/lit/ - Literature

>>20234912
I don't think so. The best you'll get is some fedora tippers who take aim at his Five Ways, but I'm not aware of anyone who has attempted to actually critique his entire philosophical / theological framework. Usually it's just "Aristotlean philosophy is bullshit" and that's the end of it.

Maybe Kant is the best you'll get. He wasn't specifically taking aim at Aquinas but his philosophy probably hit Thomism harder than anything else in terms of delegitimizing it in academia.

>>20234912
in what sense exactly?

It's been a few years since i've bothered with the christcucks but St. Photio's Myrobiblion in the 10th Century seems to have politely teabagged western european religious thought.

>>20234937
>fedora tippers
catholic animal

>>20234937
>Kant
oh i thought the OP was talking about nearer contemporary authors to the time..
hell,

>>20234941
How could Photios have "rebutted" Aquinas when he lived 200 years before Aquinas? Also Photios was a renowned backstabber and heretic who was a poor philosopher and an even worse theologian, which is unsurprising because the majority of his energies were spent trying to acquire political power through subversive means, not intellectual pursuits.

Please go back to watching Jay Dyer and do not comment here.

>>20234937
>Usually it's just "Aristotlean philosophy is bullshit" and that's the end of it.
yeah kind of because it is

>>20234912
>rebuttal to something Aquinas wrote?
if unclear earlier, i meant to ask "such as what"

The 12th century was an intellectual dark age and Aquinas, for some strange reason, seems to be improperly accorded some fame but I've never seen anything he wrote or said that was offering anything particularly insightful, even with the given that he was "following" in the footsteps of all that neo-platonistic error, which Plotinus already debunked, along with the God notion, the moment it was said within his earshot.

see plotinus versus christians/jews/gnostics on the notion of a god which is disconnected from physical material reality whilst claiming the fruits of the creation of the god; i.e. material physical reality and the human body, is an evil thing made by some other god (devil)

if only they were intelligent enough to understand the refutation

>>20234979
>yeah kind of because it is
Can you back that up?

>>20234968
>How could Photios have "rebutted" Aquinas when he lived 200 years before Aquinas?
yes i realized that in hindsight.. i was thinking "the contemporary era" and tend to forget aquinas was as late as he was. i confused him with augustine i think.

>Please go back to watching Jay Dyer and do not comment here.
yes.i .. who?

>Also Photios was a renowned backstabber and heretic who was a poor philosopher and an even worse theologian, which is unsurprising because the majority of his energies were spent trying to acquire political power through subversive means, not intellectual pursuits.
ah but that's why he became a saint and the boss of the church, second only to the emperor himself. power. whereas aquinas failed to become pope or even bishop, and died without seeing his dreams fulfilled by a term of government service, whatever those dreams may have been.

I disagree entirely with the philosophical point also; as Photios most famously showed up the great flaw in so-called academe and amongst theologians where they posit that nothing can be knowable and then go on to proclaim that this is good and this is bad, and so on.

It's actually very insightful perhaps on a more material or higher grade level when trying to figure out practical-actionable subjects such as the virtues and "why it is" that few people seem to bother being good people, despite being intelligent enough to see the reasoning to be so,


"the Academics are unaware that they are conflicting with themselves. For to make unambiguous assertions and denials, whilst at the same time as stating as a generalization that no things are cognitive, introduces an undeniable conflict:

How is it possible to recognize that one thing is true and one thing false, and yet still entertain perplexity and doubt, and not make a clear choice of the one and avoidance of the other?"
(EC) St. Photios 'the Great' of Constantinople,
Myriobiblion
9th Cent. Byz.

>>20234988
again, see plotinus - these things or misconceptions of practical philosophy 'as' "other world" theology were already debunked before they became popular.

>>20234988
see plotinus, or, you know, know who Gorgias and Chrysippus were.

Aristotle versus Chrysippus is almost no contest, but the logic and rhetorical teaching of Chrysippus (coming from Gorgias and not Socrates) seems to have died with the Roman Pagans, or been burned or whatever.

>>20234937
>>20234949
>Kant
Ahahaha ywnbaw https://youtu.be/mSCsfCNiGDQ?t=335 Kant is profoundly false as correctly stated by Bishop Williamson

>>20234979
>The 12th century was an intellectual dark age
stoped right there, don't talk about what you don't know

I should have known that this thread would have devolved in the same way anything tangential to religion does here. Thank you for trying:>>20234937
>>20234941

Hopefully someone can come along to answer my question. I am shocked no philosopher, doesnt even have to be major, since Aquinas has taken a stab at his logic. I mean the Summa is literally juts a list of arguments, is every single one really that internally coherent?

