SHORT THREAD CRITIQUE OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS | SUMMA THEOLOGIAE | AGAINST LOVE & WILL IN GOD
--------
Article 1. Whether love exists in God?

I. To the contrary, I object:
1. God should not possess faculties. Faculties imply other, alike to how sight implies there is light for it to see. Any faculty possessed by God must be perfected, and so the perfect faculty must actualise its perfect end.
Therefore, by necessity of God possessing said faculty, he must actualise the perfect end of that faculty. The faculty of love necessitates either the reception or impartation of love, so he is made to either make beings which will love him and/or beings which he can love.
Being forced to make beings to achieve his perfection is a deficiency, but without doing so he cannot perfect his faculty, leaving him imperfect.
2. Suppose the faculty’s perfection is achieved internally: what cause can be given to justify the faculty? If God is simple, he must also be uniform. If he is uniform, then he is one.
Being one, uniform, and simple, there can be no need for any internal faculties to complete him. He cannot be thought to have faculties that he effects upon himself as there is no portion of God which is distinguished from another.
Being one and the same, the faculty is rendered a needless addition as its self-convergence dilutes God’s simplicity of quietude oneness.
Article 1. Whether love exists in God?
--------
(St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae ctd.)
To the contrary, I object:
1.We read “the acts of the will tend towards good and evil”, and that “good is essentially and especially the object of the will and the appetite”, evil being “only the object secondarily and indirectly”.
The nature of will is denominated by Aquinas as being either of the ‘intellective appetite’ or the ‘sensitive appetite’. Will, then, is being’s act towards either the primary or secondary goods.
Thus by this we would define will as a ‘transitive mode’: the cause of act in being which motions it either towards primary or secondary goods in seek of its perfection within the Good.
2.Will cannot be in God as God subsists in self-sufficient union with himself and with all things. There are no participles in God although he envelops all things; each thing is subject to God’s omnipresence, meaning he holds all things within himself uniformly and at once.
Therefore, he does not will nor love towards any particular of the union because God’s union with the particulars is by way of God’s omnipresence immanently achieved in uniformity, simplicity, and singularity.
3. To hold will towards himself, which is to say that God wills to love himself, would be absurdity. As aforementioned, inward will towards himself would be a self-convergence that violates God’s simplicity, entailing there be within God a faculty which treats himself as a...
...distinct object to be willed upon. As his self-sufficient union entails simplicity, self-objectification would violate his simple oneness.
4.Further, as will is the transitive mode whereby act is caused in being to move towards their perfection via either the primary (intellective) or secondary (sensitive) goods, God must not participate in this will.
God, by his nature, is possessive of the whole and is the object of Good itself. Wholly Good and self-sufficient, any placing in God the transitive mode is to make deficiency.
The ocean has no will towards any one portion of its waters, nor the whole Earth towards any one part of its totality, but yet both subsist in simple unions of being: the ocean simply the self-same whole of all its waters, the Earth simply the self-same...
...whole of all its many particulars. In even these inferiors there is found no need for self-will, so we ought not give the efficiency of simple union to the material unions but then deny God this efficiency.
Surely, instead, we would see that God too in his perfect efficiency subsists needless and surpasses the requisite of will.

More from Religion

Tripundra Dhaaran - Paapa Vimukti

Our generations are fascinated about Tripundram being just a religious symbol. There are in depth meanings of such a Tilak on a Seeker's Forehead


The very first mistake is the way it is applied.

Tripund isn't applied with dry Bhasm, it should be made wet and then applied in a prescribed manner with proper use of fingers and direction of application. Bhasm is collected from various sources


The most important ones mentioned in upanishats are 1. Yagnya Kund Bhasm 2. Bhasm made from Cow's Dung alone. A special agnihotram was perform to save the Bhasma after that for Dhaarana. A major mantra while applying bhasm is Mrutyunjaya Mantra


Dwijas have a very long process of applying the Tripundram along with their Sandhyavandanam. For commoners there are some basic rules people have to follow while applying Bhasm


Bhasm Applied in Morning - Should be mixed with water and applied
Bhasm Applied during Afternoon - Should be mixed with Chandan and Applied
Bhasm Applied during and after Pradosh - Should be applied Dry as such
Assalam Alaiki dear Sister in Islam. I hope this meets you well. Hope you are keeping safe in this pandemic. May Allah preserve you and your beloved family. I would like to address the misconception and misinterpretation in your thread. Please peruse the THREAD below.


1. First off, a disclaimer. Should you feel hurt by my words in the course of the thread, then forgive me. It’s from me and not from Islam. And I probably have to improve on my delivery. And I may not quote you verbatim, but the intended meaning would be there. Thank You!

