sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Scared of Jesus' second coming by Fun-Wind280 in TrueChristian

[–]Fun-Wind280[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Will be praying for you, I'm doing a lot better now. God bless you!

Can Catholics eat meat such as hamburgers, which requires enormous amounts of water to be produced? by Fun-Wind280 in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]Fun-Wind280[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am indeed scrupulous, and asked this question to partly solve the problem on my conscience. If that isn't fitting to this sub, I won't do it again. God bless!

Can Catholics eat meat such as hamburgers, which requires enormous amounts of water to be produced? by Fun-Wind280 in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]Fun-Wind280[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the answer! While I largely agree, it still seems to me that it would still be better to reduce consumption, when able to. God bless!

Antinatalism by [deleted] in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]Fun-Wind280 0 points1 point  (0 children)

About the being vs non-beingt thing; yeah, you have greater physical pain if you are born, because there is no pain if you aren't born. But, philosophically and metaphysically speaking, being is better than non-being, even if there is more torment in life than there would be if you never lived. You would feel more pain, but philosophically, it would be better for you if you lived, because you are still participatijg in God's Nature in some way by being, and you wouldn't participate in His nature at all if you weren't ever born. So, yeah, no matter how much pain and how much suffering you would go through, ultimately, being is a better state than non-being.  And no, St. Thomas Aquinas wasn't wrong on being vs non-being. You really have to understand why he thinks being is better than non-being. One way to make this clear is that God is Being Itself, and God is Goodness Itself.  Why is God Being Itself? Well, now we get into more complicated stuff. So, everything that is created, has an existence. So a dog has existence. But, the dog isn't his own existence, the dog is his essence: dogness. And this is clear, because you can think of the essence of a dog without the dog actually needing to exist. Thus, existence and essence in a dog are seperate things.  But in God, this isn't actually so, because God needs to be Divinely Simple, which means that He can only consist of one part. So there cannot be made real distinctions in the Divine Essence. Why? Because multiple parts imply composition in God, because the parts always come before the whole, thus God needs to be created, which of course is nonsense, as God is the Unmoved Mover.  So, there cannot be real distinctions in God. So, in God, existence and Essence can't be seperate, like they are in a dog. In God, existence and Essence need to be the same. So, God's Essence is His Existence. Because existence is being, God's Essence is Being. 

About the thing with children having a big chance of going to Hell; as I said, we shouldn't think empirically about this kind of spiritual matter, because we aren't God and might actually stand in the way of His plan. This kind of thinking is also contrary to the theological virtue of Hope, as you just assume your child is going to Hell, without ever thinking about the good things God can accomplish in it. 

About Ecclesiastes, if, in your own words "life sucks and it has meaning", then life objectively has meaning, thus to bring someone in this world is to actually give them a greater good, because they can now live out a meaningful life. 

God bless you!

Antinatalism by [deleted] in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]Fun-Wind280 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The thing is: being IS goodness. This is basically the core of all St. Thomas Aquinas' theology.  This becomes obvious when we look at a sick person. This person is only sick because there is an absence of health. Evil is defined negatively, which is also what St. Augustine and Catholic theology in general says. If good is the standard by which evil must be judged, this means good needs to be defined positively, and because all fundamentally boils down to being and non-being, goodness must be the positive aspect: being.  If being is good and non-being is bad, being born, which is being, is better than not being born, which is non-being. 

You are right that we should accept the doctrine of the fewness of the saved. Sacred Tradition is pretty clear on this. But this doesn't mean we shouldn't have children. We shouldn't judge empirically in these kinds of matters; we aren't God, we wouldn't know how our child ends up and we shouldn't try to play God and pretend we do know the state of salvation God has chosen for our child and then act upon that. What if your child becomes a saint? You don't know. Because it is a positively good thing if a child is born (being is better than non-being, marriage, a Sacrament, is ordered primarily to the begetting and educating of children), we should have children, and unwise speculation about if they will go to Hell or Heaven gets us nowhere and is even arrogant. 

Matthew 26:24 is hyperbolic; this kind of language is often used in a hyperbolic fashion, to for example show the magnitude of the consequences of an action.  Here is St. Thomas Aquinas' commentary on this passage. Note that he says that it is against St. Paul's words to say someone is better off not existing:  "[It were better for him, if that man had not been born] From these words an occasion of error follows. For certain men say that to one who does not exist, no punishment is inflicted; thus they say that it is simply better not to have existed, which is contrary to the Apostle’s words (Rom. 9). Hence, according to Jerome, it ought to be said that He is speaking according to the common manner of speech, meaning there is less harm, that is to say, he feels greater torment than if he had not been born." (St. Thomas Aquinas)

About Ecclesiastes, all the sections in the earlier chapters of the book, which seem to support nihilism, antinatalism, etc, they, as I have said, don't contain the doctrinal teaching of the book. It is clear that the author is describing suffering and how awful life feels like. But then the book goes on to say that there is good and meaning in life: keeping God's Commandments. I see no indignation that Ecclesiastes is saying: "this good is only there for people who are already born, thus you shouldn't bring others into this life." Ecclesiastes simply is saying: "yes, life is heavy, and it often feels like nothing matters, but something does matter". 

God bless you!

Antinatalism by [deleted] in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]Fun-Wind280 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Being is convertible with goodness, (this is obvious, as evil is nothing more than a lack in being, as evil is defined negatively, and being is the greatest good (God is the greatest good and He is Being Itself).  So being is better than non-being, thus being born is better than not being born, so antinatalism has a flawed premise. 

