by Victor Iwueke | Mar 28, 2025 | Article, Philosophy
Introduction
The concept of God’s nature and attributes has been debated by philosophers and theologians for centuries. One of the most contentious issues is the notion of God as a self-subsistent being. This attribute implies that God is entirely independent and self-existent, relying on nothing else for existence. However, this concept raises several concerns and contradictions, making it one of the least appropriate names of God.
Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica is a seminal work in the history of Christian theology. In it, Aquinas explores various aspects of God’s nature, including the concept of God as Self-Subsistent Being. This assignment will examine what Aquinas said about this concept, its implications for our understanding of God, and its relevance to theodicy.
The Problem of Dependence
If God is self-subsistent, it implies that God is completely independent and relies on nothing else for existence. However, this raises questions about the nature of God’s relationship with creation. If God is entirely self-sufficient, why did God create the universe and humanity? Does God’s creation imply a form of dependence or need? This paradox highlights the tension between God’s self-subsistence and the apparent dependence on creation.
The Issue of Change and Impermanence
A self-subsistent being implies immutability and timelessness. However, the concept of God as a dynamic and interactive being contradicts this idea. If God is self-subsistent, how can God change or respond to human prayers and actions? The Bible describes God as a God who relents, repents, and changes (e.g., Exodus 32:14, Jonah 3:10). This dynamic nature of God challenges the notion of self-subsistence.
The Concern of Isolation
The concept of self-subsistence implies a level of isolation and disconnection from creation. If God is entirely self-sufficient, why would God bother to engage with humanity or the world? This isolation contradicts the biblical portrayal of God as a relational and loving being (e.g., 1 John 4:8). A self-subsistent God seems distant and uninvolved, undermining the notion of a personal and caring God.
Thomas Aquinas on God as Self-Subsistent Being.
Aquinas discusses the concept of God as Self-Subsistent Being in Part 1, Question 3, Article 3 of the Summa Theologica. Here, he argues that God’s existence is not dependent on anything else, but rather is necessary and self-sufficient. Aquinas writes, “God is not only His own essence, but also His own existence” (ST I, Q. 3, A. 3). This means that God’s being is not contingent upon anything else, but rather is self-subsistent.
Implications for Our Understanding of God
Aquinas’ concept of God as Self-Subsistent Being has significant implications for our understanding of God. Firstly, it emphasizes God’s independence and sovereignty. God is not dependent on anything else for existence, but rather is the source of all existence. Secondly, it highlights God’s immutability and eternity. As Self-Subsistent Being, God is not subject to change or decay, but rather remains eternally the same
Relevance to Theodicy
Being is also relevant to theodicy, the study of God’s relationship to evil. If God is Self-Subsistent Being, then God’s existence is not threatened by the presence of evil. Rather, God’s sovereignty and power are demonstrated in God’s ability to create and sustain a world despite the presence of evil. Furthermore, Aquinas’ concept of God as Self-Subsistent Being provides a framework for understanding God’s relationship to human suffering. As Self-Subsistent Being, God is not affected by human suffering, but rather is the source of comfort and strength for those who suffer.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the concept of God as a self-subsistent being raises several concerns and contradictions. The problems of dependence, change, and isolation highlight the tension between God’s self-subsistence and the biblical portrayal of God as a dynamic, relational, and loving being. While the idea of self-subsistence may provide a sense of God’s power and
independence, it ultimately proves to be one of the least appropriate names of God.
Thomas Aquinas’ concept of God as Self-Subsistent Being is a central theme in the Summa Theologica. This concept emphasizes God’s independence, sovereignty, immutability, and eternity. It also has significant implications for our understanding of God’s relationship to evil and h.
References
Aquinas, T. (1265-1274). Summa Theologica. Translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province.
Davies, B. (1992). The Thought of Thomas Aquinas. Oxford University Press.
Kenny, A. (2002). Aquinas on Being. Oxford University Press.
Anselm of Canterbury. (1078). Proslogion.
Aquinas, T. (1265-1274). Summa Theologica.
Hartshorne, C. (1941). Man’s Vision of God and the Logic of Theism.
