Thomas Aquinas Tidbits (PSA)

I was recently accused of being a sophomoric imbecile. I wrote a little poetic note for him. He was right, I have not read the works of Socrates yet and should not have commented at all. He is a librarian the "man surrounded by books" who I said read few of them. To redeem myself I plan to contribute a little.To be a participant on this board one must read. To form any position on christianity as you all do, one must read Thomas Aquinas. I have read Thomas Aquinas so I have the jurisdiction to speak of his words and what his words mean. You all do not.This board is comprised of types of people. Biblical literalists who do not reason which negates the power of their faith (faith meaning religion in this use) which I will elaborate on further. People who read scripture and talk of it's inconsistencies etc. These people are not very knowledgable either. Their reading material needs to be expanded upon. There are also members here who attend traditional four yr colleges and are fairly intelligent. The education they are receiving is dreadfully inadequate but they don't think so. They rarely contribute anything of worth but are higher on the ladder than the next group. "Worshippers of reason", those who hide behind the sciences of reason and do not truly think or investigate for themselves. One of the most respectable groups on this board are the "science buffs". They have read Darwin's works and they read scientific journals regularly. They have much to contribute to the science threads here. Their only negative aspect is the fact that their knowledge is for the most part second hand. I have heard there are practicing scientists here. Another group is Jar and his various followers. The science buffs and Jar are to be respected the most here although they are still ordinary folk. They are by no means brilliant and still fall under those who are scientists obviously.The following Thomas Aquinas tidbits are meant for at least one group in this list.A Christian says: "God cannot be described"
Objection: "All throughout Scripture God is described and defined, this view does not accurately address christians or christianity in general."
Thomas Aquinas:

quote:

---

Although we cannot know in what consists the essence of God, nevertheless in this doctrine we make use of His effects, either of nature or of grace, in the place of a definition, in regard to whatever is treated in this doctrine concerning God; even as in some philosophical sciences we demonstrate something about a cause from its effect, by taking the effect in the place of a definition of the cause.

---

Scripture when interpreted correctly is extremely powerful. Aquinas epitomizes the strength of Scripture when it is correctly interpreted. A requisite of this is a reasoning mind. This reveals the flaws of a literalist approach, those who attempt to live by and utilize Scripture when they cannot reason out the powerful words. Aquinas can quote the Old, the New, the Apostles, Corinthians: everything because he cannot only reason but he is a true Rennaissance man who knows of all sciences and philosophy. This shows the flaws or weaknesses in two more groups. Firstly, those that read Scripture and talk of it's inconsistences are not educated enough to attempt such a feat. The flaws of the board members who are in 4 year traditional schools are also shown. One does not receive a full, adequate education at these schools. This shows part of why Jar deserves to be respected. Jar recommended the only institution in America where one can become as educated as Thomas Aquinas. St. John's College. Jar, I am forever in your debt.Now for the final Thomas Aquinas tidbit tonight. In the Ninth Article Thomas Aquinas addresses "WHETHER HOLY SCRIPTURE SHOULD USE METAPHORS?" He establishes that although "poetic"s is the lowest science of all:

quote:

---

Sacred doctrine makes use of metaphors as both necessary and useful.

---

His words determine another flaw in the Biblical Literalists that do not reason and are on this board. He gives three reasons as to why using metaphors is "neccessary and useful". The last reason is what is pertinent to a failure of the Biblical literalists who do not reason here:

quote:

---

Third, because thereby divine truths are the better hidden from the unworthy.

---

This is all for tonight and please understand that I may not issue more tidbits at all. I may or I may not. I contributed something of worth here and yes, I read. I am gravely concerned that when I become more recognized in the eye of the world people will find out about my activity here and they will read what I have written. I should have maintained internet anonymity, but I did not. Perhaps some will find this post.Edited by -messenjah of one, : "that do not reason and"Edited by -messenjah of one, : words in parenthesis

-messenjah of one So,exactly what does it mean to speak of the effects of a god who's essence you cannot know, and what exactly are the reasons for contemplating a God in the first place?Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.

---

"The world is so exquisite, with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better, it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look Death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides." - Carl Sagan, Billions and Billions

It wouldn't mean much of anything to someone who doesn't believe in God. Aquinas speaks of these around the pages from where I quoted him.He says that sacred doctrine is not argumentative for people that do not at least accept one of the articles of faith.The reason for this is self explanatory as you see one cannot argue about something with someone else if one believes and one doesn't.
I do him an injustice by not simply reprinting his words.....

Officially signing off for at least the night...