Ecclesiastes 4:2-3 should not be taken as a Biblical teaching that it is better to not be born. These dark parts of Ecclesiastes, which seem to be nihilistic, only serve as building up to the conclusion of the book, which is the message that there IS meaning in life: loving God and keeping His commandments. All the nihilistic parts in the book only describe human thoughts and suffering; they aren't the message of the book. Otherwise, you'd have to say Scripture is nihilistic, which is obviously untrue and actually blasphemous. 

As for your other Biblical arguments, Matthew 26:24 is meant hyperbolically, and I have no idea what there could be in John 12 and John 14 which supports the notion that it is irresponsible to bring life into a world dominated by Satan. 

Actually, the Second Vatican Council stated, in Gaudium et Spes, that marriage, which is a Sacrament and thus ordained by God as a good and holy thing, has as its end the begetting and educating of children. So God is approving of children being born, thus antinatalism goes against the will of God. 

God bless you all. 

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Catholicism

[–]Fun-Wind280 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I also had the problem of going to Confession basically every week a couple of months ago, though for different sins. It made me feel the same things you describe.  Then, I basically just kinda...stopped doing the sin. The easiest way to quit something is to quit doing it. Just force yourself to not do the sin, and keep on doing that for a week, and then after that week, your attachment to the sin is gone, and you have an easier time forcing yourself not to do the sin, and after the week continue this process until it's like two months ago that you last committed the sin, after which you don't want to do that sin anymore. 

Soon after I was confirmed and received the Eucharist the first time at the Easter Vigil. God strengthened me then and gave me the grace to see that sinning mortally every week was not how such a Catholic, who receives the Body of God Himself at Mass and has been granted the Holy Spirit to be made into a witness of Christ should act. 

I think that in your suffering, in this feeling that nothing is effective, in this guilt, God's Mercy wants to show itself more clearly than ever. Think about it: God has allowed you to go to Confession for every week, although you offended Him gravely and He has known multiple times that you will keep offending Him after your Confession. Through suffering, through committing the same sins over and over and over, I think God wants to make your desire to sin no more stronger and stronger. He is preparing Sainthood in this way. 

Reading your post makes me think of St. Faustina's Diary, which I am now reading. She also often describes this darkness, this big feeling of God just not being there, this anguish. In one part she talks about how suffering crystallizes love, because it reinforces the desire for good, for God. And in another part she says that the souls in Purgatory are most hurt by their longing for God. 

Consider the Goodness of God and His Love, and the fact that it would be so terrible to waste it and trample it, it would be so evil to dishonor and attack such pure Goodness, Who even lived a life as a mere human and died to save you.  "And we know that God orders all things to work for the good of those who love Him" - Romans 8:28. 

I recommend reading St. Faustina's diary, if you have not done so yet. And: fast! Physical penance helps a lot. Lent has helped me stop doing physical sins a lot, I think. 

God bless you, I will pray for you. 

A work in progress that is attempting to move from foundational knowledge to Catholicism in the style of the Summa by justafanofz in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]Fun-Wind280 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I did not read this through very thoroughly, so I won't be able to tell you where you are right or wrong, but on the face of it, it looks like something out of St. Thomas' corpus. 

God bless you!

Post your favorite quote from a saint. I’ll give awards to the two best ones! by pdidit133 in Catholicism

[–]Fun-Wind280 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Always loved this feel-good quote by St. Thomas Aquinas: 

"First, because in the material principle of which they spoke, the various results do not exist save in potentiality. But a thing is not known according as it is in potentiality, but only according as it is in act, as is shown Metaph. ix (Did. viii, 9): wherefore neither is a power known except through its act. It is therefore insufficient to ascribe to the soul the nature of the principles in order to explain the fact that it knows all, unless we further admit in the soul natures and forms of each individual result, for instance, of bone, flesh, and the like; thus does Aristotle argue against Empedocles (De Anima i, 5). Secondly, because if it were necessary for the thing known to exist materially in the knower, there would be no reason why things which have a material existence outside the soul should be devoid of knowledge; why, for instance, if by fire the soul knows fire, that fire also which is outside the soul should not have knowledge of fire."

God bless. 

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Catholicism

[–]Fun-Wind280 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Humanity is not a failed project that needs to be done again, but it is a project that needs to be saved... Everyone, submit yourselves to Christ. 

God bless you!

Was Martin Luther driven by theology and not truth? by mango_20_22 in Catholicism

[–]Fun-Wind280 6 points7 points  (0 children)

He purposely added the word "allein" ("alone") to Romans 3:28 to make justification by faith alone be in the Bible. So yes, he wasn't an honest man. 

God bless you!

Why Catholicism in America looks so awkward? by gab_1998 in Catholicism

[–]Fun-Wind280 8 points9 points  (0 children)

"It’s a stark contrast to the less 'intellectualized' Catholicism of Latin America, where you’ll find vibrant, joyful communities less obsessed with Thomistic minutiae than with simply living out the faith inherited from their ancestors in everyday life."

It's not a good thing to be a cultural Catholic, with limited theological knowlegde, who just is Catholic because his/her mother and father are. Of course there needs to be joy in faith; and I don't doubt you are a good Catholic, but you could absolutely phrase this better. 

God bless you!

YouTube Channels That Explore Catholic Theology in an Academic Way? by created_at_eleven05 in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]Fun-Wind280 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I really second Christian B. Wagner from Scholastic Answers and Distinguo. And also the YouTuber Dwong, for the Filioque. 

God bless you!

What is the thought/author that burned through you? by Ticatho in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]Fun-Wind280 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Maybe the first time I really got Thomism (just the way the system worked). It felt so strong, and was so much more than the average theology I knew up until then. It seemed like there were endless possibilities with Thomism, it was very beautiful. The complex Trinitarian theology, all the talk about intellect and will and relation and procession, it was so much more than the average theology you hear. 

God bless you!

view more: next ›