 |
I've got one of those unbelievable and tragic stories to tell about Friday the 13th - maybe some slow day I'll tell it. On the lighter side, I've got a friend that call's each Friday the 13th to berate me for being superstitious and to get the latest horror story. But, I've hijacked your thread long enough over silliness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Unless I missed it, I think you owe us your thoughts on Romans 8.
That goes for you too arcura, I don't recall you weighing in.
JoeT
JoeT777
I have participated on that for quite some time. (several posts).
Basically I've been leaning from it.
Fred
Fred,Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
This is supposed to be applied to people suffering an irrational fear...
Funny, I thought that's what I've been doing all along.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
I thought so, too!Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Well, yes but only to suggest your “cosmic victory” theory. Surely, Paul had a lot more in mind than God is Great? Certainly, Paul’s audience understood the importance of being described as “sons of God.”Quote:
Originally Posted by gromitt82
Where’s the beef?
On another matter, St. Thomas isn’t channeling Aristotle; you need to explain that one As I see it St. Thomas uses Aristotle to form, as it were, metaphysical algorithms. I suppose next you’ll be accusing St. Augustine of being a reformed sinner.
JoeT
Good one. I like that and may steal it. (I said "steal", not "pay for".) I definitely think Aquinas is a first rate thinker; I've learned a lot from him and know that that he still has a lot to teach me. I do sometimes think that the Aristotelian superstructure of his thought stifles some of his own native brilliance, though. Besides, the quaestio-format just really starts to bug me after a while.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
You're right to say that so far I haven't given a straightforward interpretation of Rom.8. But, and this is not a put-on, it's because I don't have one to offer. I would like to have one, and that's why I've been digging into the issues we've been discussing. They clearly play an important part in what's going on in the passage, but I don't quite understand what part that is. So I have a bunch of ideas swirling around, but not much else.
So far, I think, I'm persuaded that there is something in the vicinity of a cosmic law principle in play, but please note all my caveats about this. I agree with jakester that the cosmic law can't be thought of as something that somehow compels God to act in one way or another. But I do take very seriously the idea that creation (not just humanity) is suffering, groaning for an anticipated redemption. I'm just not at all sure what to make of that. I think my remarks above about evil are an important part of the story, but I definitely don't have all that worked out yet.
So I'm honestly not trying to keep my cards close to my vest. There's just still a lot about this short but very meaty passage that I haven't figured out yet. And since all the people who have posted to this thread so far are thoughtful guys, I have been shamelessly using you to help me sort things through. And it's helped a lot, even if I'm not quite there yet--in fact, I'm not even sure where there is, but I am confidant that I'll know it when I arrive. Do you think what I've said in previous posts makes sense? Because I'm not sure what to think about it. The feedback really does help.
Hello my friend,
Another excellent thread. I've read some but not all of the entries. I'd like to post my own because I have thought about this quite a bit. And, I've never understood why some say that animals will not go to heaven. I say this, because I had a dream once that my grandmother showed me my childhood dog, in heaven. She was quite happy (the dog), but I don't think she knew where she was.
Anyway, to prepare the way, these are simply my speculative thoughts and may or may not adhere to Catholic doctrine. I hope they do, but I'm not certain they do.
For one thing, we rarely remember that the one who introduced sin into the world was Satan. Unfortunately, Adam became his lackey or pawn.
In addition, I practice the "Presence of God" devotion. From practice of this devotion, I've come to believe that we are never out of God's presence. Not on this earth, not in heaven and not even in hell.
God knows who are the predestined. But no creature knows.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
I suggest that this subjection occurred when Satan fell and dragged with him 1/3 of the stars.Quote:
v.20: for creation was made subject to futility, not of its own accord but because of the one who subjected it,
This introduces the next verse and in my opinion should be part of the next verse. Only by and through hope, will creation be set free from slavery...Quote:
in hope
In other words, then, only by and through hope in God will creation be set free from slavery to corruption, that is from slavery to Satan and sin which he introduced into the world.Quote:
v.21: that creation itself would be set free from slavery to corruption
By whose faith, hope and love, the world will be freed from corruption.Quote:
and share in the glorious freedom of the children of God.
All creation is suffering because of the sin of Satan. Adam introduced sin and death to the human soul. In other words, mortal sin. But we can infer that physical death was already in the world because when God said, "you shall surely die the death". Adam didn't respond, "What's that?"Quote:
v.22: We know that all creation is groaning in labor pains even until now...
Well, if we compare to another passage:Quote:
a) How do you understand this passage?
