoming involved in its explanation as to why or how it is a counterargument. If you cannot debate the proposition because you cannot understand it or follow the arguments that is perfectly fine but when you advert to someone else’s knowledge as your answer to the present question you assert your own qualifications of understanding of the knowledge your adverting to.
You haven’t shown anything which would make me believe you understand Aquinas’s arguments so how is it that you know that his arguments definitively refute mine? I definitely wouldn’t ask you for your tutelage based on your replies in this thread. I mean no offence but I’d really rather like to have you discuss my assertions with me rather than feign superior knowledge by pining about my inferior understanding of the subject matter and directing me to a source of learning while showing no qualifications to do so.
Be well, god bless, and don’t forget, these forums are for discussion and the defense of the Catholic understanding of reality not for merely redirecting someone elsewhere for their answers.

 

[rinnie]

Thank you for replying. I appreciate you taking the time.

Simply put…A yearning desire to move towards the good, mentally and/or physically.
Whether or not its the correct definition in the context in which my premise states or whether my premise itself is correct with any contemporarily accepted definition of love is what I wish to explore in this thread.

I think Jesus put it the best to lay down ones own life for a friend. Nothing surpasses that IMO.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Sigh, this will be the last time I comment on what you think of me. I believe we can both agree on this…that we are wasting our time with such things. However I will say that since you have and ARE commenting on here and spending time doing so it might be better spent actually addressing my assertions with counter arguments of your own

Sometimes the problem is not the recording but the player.

when you advert to someone else’s knowledge as your answer to the present question you assert your own qualifications of understanding of the knowledge your adverting to.

Exactly so.

You haven’t shown anything which would make me believe you understand Aquinas’s arguments so how is it that you know that his arguments definitively refute mine?

I don’t care. As explained I don’t have time to be your personal tutor.
But I did have time to offer you some quick and helpful advice from my years of Catholic Tertiary level study in this specific area.

I definitely wouldn’t ask you for your tutelage based on your replies in this thread. I mean no offence but I’d really rather like to have you discuss my assertions with me rather than feign superior knowledge by pining about my inferior understanding of the subject matter and directing me to a source of learning while showing no qualifications to do so.

That’s fine, but given you cannot peacefully ignore or thank me anyways and move on confirms me in my original judgement and quick advice re your poor understanding of Aquinas on this point.

don’t forget, these forums are for discussion and the defense of the Catholic understanding of reality not for merely redirecting someone elsewhere for their answers.

Obviously I disagree. CAF is hardly a replacement for a Thomistic Philosophy of Man course - hence my advice to you.
Clearly you find it hard to trust or accept that people on CAF can be further along the path than yourself.

My views regarding your understanding of Aquinas on this point are what they are based on what you have already stated and responded to others.
If you cannot accept that and feel no desire to re-assess Aquinas its no big deal.
Just ignore me and move on.

To think that people always have to prove things to us before we ever take stock is a somewhat inflexible and distrustful approach to life, truth and self-knowledge. To assume that those who tell us we wear no clothes must be agin us is also not particularly enlightened thinking.

 

[setarcos]

I think Jesus put it the best to lay down ones own life for a friend. Nothing surpasses that IMO.

I agree…quintessential essence of what it is to love. Jesus redefined and expanded the concept of love when he said to the people to love thy enemy as well. Perhaps this would be the greatest expression of love of all. Not just to lay down ones life for a friend but a stranger as well and to care for those who would not care for you.

 

[setarcos]

Sometimes the problem is not the recording but the player.

Except you forget that it also takes a player to make the recording in the first place. A faulty player may lead to a faulty recording.

I don’t care. As explained I don’t have time to be your personal tutor.
But I did have time to offer you some quick and helpful advice from my years of Catholic Tertiary level study in this specific area.

This is a good example of a reply someone would give who has emotionally established the truth of their beliefs without actually thinking through and understanding the meaning of those beliefs. At this point it is inconceivable to you that you may, or those you believe may, be wrong. You’ve ceased to think further on these things because you apparently believe no further thought can be done period. I think you may have become detached from rationally defending those beliefs because of this. You see it, as you say, “a waist of your time”. You’re only moved to reply because emotionally you feel compelled to keep your status as the one who has the truth in opposition to the one who is attacking the truth. Unfortunately because you’ve stopped actually “thinking” about what you’ve learned through your “years of Catholic Tertiary level study in this particular area” you’ve not grasped the most rudimentary meaning of the subject of charity towards your fellow man. That is that you should care. Your years of study in this area should have taught you that but your statement “I don’t care” belies your understanding of Love. Your first replies to me were insulting, belittling, and self-aggrandizing. I started this thread and your reply was to dismissively tell me to move along? I’ve presented some rationalizations as to why I believe what I believe but your replies have only been to redirect away from you sharing any of your knowledge and to emphasize your own superior understanding of this subject and your position as above reprove. Personally I wonder if you’ve become so emotionally entrenched in your beliefs that you find it difficult to ,yourself, rationalize them to someone who is questioning those beliefs. Others on here have spent some of their time to share their counter arguments with me and I’m sure their time is as precious as yours. That is charity.