Moltmann, J. (1981). The Trinity and the Kingdom of God.
Presented by: IWUEKE VICTOR NNAMDI.
by CWPF | Mar 10, 2025 | Article, CATECHESIS AND REFLECTIONS, EXISTENTIALIST ETHICS, MORAL PHILOSOPHY ANDETHICS, Philosophy, Poetry, Relationship expert
ACOMPARATIVE STUDY OF JEAN PAUL SATRE AND ALBERT CAMUS’S ETHICS: AN EVALUATION
BY
JOSHUA NNADIMMA AYOZIE
Michealjoshua6@gmail.com
CLASSROOM WORK
1.0 -Introduction
“Existence precedes essence” is a generally accepted motto for the existentialist movement cutting across theist and atheist in the history of existentialism. This paper tends therefore to study the Albert Camus and Jean Paul Stare’s Existentialist Ethics. To achieve this project, a comparative study or investigation into their various thoughts would beof interest to find out where they agreed and where they have disagreed. It is good to recognize that these two existentialist giants took atheistic approach in their thought and contributions in order to achieve their set out goals.
Their contributions or ethical existentialist thoughts cut across Excapism, Freedom and Responsibility, Choice, suicide, capital punishment, rejection of god’s existence and deterministic nature of man, existence preceding essence, individual subjectivism. Etc. These existentialist ethical theories cut across their thoughts here and there.
To achieve the aim of this paper, the above stated outline would be adopted with an introduction which is already achieved and followed by a brief biography of each of these existentialist philosophers leading to a comparative study of their thoughts, analysis and evaluation.
2.0- Existentialism Origin and Meaning
The word existentialism traces its root inlatin origin Ex(s) istentia which in turn based on classical Latin ex (s)istere “to exist”, appear, emerge”, a verb composed of the prefix ex-“out of” and sister “to stand” this literarily means to appear, to emerge, to exist or stand out. Hence the existentialist motto: existence precedes essence. By implication human being emerges, exist and stands out among many other being and afterward, defines himself through an essence he created with the choices he makes. Existentialism is the movement in the 19th up to the 20th centuries that attempts to address the problems of human existence, freedom and responsibility, and the place of man in the world. Its central focus therefore is how to make an authentically human life possible in a seemingly meaningless world.
As an intellectual movement that exploded on the scene in mid-twentieth-century France, “existentialism” is often viewed as a historically situated event that emerged against the backdrop of the Second World War, the Nazi death camps, and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, all of which created the circumstances for what has been called “the existentialist moment” (Baert 2015), where an entire generation was forced to confront the human condition and the anxiety-provoking givens of death, freedom, and meaninglessness. Although the most popular voices of this movement were French, most notably Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir, as well as compatriots such as Albert Camus, Gabriel Marcel, and Maurice Merleau-Ponty, the conceptual groundwork of the movement was laid much earlier in the nineteenth century by pioneers like Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche and twentieth-century German philosophers like Edmund Husserl, Martin Heidegger, and Karl Jaspers as well as prominent Spanish intellectuals José Ortega y Gasset and Miguel de Unamuno. The core ideas have also been illuminated in key literary works. Beyond the plays, short stories, and novels by French luminaries like Sartre, Beauvoir, and Camus, there were Parisian writers such as Jean Genet and André Gide, the Russian novelists Leo Tolstoy and Fyodor Dostoevsky, the work of Norwegian authors such as Henrik Ibsen and Knut Hamsun, and the German-language iconoclasts Franz Kafka and Rainer Maria Rilke. The movement even found expression across the pond in the work of the “lost generation” of American writers like F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway, mid-century “beat” authors like Jack Kerouac, Allen Ginsburg, and William S. Burroughs, and the self-proclaimed “American existentialist,” Norman Mailer (Cotkin 2003, 185).
3.0- Albert Camus’ Existentialist Ethics
Albert Camus’ ethical contribution in Philosophy now taking to be ethical theories or contributions are pieces of his work which could be as well named his humanitarian advocacy for a better living and existence of man gathered and applied as an ethical issue. They range from his concept of Escapism, rejection of capital punishment and suicide, rebellion and myth of Sisyphus, then absurdity. These concepts linked to one another bringing out moral or ethical flavours with their implications.