Romans 5 12 Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.
Adam introduced sin and death to the human soul. In other words, mortal sin. But we can infer that physical death was already in the world because when God said, "you shall surely die the death". Adam didn't respond, "What's that?"
But suffering and death was introduced into creation by Satan. In my opinion.
John 12 32 And I, if I be lifted from the earth, will draw all things to myself.Quote:
b) What does this tell us about redemption?
Jesus is redeeming the world. Even sinners will be redeemed. But not to heaven.
I believe it is.Quote:
I have heard it said that Christ came to save human beings and only human beings. But this passage seems to suggest that Christ's redemption is not reserved only for humanity but for the whole of creation. Is that true?
From Satan.Quote:
If it is true, from what does creation (apart from humanity) need to be redeemed and how is it to receive its redemption?
John 12 31 Now is the judgment of the world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.
Union with God.Quote:
c) What exactly is it that "creation awaits with eager expectation"?
Union with God.Quote:
Why is "all creation groaning" and for what?
561 "The whole of Christ's life was a continual teaching: his silences, his miracles, his gestures, his prayer, his love for people, his special affection for the little and the poor, his acceptance of the total sacrifice on the Cross for the redemption of the world, and his Resurrection are the actualization of his word and the fulfillment of Revelation" John Paul II, CT 9).Quote:
d) What, if anything, does this passage tell us about Christ's mission?
Jesus the Son of man and Son of God conquers all, draws everything to Himself and then returns everything to the Father.
What do you think?
Akoue,
Like you I have not come to a complete understanding of that passage.
Hopefully more discussion on it will be of value.
Fred
De Maria,Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
It's so very nice to see you here with us for a while. I hope all is well with you.
Well, I am still working my way through your (typically) excellent post. I know I like it a lot and I know that I found myself nodding in agreement as I read along. But it's thoughtful and I'd like to give it a thoughtful (as opposed to off-the-cuff) response. I just had to take a quick moment to say how delighted I was by your first paragraph. I too have been a bit confused by the claim that animals will not go to heaven, and this is surely at least part of what motivates my interest in the present passage. (But only part.)
If either of us were advocating apokatastasis--the idea that everything, including Satan, is to be united with God in heaven--then we'd be on the wrong side of Catholic doctrine. But nothing you've said even hints at that, so I think the coast is clear.
I look forward to spending some time with your post. Knowing me, I'll have a long, and probably long-winded, reply before too long.
Be well.
I hope so too. At least it's a fun passage to ponder. Especially in good company.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
So far, I still can’t come to agreement with anybody who has posted a response. I see a different focus in these verses. Some of the fault may be mine - I get thick headed sometimes. Some of the fault may be that each of the translations can be construed with different connotation. (see above) One difference is the interchange of the word ‘creation’ and ‘creature’ in the different versions. I realize that this is a small substitution, but it seems to add or takeaway some inference. And what’s worse, is that if I take bits and pieces of all three of the versions above I come even closer to St. Chrysostom’s interpretation; I get frustrated trying to view it any other way.Quote:
v.19: For creation awaits with eager expectation the revelation of the children of God;
v. 19 For the expectation of the creature waiteth for the revelation of the sons of God. (Douay-Rheims)
V. 19 For all creation is waiting eagerly for that future day when God will reveal who his children really are. (KJV)
v.20: for creation was made subject to futility, not of its own accord but because of the one who subjected it, in hope
v. 20 For the creature was made subject to vanity: not willingly, but by reason of him that made it subject, in hope. (Douay-Rheims)
v. 20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, (KJV)
v.21: that creation itself would be set free from slavery to corruption and share in the glorious freedom of the children of God.
v. 21 Because the creature also itself shall be delivered from the servitude of corruption, into the liberty of the glory of the children of God. (Douay-Rheims)
v. 21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. (KJV)
v.22: We know that all creation is groaning in labor pains even until now...
v. 22 For we know that every creature groaneth and travaileth in pain, even till now. (Douay-Rheims)
v. 22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. (KJV)
In my opinion verse 24 is the focus when discussing verses 18 to 25.
v. 24 For we are saved by hope. But hope that is seen is not hope. For what a man seeth, why doth he hope for? (Douay-Rheims)
And verse 19 points to this conclusion.
v. 19 For the expectation of the creature waiteth for the revelation of the sons of God. (Douay-Rheims)
Here the ‘creature’ is man, and through original sin is made subject to vanity. Vanity is the causality for man’s walking “according to the flesh.” And as we know the way’s of the flesh lead to corruption, death. Thus, Paul wants us to look at the futility of our sufferings. Our sufferings become futile or otherwise ineffectual. Thus we groan in our labor longing for freedom from the condition of concupiscence.
