Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time ]

Subject: thomas aquinas Author: adam [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 08:10:14 04/04/02 Thu Well, I just got out of my Thomas Aquinas class and the subject was God's anger. I was shocked at Thomas' position which basically is that God is not, and cannot be angry. Here is a snipit: "Anger is the appetite of another's evil for the sake of revenge. Anger, therefore, is far from God according to the nature of its species, not only because it is an effect of sadness, but likewise because it is an appetite for revenge arising from sadness due to an injury received." My interpretation: God can't be angry because anger implies some kind of injury. One gets angry because they have been violated or had some aspect of themselves taken away. This is impossible for God. So the class was talking about it and I piped in as a reprentative for coolhombres. I used Beuk's comment that God is above all concerned with his own glory. I recalled Yeager's thoughts on God's holiness. And Frizzell's ideas that God is so intimately involved with creation that it matters to him how we live, to the extent that he will send his own son for our redemption. Thanks coolones. Unfortunately, I think Thomas is wrong on this one. He needed some coolguys to chat with. He was too busy reading Aristotle, a philosophy geek. ak [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]