Absurdity of existence is Camusian notion in which he exposes the meaninglessness of the world which human being is facing. He uses this absurdity of existence to tackle his notion of Escapism. Camus is an atheist who denies the anything life after death. According to him, he is against those religious individual he named escapist and their view of concept of death. The escapists in Camusian view are those that believed in the life after death or immortality of soul. He believes that life should be lived to its fullness. He maintains that life is characterized by the absurd of man living his life with the hope of tomorrow when tomorrow brings us closer to death. Camus condemns any intentional act or suicide or death penalty leading to death of another person.
Why did Camus rejects Death by Suicide and Capital Punishment?
According to Camus, man builds his live on the hope of tomorrow when tomorrow brings us closer to death. As a child one of the things Camus learned about his father was that he became violently ill after witnessing a public execution. This inspired him to oppose such act of Death Penalty. This actually became his vocal point of opposition. Camus condemned capital punishment and his condemnation became explicit and implicit on his writings. In conclusion this work sets to point out the implications of Camus moral philosophy which revolves around his condemnation of death penalty and suicide for the society.
Albert Camus rejected the materialistic and idealistic conception of death. Camus rejected capital punishment or death penalty. He stated with a vocal opposition to death penalty. He described death penalty as an inhuman and irrational act. To some persons, during the execution by the guillotine, to some persons it was spectacle while to Camus it is inhuman juand barbarous. For Camus, death has no rational meaning and as such the human existence is absurd. For Camus, death robs human existence of all its meaning. Death creates fear, unhappy moment and anxiety in human life. Therefore, when suicide and death penalty is the order of the day in the society, the society tends to lose its essence, because it is the human existence that makes up this society. Camus recommends constant rebellion, constant confrontation as the two approaches to absurdity and death penalty. Therefore, life should be lived with the virtue golden mean that is moderation to ensure lasting legacy.
Despite the absurdity of life, meaninglessness and nonsensical nature of life, suicide is not an option. Camus emphatically says “no” to suicide. Suicide is against the natural inclination to preserve life and also against over self-interest or will. realizing that life will definitely come to an end one day will help man plan and channel his life. It is also significant to know that suicide and death penalty is dreadful phenomenon, it is the forceful taking of life. This is actually bad for the society. Suicide does not give room for one to confront the absurdity of life. Death penalty as capital punishment does not give the individual the chance to correct himself while existing. Inflicting death penalty does not solve it because one day the person will still die. It is better he lives to correct himself and also serve as a deterrent to others.
4.0- Jean Paul Sartre’s Existential Ethics
Freedom and responsibility, existence precedes essence, you are the choices you make, capital punishment, suicide and individual subjectivism
Jean Paul Sartre, a French philosopher who lived from 1905 to 1980 was a staunch defender of existentialism. Though Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Heidegger had already laid the groundwork for existentialism, Sartre was responsible for much of its philosophical formulation. He also popularized it through his plays, novels, and essays. Existentialism is primarily an ontological theory, and thus about the nature of being. Sartre sees the ontology of the human being as unique because its existence precedes its essence. Since Sartre thinks a God would necessarily pre-determine our essence before our existence, Sartre finds the very idea of God dehumanizing.
In addition, Sartre believed in the essential freedom of individuals, and he also believed that as free beings, people are responsible for all elements of themselves, their consciousness, and their actions. That is, with total freedom comes total responsibility. He believed that even those people who wish not to be responsible, who declare themselves not responsible for themselves or their actions, are still making a conscious choice and are thus responsible for anything that happens as a consequence of their action. Sartre’s moral philosophy maintains that ethics are essentially a matter of individual conscience. If ethics centers on individual conscience, what about some people that their conscience are dormant or inactive?