So, where do we find our deliverance? In Christ we see that the chains of concupiscence break us from corruption (death); liberating man to become adopted children of God. “we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption of the sons of God, the redemption of our body” Paul tells us how this happens, “we are saved by hope!”
JoeT
Joe, thanks so much for providing the variant translations of these verses. One thing that I think I can offer is a little bit of clarity on this. The Greek word that is used for creation in vv.19-22 is "he ktisis". In vv.20-22 "He ktisis" is in the nominative singular, and this means that the correct translation in these verses is "the creation" or "creation" (if you leave the definite article, he, out); in v.19 it is in the genitive. I don't see mention of any variant readings in the manuscript tradition that would explain the plural found in some translations. I'm guessing this is the translators inserting some of their own interpretive preferences.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
This does have some repercussions for the interpretation of the passage, inasmuch as "creation" allows for the possibility that it isn't just creatures (say, animals and humans) that long to be one with God. But it definitely doesn't decide things one way or another, since in some sense, everything that God created can be regarded as a creature. (Augustine famously referred to time as a creature, since it is part of the creation.)
Your point about the centrality of hope to an understanding of the passage is well taken. I think that is right. Or at least, I agree. The idea that creation itself longs for its creator, longs for union with the Godhead is really intriguing to me, and something I wish got more attention than it seems to. But that also raises the question, which we've been considering, of who placed it under subjection: God, Adam, or Satan? I think De Maria's post makes strong case for the view that it was Satan.
Having said all that, I think you are in good company if you find yourself favoring Chrysostom's reading. He was as fine a biblical scholar as there's ever been, and I am uneasy at the prospect of being at odds with him on this. But I confess that I don't see how concupiscence fits in here--though that may just mean that I am missing something. In any case, I think there are several things going on in the passage simultaneously (this is part of what makes it difficult, i.e. it is very dense) and unless I am confused (again, a real possibility) I don't think that what you have said is at odds with anything jakester, De Maria, or I have proposed. I think it's just not yet entirely evident how all the pieces fall into place alongside one another. This at least seems to be where I am at the moment.
I think that some notion of a cosmic law, together with the idea that creation as a whole is somehow filled with longing for God and your point about the centrality of hope, must all together be involved in these verses. But it's rather a lot to sort through once you start digging into the details. But I'm a glutton for punishment: I never like to stay at just the surface of the text. There's always so much more waiting below.
JoeT777,
Thanks much for that it adds much to my pondering.
I also tend to go along with St. Chrysostom's offering on that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Now I'll confess, I was secretly hoping you would explain the differences. I just didn't want to ask straight out. I appreciate it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Then couldn't (or shouldn't) we take the usage of 'creation' or 'creature' as allegorical. I'd suggest that since it doesn't significantly add to Paul's intended meaning it's likely to be figurative.Quote:
This does have some repercussions for the interpretation of the passage, inasmuch as "creation" allows for the possibility that it isn't just creatures (say, animals and humans) that long to be one with God. But it definitely doesn't decide things one way or another, since in some sense, everything that God created can be regarded as a creature. (Augustine famously referred to time as a creature, since it is part of the creation.)
That is if you don't consider all of creation vs a creature or multiple creatures significant.
I can agree with this.Quote:
The idea that creation itself longs for its creator, longs for union with the Godhead is really intriguing to me, and something I wish got more attention than it seems to.
Yes, I picked up on the subjection by Satin. Where normally I agree with Juan on most things, I can't on this. But, let's see if one candidate at a time can be eliminated, especially Satin. According to V. 20 the ineffectiveness is born out of helplessness (subjection) in hope. Satin wouldn't offer hope, please remember “hope saves.” Satin doesn't want to 'save.' And the creature is unable to transcend the nature he was created in (or should I say created for); and Adam was 'creature'. We are only left with one other candidate. The One that saves with hope! Anyway, it seems to make sense.Quote:
But that also raises the question, which we've been considering, of who placed it under subjection: God, Adam, or Satan? I think De Maria's post makes strong case for the view that it was Satan.
You see if Satin causes our helplessness, presumably through sin, then how can God justify us (save us). We'd be automatically justified, “the devil made me do it!” I don't think God would buy it. I know my wife doesn't!
