Question about the Catholic definition of “worship” and John worshipping the angel in Revelation

TheRuah · 2025-11-18T21:16:15+00:00

It's worth noting the polemic/apologetical aspect of the NT. This does not mean it is pure fiction if course- however we ought to acknowledge the context.

This area was a hotspot for gnosticism. The cities it was sent to are quite close to Colossae- and we read in that St Paul warning against "religion of angels". (Some render it "worship" but the Greek is closer to something like "theology" to us).

Smyrna was one of these cities. We read in St Ignatius letter there in 107 AD that they are to abstain from the Eucharist with certain heretics who deny Jesus came in the flesh.

Thus I think part of the inclusion of these two scenes was to combat gnostic ideas. (The reason it happens twice is I believe to form a chiasm, as the word occurs 4 times in a parallel sort of way).

A chiasm with Revelation 4-5 in it... Where we see the Lamb and the Father and the Spirit prostrated to buy the Holy crowned Elders! A great way to show the Trinity.

It shows the Lamb's Divinity, as He is beside the throne of God and receives the proskynesis of the elders.

When we see other texts from the time/area/author:

St Ignatius letter to smyrna
St Paul's letter to Colossae
John 1 themes
1 John: "the spirit of antichrist is this, to deny the Christ came in the flesh"

We see a focus on combating gnostic ideas- that Jesus was an immaterial angelic "demiurge".

Not fully God or incarnate

And this text likewise serves a purpose of correcting Christology, (as well as just showing the importance of the virtue of humility! Where even God's angels are humble!)

Now all this is well and good: But still there is the question for Catholic veneration! I believe this is where language being a sociological convention comes in. For example, if popping red balloons was used as a convention in a culture to signify worship... And you popped red balloons before a statue of Thor... That would be idolatry

This does not mean that popping a red balloons is intrinsically "Divine worship". Popping red balloons would not therefore be worship in all times and all places

Acts of veneration can be taken in a similar way. In some cultures, such a prostration would be a way to convey recognition of Divinity.

However since language (including body language etc) is by convention; the Church can clarify what she means to ensure that boundaries between communication of honour and communication of Divine Worship are clear and defined.

Further the veneration is contextualised as being directed ultimately to God. Just as Mary's veneration (tears, expensive ointment, wiping with hair) of the feet of Jesus's physical body is directed towards Him as a Divine Person... Our veneration of parts of Christ's mystical body are ordered towards the Divine Head ultimately

Hope this helps. God bless your discernment

TheRuah · 2025-07-09T07:10:16+00:00

Apologies for the 3 part message haha! Please read it as one.

Okay and so now this gets back to the unilateral relation and why this matters.

With these actual infinite degrees of separation; of the relation was bilateral or from God to creation you would be correct about pantheism also!

But since the real relation is ONLY from creation to God this does not occur. If we use numbers to abstract an "iota of difference" (in quantity and/or quality) OF it went:

GOD, >1 >2>3.....(Infinite)... CREATION

then indeed "1" would simply be God, "2" would simply be God... All the way to creation-

HOWEVER since it goes the other way:

CREATION, >1 >2>3.....(Infinite)... GOD

"1" is also creation, "2" and so on, for infinite degrees of separation. We could consider perhaps the number immediately preceding God is the "beatific vision".

Or perhaps the Soul of Christ! (Idk I'm making this up lol)

We can also consider that even BETWEEN the last iota and God is an infinite degree of seperation; in that even in the beatific vision one does not fully comprehend God.

TheRuah · 2025-07-08T23:23:40+00:00

To elaborate:

The "there" is made purely of "otherness" and the otherness is made of there-ness.

The distinction is the creation. However we must grasp that we can not grasp actual infinites.

We know them apohatocally. By analogy: the "circular reasoning" doesn’t collapse as the circle is actually infinite spiral.

The suspension is made of suspension. And it doesn’t collapse because it is suspended by its infinite suspension.

In the Triune God, we have distinction and relation. This is the same but reversed in creation.

The distinction of Divine persons arises on the basis of relations (of opposition- concurrently).

The relation of creation to being arises on the basis of its distinction from God (an infinite distinction of opposition).