Most consistent in Sartre’s Philosophy is the idea of extreme individualism or subjectivism and it permeates all spheres of his thoughts. It is on this note that his writings return most importantly to the human willing and action. His philosophy was basically a reaction and a revolt against the pretentious of reason, against the dehumanizing conditions of modern life, and against the attempts of sciences to reduce persons to simply one more type of object among others in nature. By this he laid emphasis strongly on human freedom. A very obvious manner, he conceived of the world as being empty. It is this idea that strengthens and makes bare his atheistic position that God does not exist. Sartre’s ethics is foundation on his saying “you are the choices you make”. According to him, through our choices, we determine or create what we will be and those choices, we choose according to what we believe we ought to compare this view to others that we are unable to choose badly. Consequently, we are creating ourselves according to what we think a person ought to be. Again, he said, you are responsible for what you are as well. Sartre argues that one is obliged by one’s own freedom to act in a manner that preserves freedom for oneself and humanity at large.
Jean Paul Sartre’s ethical existentialism is the view that the value of human freedom is the core of human existence and the foundation of all other values.It simply implies that freedom is an inherent value in man and this in extension implies choice. It is essentially the search for the condition of man, his state of being free, and subsequently an attempt to create man’s own essence having been thrown into absurd world where he has to struggle and gradually define himself. Jean Paul Sartre however turned this there is no given human nature precisely because there is no God to have a conception of it. According to Sartre, “Human nature cannot be defined in advance because it is not completely thought out in advance, people merely exist and only later on do we become our essential selves”. In Sartre ethics, man is to be judged for his action alone; his intention doesn’t count. No cause can be made by appealing to the complexity of things, or lack of opportunity to demonstrate one’s real self. The existentialist slogan “Existence precedes essence” can be applied in a variety of contexts, as man is simply nothing else but that which he makes himself, and what he makes of himself is no more than the total of his real life experiences.
5.0- An Evaluation
we are therefore looking at the ethical implication of some of the ethical issues raised in Albert Camus and Jean Paul Sartre’s ethics. First of all, the issues of Suicide and Absurdities in Camus’ ethics. Suicide is an admission of our inability to face the absurd. To subscribe to suicide is to go against the core essential element of dignity and value which Camus says are necessarily included in the human existence. For him, suicide is an act of cowardice and there is no moral ground for suicide its it is self-killing, self-murder and self-assassination. In his words, dying voluntarily means that you have recognized even instinctively, the ridiculous character of the agitation and the uselessness of suffering”
Camus agreed with Jean Paul Sartre on the concept of death. Death for them is a meaningless absurdity that project on earth. It is on this note that Camus treats death as that which brings everything to its end. Camus is against the escapist’s concept of death because of their believe in life after death and immortality of the soul. Camus rejection of life after and immortality of the soul believed by the escapist is in line with Sartre’s notion “You are the choices you make” because it is a direct denial of anything called god who created and has predetermined man’s existence and operations in the world leading to atheism.
Capital Punishmentrejected by Camus which leads to death as stated earlier was as a result of his father’s encounter. His father according to history took ill after witnessing capital punishment meted on someone. Camus sees death penalty as that which goes against the core essential value of dignity of man which includes: individual right, free choice, authenticity, personal responsibility and self-determination. The capital punishment of death penalty does not give the person an opportunity for amending his or her ways.
6.0- Conclusion
While an intentionally ending of one’s life is intrinsically wrong not only because Camus and Sartre both believe that it goes against absurdities and responsibilities, capital punishment in my thinking should not be abolished because the total rejection of it would give room to breeding unnecessary moral and social vices in the society. Although life should be preserved at all cost not when a capital crime is done against another man or against the state. In case you would like to ask the question if taking life could replace a loss life the answer might be in negation but at least it would serve as lesson to deterrents living and could reduce crime rates in the future.
The concept of Escapism in Camus and the statement you are the choices you make in Jean Paul Sartre may linked up in the concept of rebellion and humanism but at the same time denies the concept of religious god. The total rejection of god and religion might also lead to an increase in moral and civil crime rate and vices. In all, we must keep doing good, avoid anything wrong while improving on who you are and wished to become.
