I notice that in the Divine Comedy, Virgil mentions that the more perfect a being becomes, the greater suffering it is capable of. This is based on Thomistic theology but how would you reconcile this with the Catholic doctrine that divine nature is impassible and therefore God only was capable of any suffering at all qua the Son after taking on a human nature capable of suffering?If the more perfect a being is, the more he can suffer, then wouldn’t Satan be the first and most perfect being, since he was the first being God created that is capable of suffering and can clearly suffer more than any other angel? And because God fucked up in creating a being more perfect than himself, he tried to forever invert things by making men (the surrogate of him) more perfect than women (the surrogate of Satan), ensuring men are smarter and stronger and more…perfect? Then it is any surprise that Yahweh is a Mars he-man, a “man of war” described by the Bible, but when he tries to become perfect in human form, despite choosing manhood he acts like a woman right down to fluctuating from calling his enemies evil snakes and vipers who will burn, to saying he loves them and saying forgive them all, they don’t know any better?https://youtu.be/0guZTFCOSgI
>>24690922>capacity to suffer does not mean “suffers the most often or visibly”Just because a retard stubs his toe and cries a lot doesn’t mean he’s capable of a greater degree of suffering than a person with higher faculties. Suffering more than other angels doesn’t mean they aren’t capable of similar suffering: they just didn’t make the stupid decisions to have it inflicted upon them. And it certainly doesn’t prove Satan is capable of sustaining more suffering than God.But this all can easily be swept away by realizing this is a premise held up by a fictional literary work written by an Italian. Little to no bearing on actual theology.>inb4 “the Bible is fictional”Then none of this matters to begin with.
I will take it by force
>>24691210How are you speaking with sure surety on theology when you don’t know what Thomistic or impassible mean?
>>24691258I made no comment on theology, other than that the Divine Comedy is not a theological work. It is clearly a literary work, with Dante inserting his own personal enemies into Hell and other silly things. You need to work on that reading comprehension.And again, capacity does not equate to visibility or frequency of suffering. Which is what you’re clearly ignoring.
>>24691306Dante also inserted his own friends into hell and his own enemies into purgatory (which is salvation for everyone not a saint, including Dante). You don’t read, in fact you are allergic to books which demand attention or reflection, and you don’t even know what Thomistic and impassible mean. It is obvious to me that you must be a serious Christian
>>24691706>Dante also inserted his own friends into hell and his own enemies into purgatoryThank you for proving my point that the Divine Comedy is a literary work, not theological. You did understand that was my point in mentioning that, right?And you still haven’t demonstrated how God or angels have less capacity to suffer than Satan.
>>24691723The idea that you think “literary” and “theological” are some mutually exclusive categories suggests that you are too oblivious to notice the Bible itself is both. So when I mention that Dante simply citing Thomistic theology, it causes confusion on your part. You don’t know what impassible means and so can’t understand what I mean when I say that is a Catholic term for divine nature You are a very poor reader, and a rather shabby thinker, and these quality make you an outstanding believer
>>24691753>Can’t tell the difference between a theologian and a poetBut even that doesn’t matter. How have you proven that angels or God have less capacity to suffer than Satan?If your premise collapses, you go pick up the pieces. I don’t need to do your homework.
>>24690922What he said, in truth, was>the more perfect a being is, the more capability it has for suffering or joyHe's talking about how when the souls of the damned are reunited with their bodies, their suffering will probably be even greater, just as the joy of the blessed in heaven will increase. Satan also had a great capacity for joy, however he has eternally squandered that capacity and instead suffers.Also the doctrine isn't necessarily that Christ had to become human to suffer, it's that He had to be human in order for His sacrifice to be acceptable on behalf of the human race; since our race is the one that sinned, the sacrifice to atone also had to be a human.You're either very close to understanding the matter at hand, or this is very clever bait.
>>24692828Divine nature being impassible is Catholic theology 101
>>24692828No need to argue, his premise is flawed to begin with. Notice how laconic he’s grown in his responses. He’s conceded defeat.