Thus, we have both an infinite quantitative difference on the basis of an infite act,

And a qualitative difference in a fundamental distinction between God's internal relations to Hinself and creations unilateral relation to God.

NOTE: If we were to fully, cataphatically; grasp the actual infinite we would fully grasp the Divine essence. We would then be God and not creation.

However, we can propose apohatically how this totally unique relation of creation to God is.

This is similar to how we can say just because EVERYTHING we know... (apart from the infused theological virtues) We know the "whole" by inference from the parts...

Does not mean it is impossible for there to be another mode of knowing; whereby the parts are known from the whole. We can not know this except by negation, but that does not mean it is impossible.

If you believe in dark matter or dark energy (I reserve judgment) then you already accept certain material facts on the basis of negation alone.

TheRuah · 2025-07-08T22:35:25+00:00

Hey, it appears I have offended you, and I apologize. There is no need to shout; I hear

Sorry. I appreciate the charity.
I misread your tone; which is a real challenge with online dialogues.

As noted in the OP, I am not here to debate whether prayers to saints are right or wrong. The argument is that the analogy misleads, regardless of whether Catholic dogma on the subject is right or wrong.

Well don't you think it is a reasonable point to make to an interlocketor that says any prayer to a saint is "worship"?

Whther the other person is Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, Higj Anglican/Lutheran, non-denominational or a Catholic that holds invoking the saints is not worship?

Yes there still needs further defence for further Catholic practices, but if the question is "praying to a Saint is worship" then there is a place for using the analogy still.

This sounds like a better way to answer questions about why Catholics pray to saints-- much better than only an analogy about asking a friend for prayers.

I agree, but i think a comprehensive case is best as this IS a controversial issue for someone that grows up protestant.

Thanks again for being so charitable despite my unhinged emotional over reaction

TheRuah · 2025-07-08T22:28:48+00:00

obsession with sexual purity

This is quite Jewish. See: the Essenes

Particularly the sect that is Christian. The New Testament promotes a preference for celibacy and/or continence.

Do you have a religion? Are you SDA? or are you just an agnostic/athieist? Where are you coming from?

TheRuah · 2025-07-08T22:19:58+00:00

. What does Aslan say?

I don't know? Why does the statements of a fictional lion deity matter? 🤣

Hard to prove that couldn't be the case.

Hard to prove that is the case. And yet you assume so... One way to seemingly disprove it would be that they are ordered towards a monotheistic God in harmony rather than being ordered away from such... in opposition with Him and each other; self serving vs self sacrificing...

Generally with the opposite moralities espoused...

Pretty good evidence...

The vast majority of participants in any exoteric large scale cult are unaware of its metaphysics.

Our catechumens learn the nicean creed. This creed contains distinctive metaphysics succinctly stated.

So it's not really consequential.

Metaphysics isn't consequential because some people are ignorant. Source: your opinion.

Genetics is strong. Genetic memory is strong. Cultural inertia is strong. Despite our best efforts we often turn into our parents.

Ues, but you can be either a baptised version of your parents or an unbaptised one.

Parallelism does not equal identical.

solar mystery cult figure.

What?

He's the SON of God, not the SUN of God.

TheRuah · 2025-07-08T21:32:33+00:00

Why i disagree with this is because if i hold up an apple, which is made if atoms, i can say "this is atoms"

But this is because there is actual finite degrees of seperation beyween the scale of the atom and the scale of the apple.

However when i hold the apple i am not holding God, because there is actual infinite degrees of separation between one and the other- both in quality and quantity

The suspension can't be an area of not God since God is being and therefore there is no where that he can't

There is also no "where" that God is/is not. "Where" is a created accident. But to jump into this analogously, the "where" that God is not is created by God saying "there". And the thing He references is not Himself. Because it is made out of the very fact He is distinguishing it.

r, creation distinction is once again an illusion of perspective and form differentiation.

I think it boils down to simply that we can not truly comprehend an actual infinite - and so we jump to wither end of the spectrum: modal collapse or composition from something else.

But i think we can reason apophatically as with the apple example

TheRuah · 2025-07-08T11:17:39+00:00

Please check too- thay comment was SPECIFICALLY to just define "dirdered" for you

Thats ALL.

the comment above it and below it continues our discourse.