Camusian and Sartre’s position which denied the existence of God, fate, life after death and immortality of the soul make man a super being in an empty world without destination because everything depends in man’s might and rejecting divine providence. The question is, does death define the total and actual ending of man? Camus and Sartre have not provided us with a valid answer since it delves into metaphysical realm. They are free to take a position of their choice but whatever answer they have given is not an absolute answer. Their rejection of capital punishment and suicide contradicted what they set out to achieve. Their concept of non-existence of God is such that could encourage suicide because people who consider it think life ends here for them and no eternity. Capital punishment is needed to be adopted by the government to ameliorate crimes but its absence encourages even moral vices.
ENDNOTES
Available at https:www.etymonline.com assessed 3rd March,2025
Francis Chibuzor Alo, “An Interrogation of Jean Paul Sartre’s Ethical Existentialism”, International Journal of Research in Arts and Social Sciences, Vol. 14,(2021): 88
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy assessed on 3rd March,2025
Joseph Nnameka Chukwuma, “Albert Camus Moral Philosophy: Implication for the Society”, International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research Volume 9, Issue 10, (2018) : 537-538.
Chukwuma, “Albert Camus Moral Philosophy: Implication for the Society”, 522.
Chukwuma, “Albert Camus Moral Philosophy: Implication for the Society”,.520-521.
Chukwuma, “Albert Camus Moral Philosophy: Implication for the Society”, 522,
Chukwuma,“Albert Camus Moral Philosophy: Implication for the Society”,.523.
Available at https://gratton ocurse.wordpress.com assessed on 5th March,2025.
Chinedu Ifeakor, “A critical Analysis of Jean-Paul Sartre’s Ethical theory of Freedom,”(2023):39 available at https://www.acjol.org assessed on 5th March,2025
Ifeakor, “A critical Analysis of Jean-Paul Sartre’s Ethical theory of Freedom”,.35.
available at https://www.acjol.org assessed on 5th March,2025
Ifeakor, A critical Analysis of Jean-Paul Sartre’s Ethical theory of Freedom”, 37.
available at https://www.acjol.org assessed on 5th March,2025
Franklin Chibuzor Alo, An Interrogation of Jean Paul Sartre’s Ethical Existentialism, 2021, 88
Alo, “An Interrogation of Jean Paul Sartre’s Ethical Existentialism”, 90.
Albert Camus, “Caligula and three other plays” Arans, Staurt Cuilbert New York: Vintage Books, 1958, 121.
Chukwuma, “Albert Camus Moral Philosophy: Implication for the Society”, International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research Volume 9 Issue 10, p.537, 2018.
Chukwuma, “Albert Camus Moral Philosophy: Implication for the Society”.543.
BIBLIOGRAPHY .
Alo, Francis Chibuzor. “An Interrogation of Jean Paul Sartre’s Ethical Existentialism”, International Journal of
Research in Arts and Social Sciences, Vol. 14,( 2021): 88
Chukwuma, Joseph Nnamek, “Albert Camus Moral Philosophy: Implication for the Society”, International Journal
of Scientific and Engineering Research Volume 9, Issue 10, (2018) : 537-538.Available at
https:www.etymonline.com assessed 3rd March,2025
Camus, Albert. “Caligula and three other plays” Arans, Staurt Cuilbert New York: Vintage Books,
1958.
Camus, Albert,“The Stranger” Arans. Joseph Laredo, England: Penguin Books (1983), 109
Available at https://gratton ocurse.wordpress.com assessed on 5th March,2025.
Martins, V.A.“Absurdity” in the New Catholic Encyclopedia Volume 1. (U.S.A. Jack Hearty, and
Associate, 1967.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy assessed on 3rd March,2025Jean Paul Sartre. Being and Nothingness. London: Routledge, 1969. Print Jean Paul Sartre. Existentialism in Humanism. London: Methuen press, 1973. Print Jean-Paul Sartre. Nausea. Trans by Lord Alexander. New York: New Directions Publishing
by Fr. David Okolie | Feb 23, 2025 | Article, CATECHESIS AND REFLECTIONS
Dearest friends,
Through the sacrament of Holy Orders, PRIESTS are specially ANOINTED as ministers of God. Thus, God separates them from the rest of the PEOPLE through an indelible seal (cf. CCC n. 1574). No one takes this honour upon himself (cf. Heb 5:4). It is a mystery of transformation; a triumph of the GRACE of God in mere human person.