>>24693124Desu you basically just conceded that you’re heretics by asserting divine nature is not impassible since that means it is not immutable. The point is to do with Christian doctrine, not the doctrine of whatever your religion is
>itt Christians demanding an atheist prove Christian dogmaThis board is getting too rough for me. Who is trolling whom? Or is everyone OP and he’s just trying to false flag Christians? Surely satan would never stoop so low
>>24693149Where do you see Christians? I just see OP getting defensive and avoiding basic questions about his premise. Very strange. At this point his silence is a stronger concession than a written apology.
>>24693161I presumed the people asking him to prove his premises were Christians just because it seemed like he was intending his points against Christianity
>>24690922Virgil and Aquinas are both referencing suffering, not in isolation, but in tandem with courage and faith (hope) in God. Suffering in the process of following the path God has set for you (like walking through fire to reach God) is very much different from suffering as a result of opposition (burning in separation from God). If your interpretation was to be correct, then the inhabitants of the Inferno in the Divine Comedy would automatically ascend to perfection during the process of their eternal punishments, since they would become perfect beings according to your implication. Since this isn’t happening, that clearly wasn’t the intent of Dante, nor of Aquinas whom Dante was refering to.
>>24693187Virgil was specifically talking about hell when he refers to this, not purgatory
>>24693439We don’t see any of the eternally suffering sinners in hell reaching a perfected state. They just continue suffering in eternal punishment. Since Dante supposedly isn’t calling Virgil a liar through this, it’s clear the “suffering” Virgil is referring to is in reference to a specific kind of suffering: redemptive suffering, as a spiritual tool to align oneself with God.It’s reductive to say suffering alone would lead to perfection. Aquinas also speaks on the “privation of the ultimate good,” how humans are designed to desire God, and separation from God is the greatest form of suffering. I don’t think Aquinas believes that suffering due to God’s absence (such as sinners and Satan do) is going to lead to a perfected state. And this view lines up with what Virgil speaks on.
>>24694134Before we go any further, have you actually read the passage? Dante is specifically asking about the state of the damned after Jesus returns and the world ends
>>24694138Yes. Virgil is saying that since that day will bring humanity to perfection (Jesus’ return, the last judgement, being in the presence of God), the sinners’ punishments (eternal separation) will be perfected.
>>24694173Now you are also clear that we’re not talking about suffering leading g to perfection, but about capacity to suffer being part of perfection, and that God’s nature in Catholicism is impassible?
>>24694180Capacity to suffer isn’t part of perfection. Dante asks Virgil if these “torments here, will they increase after the mighty sentence?”Virgil replies to “return unto thy science,” this references the doctrine taught by Augustine: “When the resurrection of the flesh takes place, both the joys of the good and the torments of the evil will be greater." That doesn’t mean capacity to suffer is necessary for perfection. It says the joy of the saved will be greater, and the suffering of the damned will be intensified. Kind of a horrible deal for the sinners, but oh well.
>>24690922God is being itself, not one being among many. "Capacity to suffer" is not identical with "perfection." Dante is just pointing out a relation, not an identity.
>>24694202>>24694180the other posters are slightly wrong. virgil is not prescriptively saying capacity to suffer is part of “perfection.” the “science” Virgil speaks of refers to how St. Augustine specifically talks about two perfect states of man: “beatific” resurrection of the saved and the “miserable” resurrection of the damned to eternal death.when Dante asks if the punishments will increase or lessen, Virgil responds that they will experience greater punishments as they reach that perfected state of eternal death, just as the saved will experience greater joy as they reach that state of eternal life.“perfection” is in reference to the perfected process of man either being in the presence of God or the separation from God. you can tell this isn’t just a blanket “perfection” term since Virgil goes out of his way to specify “return unto thy science.”
>>24690922Yahweh isn't Catholic
>>24694265This makes sense. Life is just a series of undulations, moving up toward God or down away from Him. But even when we try to separate ourselves from God, He is still with us to some extent on Earth.But he’ll is explicitly eternal separation from him. That is a “perfected” state of separation; you will never be able to reach Him again. And paradise is being with God for eternity: a perfected state of being in His presence forever.
>>24694265You didn’t have to kill OP lol