2. Standing on Imam Shafii’s quote: “And I never debated anyone but that I did not mind whether Allah clarified the truth on my tongue or his tongue” or “I never once debated anyone hoping to win the debate; rather I always wished that the truth would come from his side.”

3. Okay, into the meat (my love for meat is showing. Lol) of the thread. Even though you didn’t mention the verse that permitted polygamy, everyone knows the verse you were talking about (Q4:3).


4. Your reasons for the revelation of the verse are strange. The first time I came across such. I had to quickly consult the books on the exegeses or tafsir of the Quran written by renowned specialists!
#Bookmark this

The full story of || Dhruv ||

We’ll see How Dhruv occupied a fixed position in the northern sky?

I repeat “Untold Unsung now Unearthed”

Go through entire thread carefully.

OM NAMO BHAGWATE VAASUDEVAAY

RT & spread the knowledge.
Any questions use #AskPratz


.... continuing from previous thread/story

O prince! Thus concentrate on that omnipotent eternal Lord with the mantra - ‘OM NAMO BHAGWATE VAASUDEVAAY’ .

https://t.co/H62ehDT3ix


The prince Dhruv greeted the sages and continued on his journey. At last, he reached a beautiful forest Madhuvan on the bank of the river Yamuna. It was the same forest, which was later occupied by a demon Madhu.


Shatrughana, the youngest brother of Sri Rama had killed demon Lavan, son of Madhu in the same forest & founded the township of Mathura. In the same forest, prince Dhruv decided to carry out his penance. As per the dictate of the sages, he began to recite the mantra continuously


Very soon, the earth began to move because of Dhruv’s severe penance. Even the seat of Indra could not remain stable. A stampede resulted among the gods. The gods then hatched a conspiracy to disturb the penance.

You May Also Like

The YouTube algorithm that I helped build in 2011 still recommends the flat earth theory by the *hundreds of millions*. This investigation by @RawStory shows some of the real-life consequences of this badly designed AI.


This spring at SxSW, @SusanWojcicki promised "Wikipedia snippets" on debated videos. But they didn't put them on flat earth videos, and instead @YouTube is promoting merchandising such as "NASA lies - Never Trust a Snake". 2/


A few example of flat earth videos that were promoted by YouTube #today:
https://t.co/TumQiX2tlj 3/

https://t.co/uAORIJ5BYX 4/

https://t.co/yOGZ0pLfHG 5/
दधीचि ऋषि को मनाही थी कि वह अश्विनी कुमारों को किसी भी अवस्था में ब्रह्मविद्या का उपदेश नहीं दें। ये आदेश देवराज इन्द्र का था।वह नहीं चाहते थे कि उनके सिंहासन को प्रत्यक्ष या परोक्ष रुप से कोई भी खतरा हो।मगर जब अश्विनी कुमारों ने सहृदय प्रार्थना की तो महर्षि सहर्ष मान गए।


और उन्होनें ब्रह्मविद्या का ज्ञान अश्विनि कुमारों को दे दिया। गुप्तचरों के माध्यम से जब खबर इन्द्रदेव तक पहुंची तो वे क्रोध में खड़ग ले कर गए और महर्षि दधीचि का सर धड़ से अलग कर दिया।मगर अश्विनी कुमार भी कहां चुप बैठने वाले थे।उन्होने तुरंत एक अश्व का सिर महर्षि के धड़ पे...


...प्रत्यारोपित कर उन्हें जीवित रख लिया।उस दिन के पश्चात महर्षि दधीचि अश्वशिरा भी कहलाए जाने लगे।अब आगे सुनिये की किस प्रकार महर्षि दधीचि का सर काटने वाले इन्द्र कैसे अपनी रक्षा हेतु उनके आगे गिड़गिड़ाए ।

एक बार देवराज इन्द्र अपनी सभा में बैठे थे, तो उन्हे खुद पर अभिमान हो आया।


वे सोचने लगे कि हम तीनों लोकों के स्वामी हैं। ब्राह्मण हमें यज्ञ में आहुति देते हैं और हमारी उपासना करते हैं। फिर हम सामान्य ब्राह्मण बृहस्पति से क्यों डरते हैं ?उनके आने पर क्यों खड़े हो जाते हैं?वे तो हमारी जीविका से पलते हैं। देवर्षि बृहस्पति देवताओं के गुरु थे।

अभिमान के कारण ऋषि बृहस्पति के पधारने पर न तो इन्द्र ही खड़े हुए और न ही अन्य देवों को खड़े होने दिया।देवगुरु बृहस्पति इन्द्र का ये कठोर दुर्व्यवहार देख कर चुप चाप वहां से लौट गए।कुछ देर पश्चात जब देवराज का मद उतरा तो उन्हे अपनी गलती का एहसास हुआ।