That’s fine, but given you cannot peacefully ignore or thank me anyways and move on confirms me in my original judgement and quick advice re your poor understanding of Aquinas on this point.

Peacefully ignore you? Thank you?! You’re responding to the thread I started! Move on? Are you too involved in your own self-importance that I should thank you for your blasé dismissal of me and my opinions? I’ve studied Aquinas. You’ve yet to prove I have a poor understanding of him. Disagreeing with Aquinas is not the same as having a poor understanding of him. You do realize that I hope. I’m neither in a position nor inclination to need to further my education at a Catholic university. This is meant to be a debate forum no a tutelage forum. You yourself said some scholars have found holes in Aquinas’s thought. So let’s discuss the subject if you can. It boggles my mind that you’ve stated that my knowledge if faulty from the get go but haven’t offered any rational arguments as to why. None, zip, nadda.

 

[setarcos]

Obviously I disagree. CAF is hardly a replacement for a Thomistic Philosophy of Man course - hence my advice to you.

As I said, this is not a tutelage forum…we’re here to debate the understanding we each already have. You see the difference I hope. I can imagine that if debates all ended with one debater simply telling the other their wrong and need to go educate themselves better neither party would advance mankind’s knowledge very fast.

Clearly you find it hard to trust or accept that people on CAF can be further along the path than yourself.

Trust? I’m on here because I know some are further along the “path” than me and I wish to learn from them. But first they have to be willing to interact with me at least. Everyone thinks they have the “truth”. Am I to accept the first thing I’m told is truth without debate or some verifiable validity?

My views regarding your understanding of Aquinas on this point are what they are based on what you have already stated and responded to others.

Here again your redirecting away from personal involvement, Which is fine if you feel incapable of debating the points or would rather observe others debate but when you comment you involve yourself and should be held to account of what you’re saying or keep silent. I’ve made no actually direct reference to Aquinas nor quoted him yet. I’ve left that up to others to bring into the debate the obvious connection with his views and Catholicism concerning love.

If you cannot accept that and feel no desire to re-assess Aquinas its no big deal.

I’ve no desire to “re-assess” Aquinas. I only need to re-assess my own views in light of what someone else who disagrees with me brings to the discussion whether this is a quote from Aquinas or someone’s personal opinions.

Just ignore me and move on.

It is Fascinating that you’re not seeing this. This is a thread I started. If you are uninterested in debate and /or incapable of debating the propositions posed then it is you who should ignore this thread and move on. I’ve rather you didn’t though and constructively engage me in debating your and mine beliefs.

To think that people always have to prove things to us before we ever take stock is a somewhat inflexible and distrustful approach to life, truth and self-knowledge. To assume that those who tell us we wear no clothes must be agin us is also not particularly enlightened thinking.

Prove something to us? Who is us? Are you in some sort of exclusive club that bars me from lagitimacy? I’m not trying to particularly “prove” anything I’m trying to move along the path to Gods truth. I’m not telling you your wearing no clothes, I’m telling you I “see” no clothes that “you claim” to be wearing and would be most thankful if you would help me to see what you see as obvious.

 

[GLam8833]

I see that you are “Inconceivably constantly confused”
about all that you post, and that is reassuring, may I
be of help?

“Love” is a tricky topic to broach on a number of levels,
the Greeks have three or four words which are translated
into the English for Love.

However, for MY views on Love, I think that, to TRULY
Love as God Loves(agape), one has to have some super-
natural help, the Holy Spirit who indwells EVERY Believer.
“We love b/c He first Loved us” 1 Jn 4:19 To Love as God
Loves, we have to die to SELF, which is the enemy of the
HOLY SPIRIT Rom. 8:5-8, 12–13, satan was PROUD, he
cannot see the need to love anyone but HIMSELF, even
to love God, so you see where that got him!! We who
reject or deny God’s Love, shown to us by the Passion
and death of Christ for our sins(so that we can Love
God whole-heartedly), will suffer the same fate!!

So, to wrap things up, to Love genuinely, we need to
DETACH from this world, flesh and the devil and
ACCEPT God’s Covenanting, Eternal and Infinite
LOVE in the Person of Jesus Christ and Love God
and Love our Siblings in Christ(an oft repeated law
of Love) and our neighbor and even our enemies!!