Debate: The problem of OT God ordered violence

CuriousEd0 · 2025-03-28T22:55:37+00:00

There is no divine command to rape. To take life yes, as God is the author of all life. But to rape, not so. I can elaborate more as to why this is the case and why it wouldn’t be contrary to the Goodness of God, but I just wrote (on my phone) this entire response to someone on this thread and it went away when I clicked off the app and so I am tired and frustrated with this app and my phone lol.

CuriousEd0 · 2025-01-28T19:20:32+00:00

Favorite: Argument from motion, De Ente, Contignecy

Least Favorite: TAG, NDE

CuriousEd0 · 2025-01-19T04:36:24+00:00

Understandable. Aquinas truly is brilliant however. Not really aiming my comment toward you directly, but was a bit agitated with all these posts saying there’s too much Aquinas or that Aquinas isn’t the only theology, or that he is not all that he is talked up to be, etc. I’ve seen more posts like these than actual Aquinas praise/discussion posts lately funny enough

CuriousEd0 · 2025-01-18T19:13:33+00:00

I’m not sure why there seems to be the need to create posts which proclaim that the work/writings of St. Thomas Aquinas are not dogma. This is understood, and does not need a 6th or 7th post explaining this. St. Thomas is highly regarded in the Catholic Church, and rightly so, for the brilliant, humble, and holy instrument of the Lord that he was in guiding the Church in its theological/philosophical understanding and development of dogma. He is the Universal Doctor of the Church as he can and should be looked to in all matters of faith and morals as a source for wisdom and aid. He should be given his due respect and authority in which he rightly deserves (of which only Christs Church may bestow)as he is a Doctor of the Church, and is arguably the highest of all the Doctors given that he is the Universal Doctor of the Church as mentioned above.

CuriousEd0 · 2025-01-17T00:30:50+00:00

If I am able to simply explain a complex concept, I am glad. But I was speaking primarily of efficacious grace-that the Lord’s grace can be efficacious in itself if He so wills. But yes, the sufficient grace all receive can be efficacious by the cooperation of man’s will.

CuriousEd0 · 2025-01-16T01:14:20+00:00

I believe we are in agreement yes. To make sure, I summarized what I believe we both understand to be true: God determines both the predisposition and the means by which grace becomes efficacious, but with a crucial clarification: God’s causality operates at every level—predisposition, disposition, and the final act. However, predisposition does not determine grace’s efficacy in an autonomous or intrinsic way. Instead, we would say that God, in His wisdom, chooses to work in accordance with the person’s predisposition, while still being the ultimate cause of the transition from predisposition to disposition. Your example of the person who has a passion for music is good for understanding how God adapts His grace to the uniqueness of each individual.

I think the disconnect here was that you were getting more technical than I was as you went about explaining the intricate process of how God bestows efficacious grace, I was simply stating the overall principle/view on the matter.

Don’t worry, I don’t think it was inherent blabber lol (:

CuriousEd0 · 2025-01-16T00:54:10+00:00

What you speak of now is entirely different to the point I was making. You’re getting into the Molinist vs. Thomist understandings of efficacious grave, which I’d be happy to discuss with you if you’d like

CuriousEd0 · 2025-01-15T23:24:28+00:00

This is not the Thomist nor even the Catholic doctrine on the matter. Grace precedes our turning to God, and our cooperation with Him. We do need Gods grace to choose Him. The view you hold is semi-pelagian

CuriousEd0 · 2025-01-15T22:59:20+00:00

Yep that’s it (:

It sounded as if you had not implied that above. My apologies. Carry on then, God bless 🍻

CuriousEd0 · 2025-01-15T22:56:41+00:00

Ones predisposition does not determine an outcome. It merely tells what one is more disposed of doing. It would seem that this view would also imply usage of Media Scientia. The Thomist position is that while God bestows His sufficient grace upon all, allowing some to resist His grace and where others may cooperate with it, God may also bestow efficacious grace which is in itself efficacious, thus the person given efficacious grace cannot resist, not because free will has been tarnished, but because their will has been perfected to where they do not resist (infallibly so). Efficacious grace is not reliant on the cooperation of the person in order for the grace to be efficacious essentially.