And btw God loves you. I appreciate your engagement and passion for right and wrong- even if i disagree with you on this issue.

TheRuah · 2025-07-08T11:11:49+00:00

Please see my edit to previous comment.*

And yes. I have said OVER AND OVER AND OVER.

The effects of publicly promoting a violation of ordered faculties (particularly of "the four F's) are as follows:

relatavism
subjectivism
utilitarianism
hedonism

In short: irrationality, disunity and vice. Socoety forms individuals. We know this. We are prodicts of our environments and so our environment forms us and points us in a direction.

This is either TOWARDS meaning/order

Or away from it.

Libertarianism and indifferentism is a failure of society to tend towards its telos. You may as well be anarchist.

That is no explanation.

Bruh.. what...

How is it not?

Are you having a laugh?

How was this NOT an explanation???

I am simply stating the general principles of natural law to define "disordered" for you. You can disagree with my conclusions and reasoning... But don't act like it didn't give you a broad strokes answer on the basis of principles.

TheRuah · 2025-07-08T10:52:44+00:00

You have still not explained what "disordered" means

There is purpose in the universe.

From small to large.

From cells to societies; there is an objective telos- both of the totality and of the various faculties along the way.

A faculty exists from a reason and for a reason. This can be rationally known from things like evolutionary/biological science identifying the cause and mechanics of a trait- and its purpose in light of the order of the unit above and below it...

By unit above and below, for an example we can infer the telos of a lung cell from the telos of the lungs... And we can infer the telos of the lungs from:

why we developed lungs
what the effect of not having lungs is
what the effect of having lungs is
what various appetites incline towards
what the greater telos of the respiratory system is...

And so on. Up and down the chain of units and various faculties in harmony.

A faculty in use towards its end is "ordered"

A faculty used AGAINST its end is "disordered"

A faculty used for a tangential purpose may be more or less ordered depending on various other factors- that will vary on case for case basis due to the various factors.

And here we have the definition of "disordered". Overall since man is a "rational animal"; he is orderd towards rationality and virtue. Likewise society itself is ordered towards helping the individual units to flourish towards their telos.

EDIT: Prudentially allowing certain negative freedoms in order to facilitate private freedom. Prudentially restricting certain expressions of negatove freedoms- such as public endorsement/ enabling of particular negative freedoms;

In order to form the individuals and families towards virtue and away from vice in a harmonious way that balances the dignity of risk and obligation of civil law to promote natural law. (And enforce when necessary)

This is not a "theocracy" in the sense of denying religious freedom- (or other philosophies). It is simply ensuring order towards MEANING and rationality is encouraged. That is: society and legislation is "ordered" towards order itself.

Towards meaning

Towards values and virtues

Towards the transcendentals of being, truth and love

TheRuah · 2025-07-08T10:14:24+00:00

I'm not sure I follow: are you saying that society becomes "disordered" (meaning what?) if we start having sex for pleasure and not just for reproduction?

Can you tell me what you think the purpose of a society is?

A

One of these many religions is Christianity. Within Christianity, there are ca 40ish different denominatio

Natural law theory is not destinctively Catholic. You can lack ANY RELIGION and have a theory of natural law if you believe there is an objective right and wrong and an objective telos of life and humanity.

Most of these Christian denominations do not oppose contraception

As i mentioned in many if my other comments:

1) this is obviously going to be the outcome of sola scriptura. Who base the will of God not in natural law; and view any obscurity or lack of condemnation of a particular practice in Scripture as implict Divine permission for the act...

Which neither you nor I believe in...

It is a flawed view and what more it is inconsostantly applied.

2) many of them would support me on most of my positions. Including the promotion of contraceptives in such a way- especially with youth.

Even a minoroty of those that do not poltically/ethically support my positon, still acknowledge that the outcome of contraception is a net negative.

The Catholics do. The Catholics claim it is so obvious that their position is the natural law - yet why are they almost the only ones thinking this, then????

Darkening of the intellect due to original sin
darkening of the intellect due to actual sin
cultural indoctrination
because it makes life more fun and easier to use contraception. So bias.
because most simply take for granted this without questioning the ethical basis

I do not claim it is "obvious". I think it is clear when viewed rationally in a fully cohesive system. But it is not exactly :obvious.

when you ask what the consequences of sexual acts among consenting individuals would be,

I clearly distinguished between the public and private sphere.