St. Augustine seems to hold the same view. God is the one who 'subjects': 8. I will be glad, and rejoice in Your mercy: which does not deceive me. For You have regarded My humiliation: wherein You have subjected me to vanity in hope. [Romans 8:20] You have saved my soul from necessities [Psalm 30:7]. You have saved my soul from the necessities of fear, that with a free love it may serve You. (St. Augustine, Exposition on Psalm 31) see also St. Augustine, Exposition on Psalm 25, 6
To my recollection, Chrysostom didn't use 'concupiscence' – that was me. So, don't blame him. I'm probably wrong doing it, but I use 'concupiscence' to describe man's lust for depravity or the propensity for sin.Quote:
Having said all that, I think you are in good company if you find yourself favoring Chrysostom's reading. He was as fine a biblical scholar as there's ever been, and I am uneasy at the prospect of being at odds with him on this. But I confess that I don't see how concupiscence fits in here--though that may just mean that I am missing something. In any case, I think there are several things going on in the passage simultaneously (this is part of what makes it difficult, i.e. it is very dense) and unless I am confused (again, a real possibility) I don't think that what you have said is at odds with anything jakester, De Maria, or I have proposed. I think it's just not yet entirely evident how all the pieces fall into place alongside one another. This at least seems to be where I am at the moment.
But, OK we'll leave it alone for awhile.
Apparently I've got the same objection with 'cosmic law' as you had with the above. I just can't see it. But, if you get it figured out, you'll need to render it in its simplest form for this simpleton.Quote:
I think that some notion of a cosmic law, together with the idea that creation as a whole is somehow filled with longing for God and your point about the centrality of hope, must all together be involved in these verses. But it's rather a lot to sort through once you start digging into the details. But I'm a glutton for punishment: I never like to stay at just the surface of the text. There's always so much more waiting below.
JoeT
JoeT777
I agree.
Also I find it difficult tp think that creation as a whole is longing for the God who created all that is seen and unseen.
Much of that creation, I think, can not long for anything for it never had life as we know it.
While some religions do believe that things such as rocks and hills have spirits I do not believe that they do or even can have spirits.
Without the ability to think how can anything "long"?
Peace and kindness,
Fred
You and Joe raise a great question, but one that it's not easy to deal with. I say this because it makes perfect sense to me that those parts of creation that have life so long for God. In fact, St. Irenaeus and St. Gregory Nazianzen say this. So is there a kind of cosmic longing that perhaps humans just can't understand, or is the longing only that of those things in the creation that have life? I could see it going either way at this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
Now you get why I've been so stumped?
Good points Fred. I think Akoue was 'stumped' because this tree was cut long before he entered the woods. (just joking!)Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Akoue; here's a few more problems. Hope is a theological virtue. Now if we give hope to re-unite creation with God, can we then have a virtuous rock, a virtuous lake, or how about a virtuous desert? If we mean creature, as in all living things, then can we have virtuous snakes (I hate snakes), a virtuous fish, how about a virtuous cow?
Wouldn't this be projecting humanity on nature?
JoeT
Joe,
Good questions.
I have no answers just wonderings.
Fred
I don't see why we couldn't say that hope is a theological virtue *in humans*. I don't think that runs the risk of being ad hoc.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
I wonder, though, whether there isn't a way to understand it without anthropomorphizing nature. This has been on my mind, too, and all I have come up with so far is that hope on the part of creation may not look like human hope, or it might not look like hope to us but Paul is telling us that it is a kind of hope. In other words, we might be called upon to stretch our conception of what hope is. If there's anything to this (and I wouldn't want to have to defend it), then it might not be that we're anthropomorphizing nature but rather that we are being pointed in the direction of a less parochial understanding of what hope is.
Or it could be that it's late and I'm tired and my addled brain doesn't know which end is up. This is a live option.
EDIT:
I have placed asterisks around the phrase "in humans" above. As originally phrased, the first sentence of my post what unclear. What I meant to say is that we can consider hope to be a theological hope in humans but something other than a theological hope in non-humans. My purpose was to hive off a conception of hope that has application to creation as a whole without construing it as a theological virtue. I hope this makes sense to anyone who isn't me(!).
Akoue,
There are different understandings of "hope"
Such as I hope you have a good nights rest.
I'm about ready to hit the hay for another day.
To me a biblical hope is a theological expectation of a certainty.
Another is the hope I had when in the Garden of the God's in Colorado I was standing on a very big rock which was balanced on a comparatively very small footing.
I hoped that it would not move which was a reasonable assurance that it would stay put while I was standing on it.