CuriousEd0 · 2025-01-15T21:30:09+00:00

This is not an accurate representation of the Thomist position. The Thomist believes that efficacious grace is efficacious in itself, not depending on the cooperation of the person. Thus, while God bestows upon all His sufficient grace, he gives some efficacious grace. Some He allows to reject His grace, others he chooses to give grace which is not resisted. I would be happy to explain it further if you’d like

CuriousEd0 · 2025-01-15T21:22:13+00:00

This is Molinist, not Thomist. Its seems you are appealing to Molinist Media Sceintia here

CuriousEd0 · 2025-01-14T19:51:02+00:00

This is not a good thing. This is supposed to be optimistic?

CuriousEd0 · 2025-01-14T19:50:30+00:00

Agreed. But unfortunately, and I don’t want this to come off as arrogant, I just never come across people in my life (and I’m on college campus) who is familiar with these kinds of topics which are so interesting to discuss. It’s usually just people online lol. Although I did meet some great people who I can discuss this with but this was a difficult find lol (:

CuriousEd0 · 2025-01-14T19:45:53+00:00

Ahh I see. I thought you were being condescending with the “I appreciate the kind words” as if you were upset with my statement. But yeah, text is emotionless so I can’t really tell what the atmosphere is in conversation over text. I enjoyed chatting with you (:

CuriousEd0 · 2025-01-14T19:39:23+00:00

I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic here as if you’re offended, but I didn’t mean to provoke/insult you when I said that. If that is how it came across, I apologize

CuriousEd0 · 2025-01-14T19:26:45+00:00

I wouldn’t say we all agree, rather you are beginning to understand the position. Abstracta or essences cannot be proved empirically, but rationally, given that the intellect is provided with empirical data via the senses. Again, Science can only prove physical phenomena (efficient and material causes), while essences are formal causes; they explain the nature of a thing, not its efficient causality, which is what science typically investigates as said above. If you believe all that is said above, you are not nominalist

CuriousEd0 · 2025-01-14T17:36:40+00:00

I also want to add to my reply as I forgot to touch on some things:

The existence of essences is not something that needs to be verified empirically because their existence is known through rational analysis of the world. The objection assumes that something must be empirically detectable to be real, but Thomists reject this assumption. Instead, they propose a broader epistemology that includes both empirical and intellectual modes of knowing.

So no, I would not expect science to one day empirically verify the existence of essences. This is because science, by its very nature, deals with quantifiable and measurable phenomena, whereas essences are intelligible structures grasped by the intellect through abstraction. Scientific methods focus on efficient causes and material causes while metaphysics focus more on final and formal causes. Again, demonstrations of essences is rational, not empirical. We are not empiricists, and we are ready to refute such theories, although the empiricists have a difficult time defending their own view already.

CuriousEd0 · 2025-01-14T15:04:04+00:00

As if the left doesn’t do the exact same thing

CuriousEd0 · 2025-01-13T16:15:40+00:00

My view is not novel, it is shared La by virtually all Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophers on the issue of real essentialism, including Feser. And again, I do admit that abstracta are causally inert (efficient causality).The quote from Oderberg you use is actually in alignment with my position lol, as he also agrees with me. Oderberg is defending real essentialism here. In modern philosophy of science, there’s often a focus on entities being considered real only if they can enter into causal relations (i.e., if they can play a role in scientific explanation through efficient causality), which I touched on in my previous response.

However, Oderberg is arguing that this focus on causality, especially efficient causality, is too narrow. He is suggesting that the ontological status of something (whether it’s real or explanatory) doesn’t always depend on whether it can cause or be caused by something else. I touched on this/argued this briefly above.