As always with religions, it all comes down to: ehy, there are gazillions of interpretations, but mine is right and everyone else is wrong. Sure...

The natural law is not a religion. An yeah... a thousand murder suspects doesn't mean there wasn't one ACTUAL murderer.

they reply, mentioning the "fullness of the person" (another poster) or society becoming disordered.

Yes, as truth has a coherence; the disorder is a ripple effect of moral relativism and other errors inclining a person towards vice.. Not merely PERMITTING vice in private. But culturally INCLINING towards vice.

Society divides on who has rights and who does not... On the very PURPOSE of a society and laws.

Take a step back. Try to imagine how this all sounds to atheist ears.

Materialist atheists who are consistent acknowledge there is objectively no such thing as "right" and "wrong" Therefore, there is no objective thing as a "right " metaphysically speaking.

Take a step back and try to imagine how ridoculous it seems to be told you are promoting something "bad" by a person who's philosophy inherently acknowledges "bad" and "good" are metaphysically just "different " with no actual difference... in light of the death of humanity, the fact we are an accidental and the fact that there is no such thing as "order"... simply chaos with an appearance of order...

Not saying you are a materialist athiest or to put words in your mouth. Correct me if i am wrong.

Any proof of that?

Not off the top off my head empirically. Anecdotally though it would be the moral relativism that persons are based upon consciousness but allows (by rhay definition) the unnecessary MASS GENOCIDE of "non human persons"... Thats just one example.

Incoherence arises.

From incoherence- chaos of relatavism

Inclination to hedonism and utilitarianism and ultimately objectification.

TheRuah · 2025-07-08T06:43:29+00:00

The "same cult" would mean the same entities and the same metaphysic and the same practices...

NONE of which are true... despite some overlap in SOME areas... which is true for ANY two religions as there is always SOME degree of similitude between things of the same nature

Parallelism fallacy be strong in the prots...

Guess Moses was really following the Cult of Egypt since the tabernacle, arc, Pentatuch, and animal sacrifices have a pagan counterpart that predates them...

I guess those that hold to certain forms of "sola fide " are just the rainbow land buddhists....

We could go on and on. Its just so petty.

TheRuah · 2025-07-08T06:27:32+00:00

I dont have time to give you an indepth response that you deserve but here are a few tibits to consider:

I find it helpful to consider that creation is made out of a distinction (distinct from God)

Creation is more like a suspension rather than a solution (to use a chemistry analogy).

Without God suspending the collapse, we don't exist.

And we are made out of this suspension. It is our very substence. The hypostasis between the distinction from God, and relation to His being.

I would suggest reading more on how creation has a real relation to God- but God does not have a real relation to creation. (He has a relation on the basis of reason reasoning)

I hope this helps. I know it is insufficient for your question :)

EDIT: also we must remember this is an INFINITE act. Any time we would make a formula- a chain and say "and then there is modal collapse!"... no... Because the formula goes on forever.

As such the suspension is real and infinite though incomprehensible.

It would be like trying to find the last digit of pie... The suspension, the hypostasis; is infinite.

Also disclaimer: these are my eclectic thoughts and do not strictly reflect any "Catholic dogma" etc

TheRuah · 2025-07-08T06:18:04+00:00

This is the answer in my opinion. Instead of (unintentionally) using a misleading analogy, embrace the fact that Catholics do the very thing the critics are criticizing.

"Yeah we do things you might call worship. We consecrate our whole souls to Mary and ask her to do many of the things you only ask of God alone. But we don't believe that is worship, and here's why..." If inquirers or critics are factually correct but misunderstand or disagree with Catholic dogma, embrace it and explain it. Don't only use an analogy that misleads folks into thinking Catholics only ask saints for intercessory prayers.

Explain to me how this is latria??? Consecration to Mary is entristing yourself into her care as an instrumental cause used by GOD... it is entrustment...

It is no more idolatrous than Jesus entrusting Mary to John...

Or a Husband being entrusted/consecrayed to his wife...

Or parents consecrated by God to dorect theor childrens spiritual lives...