>>20235043
>>The 12th century was an intellectual dark age
>stoped right there, don't talk about what you don't know

uh no, i can't really imagine a worse time to be alive in than that part of europe in the 12th century.

of course your brainwashing dictates that you uphold the mythos of greatness of this era of simple-minded butchery and learn no lessons about why europe would go on to kick the catholics out and burn them for the thing they had done during this era of greatness..

..and why Aquinas must be pretended to be so wonderful despite his inability to actually do anything in the real world.

>>20235034
and this, kids, is why you don't attempt to intellectualize your disgust at judeo-christianity by copying ideas and phraseology from 18th century germoids.

>>20235064
>Hopefully someone can come along to answer my question. I am shocked no philosopher, doesnt even have to be major, since Aquinas has taken a stab at his logic. I mean the Summa is literally juts a list of arguments, is every single one really that internally coherent?
i did ask you specifically 'what thing he said or wrote' you were wondering had been either refuted or expounded upon since.

you're not really giving anybody anything to work with.

>>20234988
if i may add, Aquinas and Augustine w/re: intellectual dark age,

I conflated these two in error earlier on but this is because their 'place' was largely t same; both of them served to provide intellectual justifications, badly needed, as to why the common rabble of zealots ought not burn the greek and latin books they'd rediscovered because of the general realization that the old pagans had a great deal to teach and were not devil-men and succubus-women as the first christians had insisted all learned literate persons were.

i.e. this is an intellectual dark age barely managing to tie its shoelaces in terms of broad and vitally needed sciences such as medicine, municipal governance, law and rhetoric, judicial practice, trade and economics, etc., so this is not unlike finding cavemen and marveling at their ability to convince each other not to break their skulls open to cure headache.

it is an anthropological curiousity, but there is nothing practical or new there for any learned person, which was not either better fathomed centuries earlier or which would not in any case even exist 'as' a problem in the first place without the self-defeating religious errors being brainwashed into the local barbarian society.

>>20234912
Aquinas tried to marry Jerusalem and Athens to prevent the destruction of the West so anyone who rejects that paradigm, e.g someone like Kierkegaard

>>20234912
I think generally you'd be better off critiquing his angelology, the more minute elements of his theology that get entangled with dogmatic Catholic autism and stray from strict philosophy and metaphysics, and his ethics; the main reason people tend to fail when critiquing Aquinas is that they try to disprove all of the shit he was right about while ignoring a ton of the stuff he got dead wrong

Like, I don't dislike Aquinas, but that whole section of the Summa dedicated to explaining that the saints in heaven will spend all eternity heartlessly laughing at the agony of the damned being tortured without even a trace of pity is unironically one of the most fucked-up things that anyone's ever said, that's the kind of genuinely heinous shit that deserves a bit more scrutiny

>>20235186
>Like, I don't dislike Aquinas, but that whole section of the Summa dedicated to explaining that the saints in heaven will spend all eternity heartlessly laughing at the agony of the damned being tortured without even a trace of pity is unironically one of the most fucked-up things that anyone's ever said, that's the kind of genuinely heinous shit that deserves a bit more scrutiny
wow i ought to read this hahahaha

you know, i'm not a catholic at all, but my favorite of them is pope innocent iii, not because of anything he did but because of that text he published as a younger man - when Aquinas says shit like that it REALLY sounds like he's trying to match and exceed Innocent, but without any of the feeling,meaning or grace.

that is both fucked up and revealing of his character i think.

>>20235184
>Aquinas tried to marry Jerusalem and Athens
and some say marriage between two homosexual men is something new and avant garde.

>>20234912
>Does anyone know about any authors that explicitly attempt to offer some rebuttal to something Aquinas wrote?
Neo-thomists

>And I dont mean on the basis of theism/atheisim, but actually targeting the logic underpinning his argument
No one, even the newest approach to Thomism achieved a perfect synthesis with Fregean philosophy and all the corrections that have been achieved in logic to this day.

>>20234937
>Kant
>He wasn't specifically taking aim at Aquinas
That last part is kinda correct, Kant tend not to address Aquinas’s own arguments in the first place. Rather, he address later and weaker arguments from other writers. Arguments like Aquinas’s got lost in the shuffle, historically. And when contemporary philosophers do pay attention to them at all, they tend to read into Aquinas what they know (or think they know) from these later, very different and much weaker arguments. For example, people who read Aquinas’s Fifth Way often suppose that it is essentially the same as William Paley’s famous “design argument,” which compares the universe to a watch and God to a watchmaker. In fact, Aquinas’s and Paley’s arguments couldn’t be more different, and Aquinas would not have had much time for Paley’s...