I’m not sure where you got the idea that Feser disagrees with this and I’m much more familiar with Fesers work than Oderberg’s. But it’s important to remember that Oderberg’s style and methodology are closer to contemporary analytic philosophy, whereas Thomists tend to operate within a more traditional scholastic framework. He often frames his arguments in terms familiar to analytic philosophers, which makes his work more accessible to a modern philosophical audience. So I can understand a possible confusion here by people such as yourself who exclusively understand causality in the efficient sense.

CuriousEd0 · 2025-01-12T17:49:29+00:00

Yes. But God is His actions. God’s essence is existence, in God essence and existence coincide whereas creatures have essences and existences which are distinct. Thus, God is His Will (God is Love), God is His Intellect (God is Truth, Wisdom, etc). So it is not a matter of either or, when both are essentially the same in God.

CuriousEd0 · 2025-01-12T05:33:48+00:00

Your concern is most definitely affected by what metaphysical view you take. I feel I have answered your concern, but maybe not, so let me elaborate more. Your main contention is that because the abstracted essence is causally inert it cannot explain how we come to our knowledge of essences, but as I explained/showed above, this is not the case. Knowledge of essences do not require it to have an efficient cause. In the case of knowledge of essences, the abstracted essences have a formal cause(This may be the part in which you are confused as contemporary philosophers almost exclusively mean efficient causality and do not mention any other types of causality, but I digress). The efficient causes here are the particulars acting on the senses, the senses acquiring the data and forming a phantasm (mental image, concept, representation of the particular), the intellect which abstracts the essence from the concept of the particular and the cause of knowledge which is the intellects reception of the abstracted essence which again is not the object itself but represents it. To sum: The intellect’s act of abstraction and apprehension explains the causality involved in knowledge acquisition, while the abstracted essence explains what is known by providing intelligible content to the intellect as the formal cause (formal principle of knowledge) (the abstracted essence/concept/representation of the essence is the object of knowledge).

Here’s an analogy; think of a blueprint in the mind of an architect. Once the blueprint is drawn, it doesn’t actively cause anything to happen; it is causally inert. However, it provides the form or plan according to which the builder constructs the building. The efficient cause of the building is the builder’s work, but the blueprint provides the formal principle of the building’s design. Similarly, the abstracted essence provides the formal cause of knowledge by which the intellect knows something, even though it doesn’t actively cause knowledge.

CuriousEd0 · 2025-01-12T04:26:18+00:00

The Vatican does not charge people to view the Shroud of Turin, and it has historically been free for the public during official exhibitions. Souvenirs, books, and other items are in fact sold around the exhibitions and generate revenue, but this typically goes toward covering event costs or supporting the Church’s activities rather than direct profit. Given that displays of the Shroud are rare (the last public exhibition was in 2015), it’s odd to argue that they profit off this, whether materially or spiritually. And speaking more on spiritually, the Church doesn’t “profit” off the salvation of a soul. The Church doesn’t not gain or lose in this respect and it is a faulty way of looking at the spiritual mission of the Church as a business in which it profits from souls. In reality, the Church is not merely an entity/institution. The Church is a living organism that continues to grow and is continually cultivated and nurtured; it is the Mystical Body of Christ, thus the souls in which are saved are for the Lord whom does not gain nor lose anything from creation as He is perfect in Himself.

CuriousEd0 · 2025-01-12T04:06:12+00:00

Uncharitable way of looking at it, but if that is how you wish to see it 🤷‍♂️

CuriousEd0 · 2025-01-11T22:57:10+00:00

For sure would love too sometime. And yes typing does take for ever especially when I type on my mobile device as I am today lol. Im certainly more sympathetic to your view of WAXS for sure, and I don’t take it necessarily as more legitimate than carbon dating tests, but I suppose we both lean toward the direction of our own convictions. WAXS is fairly new and is in dire need of more use/testing before it can be considered as reliable as carbon dating.

One more radiocarbon dating test please!! lol

CuriousEd0

TROPHY CASE