-messenjah of one If you will not discuss the consequences of your position then why quote TA at all? Since whether his arguements are valid or not mean nothing anyway since the conclusion is established first and thus avoids the hard work of actually thinking about the position you assert.
It matters not if Aquinas is even wrong since you already have decided that the belief is insurmountable by declining any possible notion that the belief is wrong to begin with. Well is that not a satisfying way of having others stifled right off the hop? First accept that something I say is true and do not waver in that acceptance and then you can see that my arguements hold. This is equivalent to saying that I can only argue if you allow me to demand a position be unquestionable and then even if the rest of my position is false you have already agreed to something of my arguement by default. If it is so self explanatory I am going to call your bluff and have you actually give us the explanation part of self explanatory. Well that is a crock of bull. If you actually understand the man then it would be easy to express in your own words what he is getting at. Just because he has a page in history does not mean that his arguements are valid or even invalid. If you will not discuss the points of arguement he makes then I am afraid it probably means that his position is probably indefensible in some way.

quote:

---

This board is comprised of types of people. Biblical literalists who do not reason which negates the power of their faith which I will elaborate on further. People who read scripture and talk of it's inconsistencies etc. These people are not very knowledgable either. Their reading material needs to be expanded upon. There are also members here who attend traditional four yr colleges and are fairly intelligent. The education they are receiving is dreadfully inadequate but they don't think so. They rarely contribute anything of worth but are higher on the ladder than the next group. "Worshippers of reason", those who hide behind the sciences of reason and do not truly think or investigate for themselves. One of the most respectable groups on this board are the "science buffs". They have read Darwin's works and they read scientific journals regularly. They have much to contribute to the science threads here. Their only negative aspect is the fact that their knowledge is for the most part second hand. I have heard there are practicing scientists here. Another group is Jar and his various followers. The science buffs and Jar are to be respected the most here although they are still ordinary folk. They are by no means brilliant and still fall under those who are scientists obviously.

---

So, what group do you fit into, moo?I know what group I would put you in, and it isn't any of the ones you've listed.

What are "the consequences of my position"?It seems as though you are assuming that I haven't reasoned out my faith and my religion. You are mistaken. Criticism in my belief in christianity would prove fruitless. There is nothing there for us to address. I am reading Aquinas as a christian, but that does not take the validity away from the study.Perhaps you should start a discussion on natural law theory. I'm sure you would disagree with it. I feel the arguments against it are relatively weak but this has nothing to do with the topic. I would have no interest in doing this. I appreciate your concern because a man should reason out his religion. Faith is obviously outside of reason. Reason would eliminate the entire point of faith. Judging that you are a mix of a "science buff" and "worshipper of reason" we cannot argue about that. I don't mean that in any negative way of course.

I believe you may be referring to me. A few points to consider.1. I have never accused you of being a 'sophomoric imbecile.' Please state facts instead of misquoting others just because of a bruised ego.2. One would need to read the dialogues of Plato to read Socrates as he wrote nothing on his own to anyone's knowledge.3. Being surrounded by books means I have read over a thousand of them. I guess it depends on the definition of few, evidently to you, few means over a thousand.Not an auspicious start to an OP IMHO. I see no reason why as everyone who can remotely define Christianity would generally have a position on it regardless of reading Aquinas. Could you elaborate on this unsupported statement in subsequent posts? Why not?, Do you think you are the only person in this forum to have read Thomas Aquinas? I read the Summa at 15. As a modern person rather than a medieval scholastic, what I remember most was being unimpressed, with a few exceptions.Also, how would you know who here has or has not read Aquinas? And why would that give anyone 'jurisdiction?' Are you claiming legal authority over his grave site? Yeah, and you can categorize them anyway you may please but it is still your subjective opinion. Yes, Aquinas did believe one should think about what is being presented before claiming the personal infallibility of their interpretation. A lesson many have still not learned to their personal and spiritual detriment.You're on the right track to notice this contribution Aquinas made to Biblical interpretation, hardly the work of an imbecile. It would be tricky at best to be a true Renaissance man prior to the Renaissance. I hope you are not asserting that Aquinas knew all science and philosophy that was even present at his time because that would mean Confucian and Taoist philosophy, algebra, moveable type, and the formula for gunpowder and paper. Please consider the scope of your broad statements in terms of history and other cultures. How would you know, as a high school student with a few classes at a JC, what the flaws of a 4 year college education are? Hope they can teach you more than Aquinas, or it's going to be a short semester at that college. Another subjective opinion. Good, keep doing it, maybe someday you'll hit over a thousand. I wouldn't lose sleep over it.Edited by anglagard, : spelin

This should have gone through the PNT.The OP has been moved there for appropriate consideration.This thread closed.