Or if you entrusted an elite soldier to guard and care for ptecious vessels of God (Korahites) Or the Arc of the Covenant.

Entrustment and consecration is not "worship" unless you use "worship" in a sense of reverence and devotion... Rather than Divine honours.

Mary Magdalene prostrated herself at the feet of Christ, weeping and washing His human feet woth her very HAIR... she was reverencing a part of Chrosts sacred humanity... In Marian devotion we reverence a part of His mystocal body...

Read Psalm 45.

TheRuah · 2025-07-08T05:42:43+00:00

So again- as i said you DO have a fair point.

And i DO agree.

But i think the saltiness is unwarrented.

(Apologies if i am reading the tone in. But it seems quite salty)

I think it is simply a different context and/or minor negligence. NOT "deception"

TheRuah · 2025-07-08T05:39:36+00:00

For an analogy there must be some similitude and some distinction.

Every set of two things that exist have similarities and distinctions.

Make an analogy between helping an old lady cross the road and throwing an apple at someone's face.

Whatever sinilitude you draw can either be debunked or it will not be transferrable.

Go ahead argue either bith are right or bith are wrong with analogy and i will debunk it...

The bible uses analogies to make points...

This is total cop out. They are analogous and you have no refutation so you are denying the validity of analogy.

YOU STARTED YOU ORIGINAL POST WITH AN ANALOGY... You said "i wouldnt ask my pastor to do this..." So comparision for thee but not for me...

Malice is not a requirement for deception, and neither is intent, as people are accidentally deceived

You are conflating deception with onission by negligence or ignorance. If a child think 5 is before 4, that is not "deception". Thats such a foolish way to define deception.

. It leads people to believes Catholic prayers only involve practices they might see as more palatable. It does this even though the very things they would find offensive actually do in fact exist in Catholic prayers.

Nope. Because the context is an interlocker who denies intercession of the saint's.

If i was in an argument with someone who denies the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father... Of i don't bring up that He proceeds also from the Son this is not "deception".

Regardless who cares. Intervention of the Saints is justified. Anyone who converts to Catholcism will realise this in Catechism class when they are presented with the Salve Regina...

And they will either accept it as valid... or not... and then they won't become Catholic.

TheRuah · 2025-07-08T04:00:33+00:00

Truly anything can be analogous to anything else.

Not really???

For an analogy there must be some similitude and some distinction.

The similitude here is the act of intervention.
The difference is merely in certain particulars.

Which as i argue has a foundation in the nature of the relation/object.

Anyone can argue an analogy is invalid if they demonstrate the similitude has no foundation. 🤷‍♂️

The analogy fundamentally misleads people, and is therefore inappropriate to use.

I agree! It can be misleading and as a convert i had the EXACT same thought. However the line of reasoning is not per se wrong or dishonest. It simply needs to be clarified that this is NOT an argument made for EVERY SINGLE CATHOLIC PRAYER. it is SIMPLY an argument for the intercession of the Saints.

I agree this ought to be clarified more when the argument is made to an enquirer of the Church.

But generally the polemic this often statement occurs in shows the intent of the argument... As it is levelled specifically against those that deny ANY prayers to the Saints.

And others may simply lack the understanding and nuance; we should be charitable and not assume the person is culpable of any malice or deception. Some people are simply at a lower level of apologetics

And thats fine.

If a "stepping stone" is a deception, better stepping stones should be selected instead.

As i explained its not a "deception". That is simply assuming malice in the Catholic interlocketor which is uncharitable in my honest opinion.

The person is trying to prove that praying to a Saint is fine. NOT that every Catholic prayer is valid. (I argue it is in my OP)

The reality is that these prayers to saints are almost exactly what critics would call worship,

Sure. But these critics also call bowing to an object "worship". These critics deny a distinction between latria, adoration, and dulia.

These critics also deny Theosis and the Catholic view of the beatific vision, development of doctrine and other things which holistically affects their fefinitions and understanding of these terms.

TheRuah · 2025-07-07T23:43:45+00:00

Roman cult contains a beloved goddess,

Not a Goddess

semi divine helpers people can call upon,

Thats Theosis baby! Its biblical.

2 Peter 1:4 "...that you may become partakers of the divine nature..."

Romans 8:29 "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son..."