Granted priests are anointed ministers of God, they are also human beings. They equally embody in their person some human WEAKNESSES. They ought not to celebrate these weaknesses but struggle day by day to overcome them. At times, these weaknesses play out in their relationship with the people. The question here is: How do you react to the weaknesses of priests; even when it affects you directly? Do you seek for ruthless revenge or do you excuse, forgive and pray for him/them? Remember, priests are God’s anointed, even in their human weaknesses. God himself says: “Do not touch my anointed and to my prophets, do no harm” (cf. Ps 105:15). By extension, this includes ALL Christ’s faithful, anointed at their BAPTISM. Do not lay violent hand on any of them!
The Catholic faith teaches us that we have the following duties towards our priests: praying for them, giving them good advice, giving them both moral and financial support and respecting them as ministers of God (cf. Can. 222, Igbo catechism, 1996 ed. n. 513).
Now, in case you do not know, those who kidnap priests, persecute priests, who plot against priests and who speak all kinds of evil against priests are reminded today that they are not truly being Christians. They should remember that priests are God’s anointed and then always act like David, who did not harm Saul, even when he had the opportunity to do so (cf. 1 Sam 26:1-23). They should not allow their earthly nature to override their heavenly nature in dealing with priests. The truth is that violence done to God’s ANOINTED attracts unimaginable PUNISHMENTS (cf. Num 12 and 16).
We pray the Blessed Virgin Mary, Help of Christians, to always support us with her powerful intercession. Amen🙏🏼
Happy Sunday and remain blessed!
(CATECHESIS (NKUZI NKE OKWUKWE) FOR THE 7TH SUNDAY, YEAR C
READINGS: R1 1 Sam 26:2.7-9.12-13.22-23, R2 1 Cor 15:45-49, Gosp Lk 6:27-38)
by Fr. David Okolie | Feb 15, 2025 | Article
Dearest friends,
In recent times, we have heard how some persons now prescribe REGULAR SEX as an antidote to various bodily infirmities. While some of those who make this prescription hide under the guise of medical profession, others claim to be social media or peer tutors. Unfortunately, such warped teaching has made a number of persons (both married and unmarried) SLAVES to SEX; thereby increasing promiscuity, nudity, addictions, etc. in our society today.
👉🏼Well, the basic Christian teaching about sex is this: Sex is GOOD and PROCREATIVE. SEX OUTSIDE of marriage (i.e., Premarital/Extramarital sex) is GRAVELY SINFUL. Sex within marriage that INTENTIONALLY evades procreation (through contraceptives) is equally GRAVELY SINFUL.
A closer study of the above reveals these:
Premarital/Extramarital Sex has no place in our Christian life. Again, even those who are married are to exercise some level of DISCIPLINE/SELF-CONTROL as regards sex.
Now, have you seen that those who are turning people into SEX SLAVES under whatever medical/health guise are certainly DECEIVERS with evil intentions?
We can also put the above in logical form thus:
- The Word of God says that Sexual Immorality is SINFUL (Please read: 1 Cor 6:18-20).
- Science says that Sexual Immorality is not Sinful but necessary for health purposes.
- It is either the Word of God is False or Science is False (because the two cannot be TRUE at the same time).
- The Word of God is always TRUE (cf. Jn 17:17).
- Therefore, Science here is FALSE.
👉🏼Thus, the Word of God affirms:
Do not be DECEIVED. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God (cf. 1 Cor 6:9-11).
Again, we should ask ourselves this all-important question: Is it better to obey GOD or SCIENCE?
When Peter and the rest of the Apostles faced such a difficult situation, Peter raised his voice and said this: “It is better to obey GOD than MEN” (cf. Acts 5:29).
Also, remember the stories of Susanna and Joseph in the Bible. They refused to yield to the immoral sexual demands that confronted them because they preferred to OBEY God and not human beings (cf. Daniel 13:1-64, Gen 39:6-12).
In our own time, let nobody allow himself/herself to be DECEIVED!
