r/CatholicPhilosophy

Warning: I’ve been reading a lot of continental philosophy.

If we 1) affirm that God is Being, and thus contains the set of beings as it were, and 2) that the set of beings does not include nothingness, and 3) that sets themselves are not among their contents, should we not conclude that the innermost essence of God is a kind of nothingness or emptiness since Being is not one among the set of beings (or everything)?

Or to put it Thomistically, if God is purely active and has no capacity for passion, and if we take passion to be an essential potential for actual existence, would it not be the case that God’s essence is a kind of nothingness or emptiness, and that his existence (something) precedes his essence (nothing) because “nothing” precedes his existence in a literal sense? That seems like equivocation, I know, but I’m not trying to be sneaky; I propose that it is literally the case that “nothing” can be predicated of God’s essence. I understand some have a problem with this view because it seems to undermine the priority of the Trinity, but if we take nothingness as something ontologically prior and not temporally prior, the problem seems to dissolve. We might for instance affirm that the Father is this nothing-essence of being, which ontologically conditions the something-existence of being, and the relation of the something-existence of being to the nothing-essence of being to be the Holy Ghost (which follows logically since Being adheres to Being).

I understand that this kind of hyper-intellectual view can make God seem impersonal, but it fits remarkably well with the ethic of Christianity, I think, which asks us to be nothing so that Christ can be all-in-all.

Thoughts? Especially would appreciate insights from any clergymen or religious here.

EDIT: If you’re not gonna engage with any of the propositional content, you’re engaging in idle talk. I’m not interested in idle talk.

God prepared efficacious means, and the connection of causes, so that one predestined may die ineffably in grace, and be saved; but many times a casual death, or an unlooked-for suffocation in a river, is a means, according to the order of divine providence, necessary for the predestined to die in grace, according to that of Wisdom 4: He wastaken away, lest wickedness should alter his understanding. Therefore God by efficacious will prepared the connection of secondary causes so that the predestined man at such a time would be suffocated in a river, or be snatched away by an untimely death.

therefore it is impossible that any effect should come to be in the nature of things which is not willed by divine providence and ordained to some end.

To the first argument it is answered that, as St. Thomas teaches in 1st part, question 19, article 9, the evil of punishment, speaking formally, is not willed by God, because under the aspect of evil it is not desirable; but insofar as it is joined
with a good which God directly wills, and in this way, by willing the good of His justice and mercy, He wills to inflict the evil of punishment upon the sinner; nor does this conflict with the divine mercy and clemency. God, therefore, did not
principally create man to this end, that he be suffocated in a river; but He created the predestined man principally so that in him He might show His mercy, and that he might efficaciously attain eternal life; and that he might arrive at it, He decreed that the one swimming in the river be suffocated while he was in grace.

But if he was a reprobate, existing in mortal sin, He also prepared the connection of secondary causes so that he be suffocated in the waters, and He does this according to the right order of His providence: first, lest, coming after [i.e., living
on], he commit greater crimes, in which also His mercy shines forth; second, that He might show His justice in his punishment; third, for the greater caution of the just, that they may learn to fear God; fourth, that His mercy may shine forth the
more in the elect.

-Diego Alvarez O.P disputation 29

I have several questions related to how temptation works.

Is there any moment of our lives when we are not tempted or are we at every moment in the choice between good and evil?

If not every moment, are there things that make temptation less likely, less frequent?

In the Bible, Jesus is tempted and he overcomes temptation and then it is said that the devil left Him for a while. Does this mean that resisting temptation causes less temptation in the future?

Is there anything else that reduces temptation? The sacraments? The Lord's prayer?

How do temptation and free will relate to each other? Are we less free to do good when we are tempted?

How is temptation described psychologically? Is temptation a perceived desire to do evil? Do good habits then make us less likely to be tempted?

When we are transformed psychologically by resisting temptation, does the playing field shift so that we are tempted in different areas of our lives?

What do you guys think?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1550830723001696

I'll try to make my question as clear as I can.

Yesterday I was thinking of the way we predicate Him and how It seems that we did not mean the exact same thing when we say that He is something and that some creature out there is something. For example, let's make some affirmations:

Matthew is good

God is good

Do I mean the exact same thing when I say both of them are good? It seems that I don't, for a human being's goodness is not identical to its humanity nor to its existence. But divine goodness, essence and existence are equal, because of Divine simplicity. Therefore, it looks like divine goodness and human goodness are not only distinct in degree, but in... type. If this is correct, when we say God is good, we do not mean the same thing we do when we say some person out there is good.

Something similar happens when we compare divine essence to human essence.

Can someone speak on this topic a bit?

I’m gonna keep this post short and sweet today.

Kierkegaard obviously believed that to come to the conclusion of God was an act of a faith which required an absurdist paradox to the universal.

Meanwhile Aquinas took a more simple approach by saying you can prove God with logic.

Can someone say, well yes you can prove God with logic but you also need the Kierkegaardian subjective leap of faith to actually believe and follow him to be a Christian. There exists a case where one knows he exists through logic but still lacks the leap of faith to follow him. Could a blending of these philosophies exist to make such a case?

I have heard it said that Jesus' sacrifice was unnecessary in the sense that God could have forgiven our sins in another manner, such as just "clearing the debt and saying 'don't worry about it' ". But then I hear people say that the reason that it was done the way it was done (the crucifixion) is because it was the "best way". As in Aquinas' 5 reasons for the sacrifice. For example it gave humanity more dignity, and a model to follow. But if the crucifixion was truly the "best way" then wasn't it actually necessary because God always does things the "best way" doesn't he? So wouldn't he be incapable of doing it any "lesser" way? I hope this question makes sense! thanks for any answers in advance!