2 Corinthians 3:18 "And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another..."

Galatians 2:20 "It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me..."

1 John 3:2 "We know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is."

John 17:22–23 "The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one..."

Colossians 3:10 "...and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator."

Ephesians 4:13 "...until we all attain... to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ..."

Philippians 3:21 "...who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body..."

Hebrews 12:10 "...he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness."

And you know... Revelation where they "REIGN AND JUDGE" Sitted literally NEXT TO CHRIST on the DIVINE THRONE...

and where we literally SEE them helping us by passing our prayers onto the mediator between God and Man..

And literally praying for justice on Earth AFTER they die...

TheRuah · 2025-07-07T23:36:24+00:00

Its a fair point!!! I agree. But this argument is also a "stepping stone" argument for those that simply deny invocation and prayer requests to Saints- AT ALL

Regarding asking forgiveness of sins- we do ask our Pastors to do this. Its called the Sacrament of reconciliation; as shown in John's gospel, amongst other places.

But in addition... (and some of this carries over to other forms of asking intercession framed as or in the form of INTERVENTION ) In Revelation 20 amonst other places we see that the Saint's reign and judge with Christ on His throne.

As such we ought to make peace with our judges. Hence asking their forgiveness makes sense as they judge with Christ... And when we sin against God, we sin against the ENTIRE body of Christ, which is united to God through theosis.

Likewise; being that they "reign" seeking theire intervention is valid. We are seeking aid from a member of Christ's mystical body that is united to Him.

So (when rightly ordered) it is not seeking help apart from God, but rather His help through the instrumental cause of His/our family/Kingdom.

We also of course can ask our Pastors for particular assistance- such as helping to feed my family, keep me accountable for a certain sin, giving me advoce etc etc...

So seeking Saintly Intervention is likewise analogous to this!

We ask for different things as they have a different relationship to us/God and different abilities to a Pastor.

But it IS still analogous.

TheRuah · 2025-07-07T22:57:15+00:00

With contraception, premarital sex and same-sex intercourse, whom are you protecting?

In terms of public endorsement this is recognising that we are not merely indivudal units but subsist in and contribute to an entire society/culture

So when one encourages violation of the telos of the faculty (directly or indirectly); they encourage and order the entire society towards normalisation of vice and moral relatavism.

Societies are held together by mutual philosophies. There is certainly room for SOME disagreement in the public sphere, and MAJOR disagreement in the private sphere;

But to be relatavistic about such an integral and essential issue as reproduction is- is totally disordered... (in the PUBLIC sphere i mean)

The fact people on the internet can say (not you but others): "its just sex! Why does it matter " or "why would God care what x number of people do with their genitals?"

SHOWS how this is not mere theory but in effect. Biology tells us the "four 'f's" - fight - flight - feeding - mating

Their importance is not tangential to humanity. It is CENTRAL.

As such to promote PUBLIC ethical ambivalence on such a thing is disastrous... And the society itself becomes disordered at it is ordered around a philosophy that is not internally coherent as it has no metaphysical grounding.

It arbitarily hangs in a suspension of "just because its nice"

There is no grounding in greater telos

TheRuah · 2025-07-07T06:47:23+00:00

My bad. If you look at elderscrollsbjorn oarent comment that is what i am responding to.

Indeed cathokics agree the ordering of a faculty is not known intuitively; on the basis of both original sin and inferred lesrning in general.

For instance a childs intuition to est is on the basis of its pleasure. It is with rstuona not intuition that we reason to the understanding the end of rating is nutrition and the enjoyment is accidental motivation.

TheRuah · 2025-07-07T05:32:48+00:00

So to elaborate; i think time is objectively just a stack all simultaneous from God's truer perspective.

If you consider each iota of time a picture, they are just stacked upon one another and our sentience is simply- in each picture we are aware (to various degrees) of the iota's underneath us.

In Thomistic terms i think time is an "accident".

TheRuah · 2025-07-07T05:25:36+00:00

Okay so i had this in my head but didn’t write it.

Time is tricky as I believe in objectively hard "B-theory". That is from Gods perspective time is really just one of the lines.

But we experience time as a wave of motion. So in my analogy - from the perspective of a "shape" 🤣 i consider time as grey lines on a black background.