>harder than anything else in terms of delegitimizing it in academia.
They are Protestants and you know it, it wasn't a "Aquinas was wrong about everything!" but a "We don't like Catholicism so lets turn to Kant!".

>>20235186
>the saints in heaven will spend all eternity heartlessly laughing at the agony of the damned being tortured without even a trace of pity
That's basically the Christian equivalent of the laughter of the gods. If you comprehend that "eternal torture" is basically just eternal worldly existence, it's not actually as bad as it sounds (unless you're already looking down from the angelic perspective, in which case you would not be in this thread.)

>>20235226
A lot of Christians - I dread to say even most - genuinely do unsettle me with the way they talk about Hell, like there are obviously a ton of exceptions but it starts to reach a point where they legitimately seem like they're getting off on the thought of seeing sentient beings in pain; if Nietzsche was right about only one thing in his entire life it was that the common Christian doctrine of Hell is abhorrently sadistic and sociopathic

I think it's been eased up in modern times for the most part among average people, but the way the more "old-fashioned" Christians tended to talk about the subject of damnation literally makes God sound infinitely worse than Satan, fucking horrific shit like getting burned alive and bombarded with the worst smells and sights imaginable, a single human sin somehow managing to immediately incur infinite guilt that immediately warrants eternal torture, parents in Heaven being so doped up and brainwashed that they have big happy grins watching their children get tortured in Hell, fucking insane nightmarish ravings straight out of goddamn Lovecraft

For whatever reason it tends to seem like the Catholic Church intentionally lifted to the forefront those theologians who had the absolute bleakest view imaginable of God and the universe, I genuinely don't even know how you'd cope if you legit 100% believed that God did this shit to people

>>20235252
>They are Protestants and you know it, it wasn't a "Aquinas was wrong about everything!" but a "We don't like Catholicism so lets turn to Kant!".
uhh more like a "we've just had our glorious catholic german empire be fucking routed by Napoleon, the world is ending and the church s fucking failed to make us strong!! - let's turn to Kant" or something closer to that, in all context.

>>20235257
>That's basically the Christian equivalent of the laughter of the gods. If you comprehend that "eternal torture" is basically just eternal worldly existence, it's not actually as bad as it sounds (unless you're already looking down from the angelic perspective, in which case you would not be in this thread.)
strongly disagree. strongly strongly.

any normal human being with a shred of conscience would be sickened by laughing at another persons actual real pain; nobody with any real conscience could ever comprehend such a thing being said of gods or holy persons, it displays a great absence of awareness of basic goodness - which you yourself espouse when you say,
>unless you're already looking down from the angelic perspective, in which case you would not be in this thread.
which as an idea, on your part, attempts to put basic human conscience, reason and everyday goodness far out of reach of the common human being - which is entirely false, as ordinary people display far more conscience all the time.

>>20235034
BASED
A
S
E
D

>>20234912
It's time anon.

>>20235186
>whole section of the Summa dedicated to explaining that the saints in heaven will spend all eternity heartlessly laughing at the agony of the damned being tortured without even a trace of pity is unironically one of the most fucked-up things that anyone's ever said, that's the kind of genuinely heinous shit that deserves a bit more scrutiny
But he is right.

>>20235259
desu whenever i hear it it always seems to be displacement; that is: someone who actually has done some heinously vile thing like raped a child or killed a relative to steal their money, is trying to convince him or herself that you or other people as "as evil" as he or she is, for, you know, looking at a womans ankles in the 1890's.

there's a really REALLY old line from Emperor Maximinus when he persecutes the christians for having "held down the whole world for shame" and that they should be happy to swear off the 'new god' as like "being cured from a terminal illness,"

in this context it all fits.

but with that said, most christians would probably be physically incapable of actually doing the kind of harm they wish they could do... but ten again we're not so far removed from the days when normal americans were eating cotton candy and watching falsely-accused black people burn to death at the circus.

"may those ['former'-christians] who, after being freed from [the self-defeating errors of] those by-ways [which had led them to nothing but enmity toward their fellow-man], rejoice [at having been] snatched from a grave illness"

Galerius Valerius Maximinus Daza, 308AD
from a defaced inscription

>>20235296
>any normal human being
Gods and angels are beyond human beings. Even saying that they laugh is only an anachronism anyway.