Otherwise I would not have gotten up on it at all.
So is there another hope that such things as that rock could somehow experience?
I doubt it, but who knows?
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Too difficult and elaborate to discuss St. Thomas Aquinas in this board. However, I can without any problems affirm that St. Augustine could be considered, to a certain extent, as a reformed sinner. As you probably know, he was educated in North Africa and resisted his mother's pleas to become Christian. He used to live for a long while as a pagan intellectual, and during this period he took a concubine and became a Manichean. It was only later he converted to Catolicism to eventually become a Doctor of the Church.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
I therefore think he can be considered a repented sinner.
Fred, you are of course absolutely right to suggest that it would sound just really odd to speak of a rock having hope. I wonder if the way to think of it is not that this rock has hope and that river has hope, but rather that creation, taken organically as a whole, has hope. Paul uses organic language with great frequency, and he may have been thinking not of the individual things that make-up creation having hope but of creation, considered in its entirety, as having hope.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
I don't think that this distinction puts the matter to rest by a long-shot. I just realized that my last post was more than a little unclear. My apologies for that.
Sorry about that gromitt82. The statement was intended as a joke; it wasn’t meant to be taken literally. I agree with you whole heartedly; no doubt, Augustine was a reformed sinner.Quote:
Originally Posted by gromitt82
I guess I should give up trying to be humorous – obviously I don’t have the talent.
JoeT
I really wish you wouldn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
And, for what it's worth, I happen to think you do a good job. I know I certainly enjoy stealing from you! If you stop, I'm going to have to rely only on my own imagination to come up with new material. Trust me, nobody wants that.
I'm sorry. I misunderstood you! It is not you do not have the talent to be humorous! I would rather say it is little old me who does not understand full well Shakespeare's beautiful language. Which should not surprise me for my mother language is Spanish...Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Therefore, I most humbly apologize!:D:D
Akoue:Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Have we discussed all the issues listed above? Have we gnawed this thread down to the one question of ‘cosmic victory’? Are you prepared to defend the meat the ‘cosmic victory’ theory; or should we dispense with all the remaining issues first (if there are any)?
JoeT
PS. To all: when you get sick from all the corny jokes, just remember you had your chance!
I also like Joe's contribution. And Jake's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
But I like the way you put this.
To sort of correlate it to what I said, I would say that sin is the disease and Satan is the bug which carried that disease into the universe.
I guess that begs the question, how are animals, who have no souls and inanimate objects which have no life, affected by sin?
I would say, physically.
If we read the book of Job, we see that Satan has some physical control over nature. It is he, I believe, who has introduced "chaos" into God's order.
The sin is not nature's. It is his. And because of his sin, he corrupts and subjects all which is within his power.
Unfortunately, Adam and Eve, gave themselves, and subsequently us, into his power. Otherwise, he would not be able to touch us.
Whether he would be able to tempt us, I don't know. I'm not sure that if Adam and Eve had passed their test, whether their children would not also be tested. It appears to me that every Angel was tested, so why wouldn't every soul?
What do you think?
I'm sick of ethanol.:pQuote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Well, OK! How about Tennessee Whiskey anybody? You know old Jack went into his office one day in 1911 and tried to open the safe. He couldn’t recall the combination; so, frustrated he kicked the safe. He died shortly afterwards of a broken toe – or was it blood poisoning! And the moral of this real life story; if you bruise the bottle you wake up with a hangover, abuse the safe and you wake up dead!
JoeT
This makes sense. And like a virus, sin propagates itself. So there is a sense in which we can speak of it having a sort of agency.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
I confess I'm not quite sure what to make of the idea that animals don't have souls. Certainly the Fathers, and St. Thomas as well, hold that where there is life there is a soul. An animal's soul is not the same as a human soul, since ours is in the image of the Holy Trinity. But I would want to say that animals are not without souls.Quote:
I guess that begs the question, how are animals, who have no souls and inanimate objects which have no life, affected by sin?
In fact, we know that many animals have an interior psychological life that is quite rich. I mention this, because it would seem to me that sin can affect them in many of the ways it affects us (though, of course, not all).
Definitely. They suffer for the crimes that we commit. Well, and Satan too, of course. (Makes me think we should be more humane in our treatment of them.)Quote:
I would say, physically.
Good point. The Fathers often associate good with order and evil with disorder. The "chaos" that we find in creation is a disorder in both senses: It is a lack of order or a diminishment of harmony and it is a disorder in the sense of a disease.Quote:
If we read the book of Job, we see that Satan has some physical control over nature. It is he, I believe, who has introduced "chaos" into God's order.