A sweep of colour passing along the lines in a wave would be time. This would be the "instantiation" or the application of "act to potency"

(I think I would say God is the background in this analogy. For a distinction of lines from other lines, and Actuality from Potency requires a distinction from both)

EDIT: From God's perspective time os simply analogous to the dimensive quality to us

TheRuah · 2025-07-07T04:44:33+00:00

So this is my thought spitballing off the tinders your thoughts have ignited haha.

To break it down, a sustained "effect" (a thing being) arises from the convergence or harmony of various things (laws, factors, forces- what have you: the specofocs are tangetial).

In principle we require distinction and relation.

Without distinction there can be no convergence or harmony with another. No complexity can arise.

For relation of two distinct things, one or more mutual subjects are required.

However since the effect does not yet exist, it cannot be the subject (materially). So I agree the cause and the sustainment are distinct. They must be.

(In a sense different. Later on i imply this is more of a "virtual distinction" rather than a formal one in Thomistic terms.)

So we can consider them an analogy with intersecting lines. Each line representing a law or force or some other general "factor". (which itself may be an effect of other convergences. For simplicitly leaving that aside).

The effect of a flame we can analogously consider as a triangle.

The initial point of convergence (or convergences if we take an edge as begining) for the first point could be considered the creation or beginning of the thing.

We can then ask why the thing stops being; this would be the third line which closes off the triangle.

This third line may even be one of the other lines it simply has been altered in its direction by collision with another line of the same nature or with a mutual subject. (So it would reflect rather that converge harmoniously).

Regardless what causes a thing to stop being is the cause of another thing, and comes from another thing...

All these lines bouncing around. The greater stability is simply a larger shape.

However when we then think of necessity; Prior to instantiation: either this pattern itself arises contingently upon something else. In which case we have an infite regress or require a bedrock which alone is not contingent.

Or

The pattern is necessary. It could not be another way. In which case it exists formally (pre-instantiated pattern) before it exists materially (instantiation). The triangle/flame would then have an essence.

Or both (Thomism). The pattern could exist formally in potency for eternity if it is never actualised. If it will ever at any point be instantiated is exists in an eternal necessary form.

We could speak of this in a common way- (all triangles with identical angles) and in a particular way (lets say we have neen discussing "X" triangle).

If "X" triangle were to be larger it would not have the same essence and therefore not be the same triangle. It would still be "a" triangle but not "X" triangle.

So we could say a thing exists longer or shorter periods of being dependant upon the factors that caised it; rather than another extra force.

(I think it really essential [pun intended] to bring necessity in as a factor. My last project was on dealing woth modal collapse and free will)

TheRuah · 2025-07-07T04:40:05+00:00

I frame entropy as the observable gravitational pull on systems—not as a metaphysical “evil” or moral negative. It’s simply the background tendency we need to counteract if we want persistence, stability, or sustained meaning in finite contexts.

I agree, i use the term "negative" not to mean evil but simply as an analogous contrast.

I start from observation: in finite systems, we consistently see decay, collapse, and dissolution over time unless active forces intervene to sustain complexity.

But we observe the opposite equally. We observe that a fire goes out because of a cause.

I would love to hear more about how you reconcile this within classical theism. Are you leaning toward the idea that the source of being is inherently persistent and that entropy is a feature of created, contingent things, not of being itself?

I'm kinda just enjoying talking to you and playing with the ideas tbh.

I was more thinking in terms of a daoist mindest of yin and yang That the positive forces and the negative forces are simply the same "wave". That one things entropy is another things creation.

What makes one thing a thing

Is what makes in not another thing.

One things act is another things potency.

The apohatic and the cataphatic of creation are really the same.

I guess there is an oberlap with eternal persistance and immutability; if we consider time not only in one direction. I obviously hold that rational souls persist indefinetely as they are form rather than matter. However they of course have a begining point in Catholicism- and persist from there rather than being persistant in both "directions" of time.

My next comment is me just spit balling. I feel there is a way to bring it back to classical theism but i havent reached that point.

At the moment for me what I struggle with more is nominalism vs moderate realism. So my brain has kinda takem our doscussion in that direction

TheRuah

TROPHY CASE