St. Thomas on the Causality of Homosexuality
#11
I am fed up of these posts by this user. He's a creep. Someone needs to tell him.
Reply
#12
(02-14-2015, 05:53 PM)Leonhard Wrote: Are you saying that God placed homosexual attractions into the hearts of men, directly?
No, God is not the author of sin.
Reply
#13
All this will ultimately come to a discussion of free will and predestination.

The idea that God can, or does, ever "change His Mind" and give someone over to sin or rescue them from such is inconsistent with an eternal being Who is necessarily unchangeable. Only temporal beings who progress from a beginning to an end are changeable... the mere notion of progression implies and requires changeability and change.
Reply
#14
(04-21-2015, 05:45 PM)Oldavid Wrote: All this will ultimately come to a discussion of free will and predestination.

The idea that God can, or does, ever "change His Mind" and give someone over to sin or rescue them from such is inconsistent with an eternal being Who is necessarily unchangeable. Only temporal beings who progress from a beginning to an end are changeable... the mere notion of progression implies and requires changeability and change.

Well, you just threw out ¾ of the Bible by rejecting passages like that. Explain yourself.
Reply
#15
(04-21-2015, 05:57 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote:
(04-21-2015, 05:45 PM)Oldavid Wrote: All this will ultimately come to a discussion of free will and predestination.

The idea that God can, or does, ever "change His Mind" and give someone over to sin or rescue them from such is inconsistent with an eternal being Who is necessarily unchangeable. Only temporal beings who progress from a beginning to an end are changeable... the mere notion of progression implies and requires changeability and change.

Well, you just threw out ¾ of the Bible by rejecting passages like that. Explain yourself.
No, I never chucked the Bible... just some very fundamentalist interpretations of it. Scripture often describes God in anthropomorphic terms for the purpose of intelligibility and not as a particular statement of philosophical or theological concepts.

If God was in any way changeable He could not be omnipotent or omniscient because any change requires something to cause the change. If He "changed His Mind" it would necessarily imply that there was something He didn't know beforehand.
Reply
#16
(04-21-2015, 05:45 PM)Oldavid Wrote: All this will ultimately come to a discussion of free will and predestination.

The idea that God can, or does, ever "change His Mind" and give someone over to sin or rescue them from such is inconsistent with an eternal being Who is necessarily unchangeable. Only temporal beings who progress from a beginning to an end are changeable... the mere notion of progression implies and requires changeability and change.

You're correct that only God doesn't change His mind when in fact He delivers people up to their sins. However you might be going a bit too far by applying this to this passage, in order to dismiss the traditional interpretation as wrong.

If the fact that God maintains the same relation to the world, in a timeless fashion, being the as He is the only completely changeless and eternal being, precluded the possibility of Him delivering people up to sin by withdrawing grace from them. Then in a likewise manner you could say that mortal sin does not cause you to fall into a state of disgrace, because that would require God to change His mind about you. What you're saying (if I'm reading you correctly) obviously proves too much.

In God's perspective (if one can talk about this), its eternally true that He let those pagans (and similar groups of people) to fall into debauchery in response to their idolatry.

Similarly one can talk about praying to God, and God responding in kind by answering your prayer. There's nothing incoherent about this idea, but the fundamental understanding might be different. God has always known who will pray to Him and for what, and His responses (all of which are just one timeless response), are in accordance to this.
Reply
#17
Oldavid,

That's preposterous. If those passages were written just to render things intelligible and not as a real revelation of the economy of God then writers did a pretty bad job.
Why not just say “it looks as though people are given into sin, but it actually is that people are predestined to sin”?. Actually, if it is as S. Thomas says that while we speak with words God speaks with reality, then why not just “write” this into the reality? Why don't we see people actually foreordained to sin but actually people going from sin to sin and losing grace and all that struggle?

Reply
#18
Like I said... a discussion of free will and predestination.

I think that S Tom's contorted predestination ideas are essentially unworkable. Luis Molina makes much more sense.

That God foreknows the action of every truly free will does not mean that He in any way causes of forces the action of that will. He "withdraws His Grace" only where it is blocked or refused by the subject.

We read in the Old Testament that "God hardened Pharaoh's heart" to continue to refuse to let Israel leave Egyptian servitude. If that were literally so then God is the cause of Pharaoh's perversity... the author of evil... which is a contradiction. What He did was to allow Pharaoh's perversity to prevail by not thwarting it with circumstances beyond Pharaoh's control. You get the picture?

No one will ever roast in Hell except through their own grievous fault. God does not do evil. De fide!
Reply
#19
(02-14-2015, 12:33 AM)Geremia Wrote:
(12-08-2014, 08:34 PM)Leonhard Wrote: Furthermore if your thesis that idolatry is the cause of homosexuality is correct, then you would have to disagree with St. Aquinas, since Aquinas clearly states that these sins acts only as an indirect cause of homosexual behavior.
No, he says that God is the indirect cause of their subsequent sins: "he gives men over to sin indirectly"
(12-08-2014, 08:34 PM)Leonhard Wrote: You would be arguing that its a direct cause, since the sin would then cause the person to develop a habit and a new orientation.
Yes, the sin can be a direct cause of the subsequent sin(s): "sin can be the cause of another directly or indirectly"
(12-08-2014, 08:34 PM)Leonhard Wrote: However the sins are clearly an indirect cause, as God simple removes the graces that prevents a persons disordered nature from manifesting itself, and thereby gives a person over to an evil they're seeking.
One's sin of idolatry is a direct cause of his homosexuality, and God's withdrawing of grace is an indirect cause.

But this is besides the point since you're arguing idolatry isn't a cause of homosexuality at all, right? Direct or indirect causes are still causes.

What of those who's temptations to homosexuality begin at very young age?
Reply
#20
(02-14-2015, 04:52 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(02-14-2015, 07:42 AM)Leonhard Wrote: He doesn't account here for how these Romans had gotten this sinful state.
St. Thomas plainly says: "one's first sin [idolatry] is a cause of the next [sodomy], which is at the same time a punishment for the first one." This echos St. Paul saying that, as a consequence that they "worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator" (idolatry), "God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness: to dishonor their own bodies among themselves." Thus, he clearly accounts "for how these Romans had gotten this sinful state."

It seems to me that St. Paul is saying that man's general sin of idolatry is the cause of homosexuality existing in humanity in general, not that an individual's act of idolatry is the cause of an individual's inclination toward homosexuality.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)