>>20235306
i'm not familiar with that emperor meme

>>20235315
2edgy4me

>>20235324
lol you really missed the point of conscience.. and i don't believe you're being sincere at this point, if you 'were' being sincere then you're basically saying that the god, saints and angels are all cartoon devils devoid of goodness and would have nothing but really sonichu comicbook tier stuff as a basis for the religion, which would then disprove the religion itself as being obviously stupid and made-up by crazy evil barbarians. (which we know it was)

>>20235338
No, I didn't. The point, from the Christian perspective, is that even if the angels tried to help mankind, mankind couldn't be helped. Men have to help themselves, or at least want to help themselves, through an act of their own will, therefore until they realize what they really want, they will keep running in circles, like a bunch of circus performers, constantly enjoying pleasures and then suffering the pains which come when they realize those pleasures are transient and result naturally in their opposites. Hence the laughter of the angels, it's the only redeeming aspect of man's existence when it is not directed toward God.

>>20235034
It amazes me how someone could at his age could not understand Descartes. This is just embarrassing.

>>20234912
Besides the classical critiques by Hume and Kant, J.L. Mackie, Graham Oppy, J.H. Sobel, and Anthony Kenny all have good work critiquing Aquinas's arguments. Alvin Plantinga even offers some critiques of the Third Way in God and Other Minds. Obviously, many people have engaged in meaningful criticisms of Aquinas. You just have to look for it. There are also tons of contemporary Christian philosophers who challenge the Thomistic arguments for divine simplicity, timelessness, impassibility, etc. R.T. Mullins has some good work on this.

That's the great think about logic
You can use it to prove just about anything

>>20235384
bruh wtf is you talking about

We all know God isn't real, we just convince ourselves that he is

>>20235346
>No, I didn't. The point, from the Christian perspective, is that even if the angels tried to help mankind, mankind couldn't be helped.
which is an admission that the religion fails to instruct mankind in practical good behavior by comparison to both other religions and older philosophies/laws, who were/are able to accomplish far more lol which again.... (disproves the religion itself as being obviously stupid and made-up by crazy evil barbarians.)

>Men have to help themselves, or at least want to help themselves, through an act of their own will, therefore until they realize what they really want, they will keep running in circles, like a bunch of circus performers, constantly enjoying pleasures and then suffering the pains which come when they realize those pleasures are transient and result naturally in their opposites.
Well that is true, but then it follows that the way to break that circle is to educate them in their 'god given intelligence' why it is most rational to follow the virtues and avoid the vices.

laughing at them for not being properly aware of a certain set of laws that you know and refuse to tell them about is something rather un-god-like.


notice how it becomes, to do apologetics on this point, necessary to drag down god and the angel and the saints to the intellectual and moral level of a drunken crowd in a circus, laughing at a cripple, with the only answer in excuse for doing this as being "well we cannot possibly understand gods and angels!" which is patently stupid,

rather: one has made a demon in their own image, embodying their own vices and foibles, and pretended it is an angel!

(damn, i could be a great priest)

>Hence the laughter of the angels, it's the only redeeming aspect of man's existence when it is not directed toward God.
perhaps Aquinas was drawing a comparison with Chrysippus dying of laughter. perhaps not.

>>20235478
>which is an admission that the religion fails to instruct mankind
Non-sequitur, show your reasoning if you want to say otherwise. Christianity does the best it can to help given the limitations imposed on it by the state of the world and the ability of its constituents.
>but then it follows that the way to break that circle is to educate them
Education cannot change the will, it can only guide and show the path. This is theology 101. If you disagree with Christianity I do not really care, I am just showing you that there is nothing contradictory or awful about the idea of divine or semi-divine laughter (which is itself only an anachronism as I said earlier). You also seem to be utterly confused about the actual reality of divinity as well, as you still conceive God or his Angels as anthropomorphic entities.

>>20235034
Holy Based

>>20235364
He didn't mention Descartes once in the whole clip.

>>20235259
>literally makes God sound infinitely worse than Satan
the more i learn about christianity the more i think god and satan secretly switched places

>>20235555
Quads ov truth

>>20235111
Because I think in this case a wider net would be more possible. I dont care what the topic was as long as the situation is A) direct rebuttal and B) explicitly aimed at Aquinas.

If you need a structure to work the gears, then how about Prima Pars: Q5. Art. 3

>>20235034
Holy mother of cringe. What a faggot. It’s embarrassing.

>>20235034
I ask this insidious vermin one question. Is it common sense to believe Jesus had a father or that he was born of the Holy Spirit?