Yes. Otherwise, Manicheeism.Quote:
The sin is not nature's. It is his. And because of his sin, he corrupts and subjects all which is within his power.
I agree with you. I think that where there is free will, that will is subject to test and temptation.Quote:
Unfortunately, Adam and Eve, gave themselves, and subsequently us, into his power. Otherwise, he would not be able to touch us.
Whether he would be able to tempt us, I don't know. I'm not sure that if Adam and Eve had passed their test, whether their children would not also be tested. It appears to me that every Angel was tested, so why wouldn't every soul?
Sadly, I know very little about this devotion. But I am very intrigued by the notion of being in God's presence even in hell.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
The more I think about this the more I think you're right.Quote:
I suggest that this subjection occurred when Satan fell and dragged with him 1/3 of the stars.
Yes. As well as what goes along with that, that to be far from God is to be, and to feel, imprisoned and bound. Existence then feels like a burden.Quote:
In other words, then, only by and through hope in God will creation be set free from slavery to corruption, that is from slavery to Satan and sin which he introduced into the world.
Yes, I like this a lot. In your reading of Scripture I have always found you to be very sensitive to its dialogical character. You are well-attuned to the silences. And I think you are right, that Adam's silence tells us something.Quote:
All creation is suffering because of the sin of Satan. Adam introduced sin and death to the human soul. In other words, mortal sin. But we can infer that physical death was already in the world because when God said, "you shall surely die the death". Adam didn't respond, "What's that?"
Agreed.Quote:
But suffering and death was introduced into creation by Satan. In my opinion.
Exactly right. It calls to mind certain very old icons of Christ Pantocrator which evoke him as the source of unity to which all will return. This is something of which the Cappadocian Fathers, especially Gregory of Nyssa, speak very eloquently, and I believe you have captured the spirit of that with the reading you have offered here.Quote:
Jesus the Son of man and Son of God conquers all, draws everything to Himself and then returns everything to the Father.
Thank you.
No, thank youuuuu!Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
I've mentioned these things on other forums and been accused of all kinds of heresies.
Its good to finally meet someone who understands what I'm saying.
Thanks again. And thanks to God for bringing you here.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Akoue,
I think you are right.
From now on I will think of "creation, taken organically as a whole, has hope."
Peace and kindness,
Fred
I am genuinely astonished that you have been accused of heresy for this. As I mentioned earlier, if you had defended apokatastasis then I could see it, since this was anathematized by the Council of Constantinople. But you have not argued that there is a sort of necessity by which all of creation, including Satan and the fallen angels, will return to the divine Monad. Perhaps talk of return to union with God is enough for some people to jump the gun. And I have known Thomists *of a certain stripe* who would say such things. (A really good Thomist would know better!)Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
I thank you both for your very kind words and for your participation in this conversation. I hope you'll give me feedback if you find anything in what I've posted to be unclear, mistaken, or misguided. For my part, I'm trying this out on you guys as I work through it for myself, so I am grateful for the time you've invested in helping me as I make my way.
Its very simple really. Most of us probably do it subconsciously. Simply "pretend" that God is with you all the time. Your "pretending" is really acknowledging an unseen fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
You can do this by
1. occasionally glancing in His direction.
2. occasionally asking for advice as you would a friend or simply conversing.
3. continually praying, your favorite devotions or some short prayers (aka ejaculations)
These can be done out loud or mentally (mental prayer).
God is omnipresent. I don't think there are any exceptions to that Divine attribute.Quote:
But I am very intrigued by the notion of being in God's presence even in hell.
Some Muslims, for instance, claim that Allah does not exist in creation. We don't. We believe that God transcends creation. That means that God is not affected by creation, but He permeates it. We believe that God is not affected by time or space. God is smaller than the smallest piece of matter and greater than all creation.
Have you ever heard anyone ask, "how many angels on the point of a pin?" That's because angels take up no space, so they can all fit on that pinpoint. And God can be right there with them. And yet God is so grand that the entire universe can't contain Him.
Quite a paradox.
When we speak of the Trinity, we say that:
The Father is in the Son but the Father is not the Son.
The Son is in the Father but the Son is not the Father.
The Spirit is in the Father and the Son, but the Spirit is not the Father or the Son.
I believe we can also say that we are in God, but we are not God.
God is in us, but God is not us.
We believe that God is Yahweh, I AM WHO AM. Otherwise interpreted, I AM ALL BEING.
