Elephants in Orissa Attack Exactly One Year After Persecutions
#51
The most important thing is that the Church Magisterium has never addressed whether God has emotions. The Church Magisterium is silent on this issue.
From the Bible, which is the word of God and his personal revelation, we see that he does have emotions. It can be concluded that they are of a divine nature. So there is a clear difference between divine and human emotion. 

God is not some floating gas or a ball of bright light. God is a person. God is a personal being. The reason we are human persons with human emotions is because we were created in the image of God. It takes a divine person to create other persons, which in our case,  means human. Colorless gas cannot create persons. God gets angry and happy because he is a person. These are not human emotions because he is not human, but divine emotions that are part of his eternal nature.

Reply
#52
(12-22-2009, 02:41 AM)SaintRafael Wrote: The most important thing is that the Church Magisterium has never addressed whether God has emotions. The Church Magisterium is silent on this issue.
From the Bible, which is the word of God and his personal revelation, we see that he does have emotions. It can be concluded that they are of a divine nature. So there is a clear difference between divine and human emotion. 

God is not some floating gas or a ball of bright light. God is a person. God is a personal being. The reason we are human persons with human emotions is because we were created in the image of God. It takes a divine person to create other persons, which in our case,  means human. Colorless gas cannot create persons. God gets angry and happy because he is a person. These are not human emotions because he is not human, but divine emotions that are part of his eternal nature.

argue with aquinas, don't argue with me.  if god has emotions, that means he changes...so...yea...  :bronxcheer:
Reply
#53
(12-28-2009, 12:47 AM)DrBombay Wrote: argue with aquinas, don't argue with me.  if god has emotions, that means he changes...so...yea...  :bronxcheer:

If God does have emotions that does not mean God changes. God cannot change. God is always God in his divine essence. God does what God always does. However, God changing his mind can be part of God doing what God always does. The ability to change his mind when confronted with the free will actions of men is part of his nature as a personal being and he has not changed. God has not changed because his divine emotions were always part the essence of God.

From Dr. Sungenis:

http://bellarmineforum.xanga.com/7146466...-his-mind/

"Still, I find it hard to accept that God’s threat of destroying Israel for their sin of worshiping the golden calf is not a threat that he intended on carrying out. Call it what you will (perhaps “lie” may be too much here), but the fact is, if the threat carried no potentiality of actually destroying Israel unless repentance or appeasement occurred, then we not only call into question any passages that illustrates appeasement and repentance to alter God’s potential judgment, but we call into question that whole basis for the Atonement of Christ. If God’s threat to send someone to hell does not carry the full potentiality that God would send them to hell if there is no appeasement and repentance, then why have Christ go through the appeasement process? Likewise, why have Moses go through the appeasement process in Exodus 32 if God never intended on carrying out his threat?...."

"But to me, Scripture takes precedence over metaphysics, especially when metaphysics begins to make Scripture contradict itself. To me it is plain that if God threatens and God cannot lie, then the threat MUST carry the potentiality of being exercised unless something equally important to God (i.e., appeasement) allows God to justifiably change the threat into forgiveness....."



"As regards potency and act, again, the Church has not dogmatized any of this. I could just as easily say that, if one wants to use the parameters of potency and act, then we can say that when God changes his mind in a temporal situation (Exodus 32-33) it is just as pure an act as anything else God does, since God knew from all eternity that he would change his mind in that particular situation. Changing his mind, then, is not a potency. It is no more a potency than God becoming man in Jesus Christ. God is doing as God has planned from all eternity. Nothing escapes his knowledge."
Reply
#54
u stick with an internet apologist, i'll go with a doctor of the church.

u know, if u start with a solid aristotilean logic class, followed by a thomistic philosophy of man, ethics and epistemology and then metaphysics, this stuff really does make sense, of a sort.  except for prime matter.  nothing sensible about prime matter, so to speak. ha.

aquinas doesn't just pull this stuff out of his ass.  and yes, i realize it's not dogma and he's not infallible, but still it does make sense.  most of it anyway.

unless you want to have a capricious god subject to changing his mind and all sorts of human emotions like rage and sentimentality and what not.  sounds more like zeus to me, but...that's just me.