👉🏼 Finally, do not forget that God cannot command what is IMPOSSIBLE. Whatever he commands, he makes his GRACE available to those who would sincerely want to obey him (cf. Phil 4:13, Jn 15:5).
Remain blessed!
Rev. Fr. David Okolie
by Fr. David Okolie | Feb 12, 2025 | Article
The expression: “I love you” has powerful effects in the whole being of the human person, but more especially in the inner self of the female folk. The reason is very simple; women are often carried away by what they HEAR. They just want to hear, among other expressions, that “They are loved.”
However, this same expression: “I love you” has often been an ENCODED form of its opposite expression: “I hate you.” Since it is an encoded expression, it has often been very difficult and in most cases impossible to be DECODED by our innocent female folk. This explains why we often hear these expressions: “He used me and dumped me”, “He took advantage of me”, “He broke my heart”, “He shattered my dreams”, “He cheated on me”, etc.
Dearest, how on earth would you expect anything different from the above heart-breaking expressions when a young man wakes up and tells his guys that he is going to “GET THIS ONE DOWN?” What other thing does he mean if not that he is going to lure you to his bed, have sex with you, dumps you and then goes out in search of another vulnerable person. So, to achieve his plans, he comes with GIFTS, telling you that “HE LOVES YOU.”
You may have either fallen into the above deception in the past or you may have seen your friend been a victim of it, but let me offer you the one and lasting DECODING key this time. Once he comes with his many gifts and sweet languages of “I love you, blablala…” Do not worry, try to get along with him; after all, nobody is an island and nobody is a beast such that he/she would want to stay alone without any friend. However, once he starts to make incessant demands for SEX, do not waste a minute to run for your life. Be reminded that pre-marital or extra-marital SEX is NEVER a PROOF of LOVE. Again, don’t you know that the person who truly loves you would want to preserve you till he gets MARRIED to you?
Please, do not allow yourself to fall into their traps again in the forthcoming VALENTINE DAY.
Remain blessed!
Rev. Fr. David Okolie
by Paragon | Feb 12, 2025 | Article, Philosophy
THE SORROWS OF THIS WORLD VIS-A-VIS IT’S ATTACHMENTS
The world is full of sorrows. Almost everyone in the world is living in one sorrowful moment or the other. The reason of all these are not far fetched. Attachment is the root cause of sorrows in the world. It is necessary, we detach ourselves from the things of the world, if we intend to live a happy and joyful life on earth.
In leadership, people who could not make it to be leaders become sorrowful because they could not climb the ladder of leaders. Those who lead, do everything possible to maintain their leadership position either by hook or by crook simply because of the earthly possession and wealth. These people can go any length in oder to maintain their standard. They sometimes, kill, abuse, matreat, exploit and do all sorts of evils in the name of leadership quest. They do all these because they wouldn’t like to be kicked aside or remained a nobody in the society. They are so attached tenaciously to leadership positions that they hardly can let it slips off their hands because of the sorrow that would definitely follow it.
Love is a beautiful thing but when we love to the extent we can’t do without our lover; it becomes an attachment which goes with sorrows. People who are into relationships commit all kinds of evils because of this particular thing called attachment. Often times, people who do not want to lose their lovers go extra miles to keep them to themselves some times they do charms to keep them all to themselves forever. People become frustrated, depressed and mentally demented because their loved ones died or severed the relationship. This should not be, we should not be too attached to anyone to the extent that when the person leaves us, we end up sorrowful. Even your parents, siblings should not make you to be sorrowful to the extent you cannot do without them because of how you are attached to them.
In our lives as a human beings, the vices or ambitions or desires of men and women are often accompanied by attachment. We are jealous, envious, gluttonous, materialistic, insensitive, uncharitable, selfish to name but a few because of too much attachment to many things. We must learn how to detach ourselves from all these, so that our living here on earth will be sorrow-free.
In all, we are encouraged to make use of material things very well, make friends, enter into relationships, become leaders, have lofty ambitions or desires, love and be loved by people and so on and so forth; in all these, we should not be grossly attached to them in the sense that we cannot or we will find it extremely difficult to do without them. The only Being we should be attached to the extent we cannot do without Him is God.
…Samsonmary Iyida