Acts Of Apostles 17 28 For in him we live, and move, and are; as some also of your own poets said: For we are also his offspring.
This is not Pantheism. Pantheism, as I understand it, says that God is the universe.
But we believe God is greater than the universe:
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
God created heaven, purgatory and hell. Therefore God is there.
Psalm 138
8 If I ascend into heaven, thou art there: if I descend into hell, thou art present.
Hebrews 12 29 For our God is a consuming fire.
Some say that the same fire that glorifies in heaven, cleanses in purgatory and punishes in hell.
"The day of judgment is coming, to burn like a furnace," Malachi 4, verse 1. chapter 3, verse 2, "the refiners for silver and gold." Hebrews 12, verse 29, tells us that our God is a consuming fire. That's the kind of love He has. It just burns out of control. Our God is madly in love with us. He's madly in love with us. It's sheer madness for the God who owes us nothing, to whom we owe everything but to whom we gave practically nothing. He turns around and gives us everything including himself by becoming one of us and allowing us to kill him. He's madly in love with us, and that mad love is burning out of control and filling this vast universe. It's just that our physical eyes can't see it, but they will some day and our souls will undergo it. And those who have refined their love through self-sacrifice and mortification and penance and charity through the spirit of the foundation which is Christ, but those who have done so are going to enter into that fiery love of God and say, "Oooh, it feels so good! I'm home." And other people are going to look back where they have compromised and taken short cuts; they've done a lot of great things in love and faith and hope. They've even suffered some, but they have taken a lot of short cuts, They are going to enter that fire and say, "Ooh, ooh...," and purgatory is for them.
Now the saints in heaven would freeze in purgatory, and hell fire for the saints in heaven would be like ice, dry ice. Our God is a consuming fire. The periphery of the universe is hell fire. That isn't the hottest. The hottest is what you find when you get closest to God. Out of the nine choirs of angels, the highest are the Seraphim. In Hebrew it means the burning ones. They glow bright because they are consumed with this passionate, fiery love that God has for all eternity for us as His children.
Purgatory: Holy Fire
2 Corinthians 5 8 But we are confident, and have a good will to be absent rather from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
And Scripture seems to say that being absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. There seems to be no distinguishing between heaven or hell.
Thoughts?
De Maria,
That's an amazing post.
Talking to God as if He were a friend right there with me is a great idea for He IS.
The rest I must ponder particularly about the fires of heaven and hell.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
This is a very interesting point, one that has been uppermost in my thoughts as I've been thinking about Rom.8. I can see how saying this might lead some people to suspect you of holding a view close to that of Meister Eckhart, though from what you have said I wouldn't be one of them. I think that God's omnipresence is both a wonderful object for meditation and, at the same time, rather difficult to frame clearly. At least, it has been for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
And there is also a pantheistic tradition, represented most notably, I suppose, by Ibn Arabi.Quote:
Some Muslims, for instance, claim that Allah does not exist in creation. We don't. We believe that God transcends creation. That means that God is not affected by creation, but He permeates it. We believe that God is not affected by time or space. God is smaller than the smallest piece of matter and greater than all creation.
The idea of God permeating creation is especially interesting to me. But, I confess, I'm not sure I entirely understand what you have in mind. Could I ask you to say a little more about the way you think about it?
You're exactly right.Quote:
Have you ever heard anyone ask, "how many angels on the point of a pin?" That's because angels take up no space, so they can all fit on that pinpoint. And God can be right there with them. And yet God is so grand that the entire universe can't contain Him.
Quite a paradox.
Right, God is Being. This is interesting to think about in the light of the idea, upheld by many Fathers and Doctors of the Church, that evil is nothingness.Quote:
I believe we can also say that we are in God, but we are not God.
God is in us, but God is not us.
We believe that God is Yahweh, I AM WHO AM. Otherwise interpreted, I AM ALL BEING.
I think this is one form, at least, that pantheism can take. In Ibn Arabi's case, he holds that God is *in* everything that exists. He is generally regarded to have been a pantheist. But, if you find that that is consistent with what you are saying, it might well be the case that there is a sense of pantheism that isn't problematic, while others forms of pantheism are. Certainly Meister Eckhart at least flirted with a problematic form of pantheism (although I very much doubt that he did anything more than to flirt with it). But since God sustains all Being, there is a sense in which he must be *in* all things that exist, insofar as they exist. (Oh, man, that last little phrase started to sound like Aquinas. Sorry guys, I may have a disease of the brain!)Quote:
This is not Pantheism. Pantheism, as I understand it, says that God is the universe.