knock urself out, kid.  :tiphat:
Reply
#55
(12-28-2009, 02:06 AM)DrBombay Wrote: u stick with an internet apologist, i'll go with a doctor of the church.
I will stick with the Bible.
(12-28-2009, 02:06 AM)DrBombay Wrote: u know, if u start with a solid aristotilean logic class, followed by a thomistic philosophy of man, ethics and epistemology and then metaphysics, this stuff really does make sense, of a sort.  except for prime matter.  nothing sensible about prime matter, so to speak. ha.
aquinas doesn't just pull this stuff out of his ass.  and yes, i realize it's not dogma and he's not infallible, but still it does make sense.  most of it anyway.
Thomas Aquinas was the greatest thinker and theologian in history, but he was not perfect. He has his deficiencies, especially with emotions, joy, and beauty. He was pretty good with the mind and the intellect, but missed the heart part of the faith sometimes. That is because he based much of his thinking on Aristotle who had his problems and contradictions. Plato was superior is areas Aristotle misses. That is why Augustine and his Platoism makes up for what Aquinas lacks.

It is also interesting that Aquinas never finished the Summa after he had his mystical vision. He said that he couldn't finish it because after what he had seen in the vision, everything he wrote was "like straw".     

(12-28-2009, 02:06 AM)DrBombay Wrote: unless you want to have a capricious god subject to changing his mind and all sorts of human emotions like rage and sentimentality and what not.  sounds more like zeus to me, but...that's just me.
The Bible is pretty clear that God spoke with men. He made a covenant with Israel and dealt with them personally. He threatened them and forgave them. Moses spoke face to face with God and got him to change his mind because God responded to the free will of men. God's emotions were those of a person. Person is not the same thing as human. Person does not equal human. There are angelic persons besides humans, and then there is the divine person of God.

zeus, no.. because zeus is a made up deity of men, just like the other phony gods of men , who are nothing but shadows and imitators of God. There is only one God with personality. One God of the Bible. The only person which all personhood has its origins from.
Reply
#56
Your argument is with Aquinas and the popes who have recommended that Catholics, especially seminarians, be well versed in his teachings.  Your argument is not with me. 

The bible is not a theological or philosophical text book.  But you "stick with" it and your peculiar interpretation safely removed from any sound Catholic understanding of the essence of God, if it makes you "feel" good.

Sometimes the writers of sacred scripture employed anthropomorphic literary devices to describe God because, you see, finite beings (like me and, I presume, you) can't really apprehend the infinite.  Hard to believe, I know.  For instance, God wasn't really tired on the 7th day of creation.  He did not need to rest.  But, he uses that to teach us an important lesson.

Unless you're now going to argue that God was exhausted after 6 hard days of creating....  ::)
Reply
#57
(12-21-2009, 03:33 PM)Jacafamala Wrote:
(12-21-2009, 03:25 PM)libby Wrote: what's the big deal?!

I'd be thrilled to send a bunch of pissed off elephants to a few people I know.

... happy holidays.

:angrywom:


those are African elephants.

I think that it's a more effective picture than the Indian ones, what with their big flappy ears and all.

A-frican elephant is a-frican elephant. What difference Indian or otherwise?

  :laughing:  here's a virtual fishie.  <º((((((< 

A-frican elephant thread has gotten into Thomism vs. the Bible vs. Robert Sungenis.  this story opened pandora's trunk and people are taking each other to tusk.


Reply
#58
God didn't have to rest but he very well knew we do.
So
Sip
As for the elephens I dunno
Weird beasts they are
Reply
#59
[Image: de-Brunhoff-Babar-in-St-Michael-and-the-Dragon-15.jpg]

;D
Reply
#60
(12-29-2009, 07:54 AM)i.p.i. Wrote:
(12-21-2009, 03:33 PM)Jacafamala Wrote:
(12-21-2009, 03:25 PM)libby Wrote: what's the big deal?!

I'd be thrilled to send a bunch of pissed off elephants to a few people I know.

... happy holidays.

:angrywom:


those are African elephants.

I think that it's a more effective picture than the Indian ones, what with their big flappy ears and all.

A-frican elephant is a-frican elephant. What difference Indian or otherwise?

  :laughing:  here's a virtual fishie.  <º((((((< 

A-frican elephant thread has gotten into Thomism vs. the Bible vs. Robert Sungenis.  this story opened pandora's trunk and people are taking each other to tusk.


:laughing:
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)