This is really interesting. Processing... processing... processing...Quote:
But we believe God is greater than the universe:
[I]"The day of judgment is coming, to burn like a furnace," Malachi 4, verse 1. chapter 3, verse 2, "the refiners for silver and gold." Hebrews 12, verse 29, tells us that our God is a consuming fire. That's the kind of love He has. It just burns out of control. Our God is madly in love with us. He's madly in love with us. It's sheer madness for the God who owes us nothing, to whom we owe everything but to whom we gave practically nothing. He turns around and gives us everything including himself by becoming one of us and allowing us to kill him. He's madly in love with us, and that mad love is burning out of control and filling this vast universe. It's just that our physical eyes can't see it, but they will some day and our souls will undergo it. And those who have refined their love through self-sacrifice and mortification and penance and charity through the spirit of the foundation which is Christ, but those who have done so are going to enter into that fiery love of God and say, "Oooh, it feels so good! I'm home." And other people are going to look back where they have compromised and taken short cuts; they've done a lot of great things in love and faith and hope. They've even suffered some, but they have taken a lot of short cuts, They are going to enter that fire and say, "Ooh, ooh...," and purgatory is for them.
Yes, and this is why I say that people often underestimate the transformative experience that is being in God's presence. It isn't a warm-fuzzy in your belly; it is a radical transformation of what you thought you were.Quote:
Now the saints in heaven would freeze in purgatory, and hell fire for the saints in heaven would be like ice, dry ice. Our God is a consuming fire. The periphery of the universe is hell fire. That isn't the hottest. The hottest is what you find when you get closest to God. Out of the nine choirs of angels, the highest are the Seraphim. In Hebrew it means the burning ones. They glow bright because they are consumed with this passionate, fiery love that God has for all eternity for us as His children.
I forgot to say: Yes, it is. I'm privileged to be able to discuss this with you, with each of you.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
Actually, I agree. But the subject of souls and spirits gets kind of hairy. Especially the terminology used by St. Thomas and the Fathers. Even the writers of the Bible are not consistent in their usage of these terms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
So, I kind of made my own terminology based on this CCC paragraph. I did so, in order to make sense of it for myself.
365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the "form" of the body: i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.
As I understand this then, we are "souls". We don't have souls, we are souls.
We have Spiritual souls, which I abbreviate "spirit". And we have bodies made of matter which I call the "body". The union of the body and the spirit is the soul, which we are.
It stands to reason that animals have "animating" spirits. And it stands to reason that animals have matter which we call "bodies". Therefore the union of their animating spirit and their body, is an animal soul.
But there seems to be a qualitative difference between an animal soul and a human soul. We can see this in nature.
1. An animal is not offended by immodesty. An animal does not hide its sexual organs behind clothes.
We do. Based upon the fact that God clothed Adam and Eve after the Fall, I suspect that the Original Sin was a sin against the reproductive system. A sexual sin.
2. Nor does an animal worship. At least, we have not been able to identify worship in animals. Although some animals (especially elephants) seem to mourn their deceased.
Based upon the dream I had about my dog in heaven, I believe that animal souls do not have the attribute which recognizes its Creator. They know they exist, but they don't know why and they don't care. They are just happy to be alive, whether in this life or the next.
I wasn't aware of that. I've searched for this information and hadn't found any. I thought it didn't exist. Is there any reference you can provide?Quote:
Certainly the Fathers, and St. Thomas as well, hold that where there is life there is a soul.
I agree.Quote:
An animal's soul is not the same as a human soul, since ours is in the image of the Holy Trinity. But I would want to say that animals are not without souls.
I agree. The Scriptures say:Quote:
In fact, we know that many animals have an interior psychological life that is quite rich. I mention this, because it would seem to me that sin can affect them in many of the ways it affects us (though, of course, not all)...
Genesis 9:5 For I will require the blood of your lives at the hand of every beast, and at the hand of man, at the hand of every man, and of his brother, will I require the life of man.
in general, animals fear man. Yet some beasts do attack men. So it would seem that they are acting upon their free will and sinning against God's law.
Curious.
I also see this in my own pet. Our dog knows that he isn't supposed to eat out of the trash. We were recently wondering, "how did he get that out of the trash without spilling it?" He's a veritable Houdini! We suspect that he secretly stands up on two legs, sprouts opposable thumbs and proceeds to sift through the trash to the very bottom, getting just the morsels he wants! And spilling not a drop.
Amazing! I'm thinking about installing a hidden camera.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:40 AM. |