>>20235668
Try to glow less hard next time jew you don't fit in
>>20235778
>insidious vermin
Stop projecting rabbi shekleberg. To answer your question, God is The Holy Trinity: The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. Three Persons truly distinct from one another but one God. You can read about it here in the Catholic encyclopedia. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm
And to quote the beginning of the Apostle's Creed which all Catholics believe in
>I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
I hope that answers your question, happy Easter and repent and join the one true faith Traditional Catholicism.

>>20235901
>believes in jewish god and jewish religion
>calls others jew
>asked a simple question
>dodges the question repeats his creed like a parrot
Yeah I am thinking cringe.

Yes, Antifragile is a pretty big rebuttal to Aquinas' way of thinking

>>20234979
>see plotinus versus christians/jews/gnostics on the notion of a god which is disconnected from physical material reality whilst claiming the fruits of the creation of the god; i.e. material physical reality and the human body, is an evil thing made by some other god (devil)
Metaphysical shudra.

>>20235901
Confess your faith sure, but drop the Apologetics larp and be like Eckhart,

>Meister Eckhart would not even admit that God was good. ...Eckhart's position was that anything that was good can become better, and whatever may become better may become best. God cannot be referred to as "good", "better", or best because He is above all things. If a man says that God is wise, the man is lying because anything that is wise can become wiser. Anything that a man might say about God is incorrect, even calling Him by the name of God. God is "superessential nothingness" and "transcendent Being" ... beyond all words and beyond all understanding. The best a man can do is remain silent, because anytime he prates on about God, he is committing the sin of lying. The true master knows that if he had a God he could understand, he would never hold Him to be God.

>>20235901
Imagine being an unironic tradlarper

>>20235926
>doesn't know the difference between jew and Israelite
I shiggy diggy and I didn't dodge any question the Apostle's Creed perfectly answers the question and the understanding of The Holy Trinity completes it, jew.
>Indeed I will make those of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not, but lie--indeed I will make them come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you. - Revelation 3:9
>>20235983
>>20235991
>Larp
Nobody is larping except for you

>>20236028
In that case, tell us about when you gave all your possessions away, like your Bible commands you to do. Or is that the conveniently metaphorical section of your holy book?

>>20236028
>24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”
>25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.
>26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
Know your place then you gentile cringe cur. You’ll never be not slave to your jew/israelite/hebrew/semitic masters.

Also I specifically pointed out the hypocrisy of that senile old fuck’s thinking process. He accuses Kant and Hegel for challenging common sense, which is the entire premise of cuckistianity.

>>20235259
What reason would there be to not be happy that perfect justice is being dispensed? The difference between Aquinas and you is that Aquinas knew his limitation and was willing to submit his reason to revelation whereas you think you've got everything on lock and think there are no circumstances where your current views could possibly be superseded with a change of perspective.

>>20235555
The ol’ switcheroo.

>>20236061
I got a new revelation with me that says you are fag.

>>20236074
It's axiomatic that God is perfectly good and anyone in Hell absolutely deserves it. If you dispute that then you lack faith, or overestimate your current ability to perceive truth. Simple as that.

>>20236061
>What reason would there be to not be happy that perfect justice is being dispensed?

The part where Allah could be the real God, which would land your ass in hell just as hard as mine

>>20236077
>be god
>be infinitely good
>create mankind
>send senile old farts or hipster junkies to reveal the truth by talking nonsense, performing magic tricks and shitting in public.
>decide those who don’t believe in them, or who didn’t get the memo burn in hell forever
>revel in your infinite goodness
>???
>profit

>>20236091
>Be finite being created by God
>wtf I can't understand the infinite!
>My lack of comprehension about reality means God must be evil according to my retarded logic that is 99.9999% incomplete compared to the knowledge of God!

Faith anon, faith. It's important. You cannot rationalize God or Gods actions much like an ant cannot rationalize yours.

>>20236100
My faith tells me that Christians will fry in hell forever.

>>20234912
>PSR
lmao

>>20236100
I don’t claim I understand the infinite. It is you christian muslims etc. who believe in things they don’t understand which is in my book a grave sin. Should you be brought down to the heavenly courts of justice, your tongues would tie. Do not speak to me of the infinite you fearful cretin. Spend rest of your days in the comfort of the electric light. Whereas I will be searching for the sun albeit I might die without finding.

Your book says you know a tree by the fruit it bears. Religions only bear contemptful sinners. Away with thee.

>>20236100
I love you. Here is my message to you: afagiahghbeiabgibi3qybgquybgiabib

This is my divine command. Your rationality cannot comprehend it. You will follow it or I will torture you for eternity.

Because I love you.

>>20236143
>who believe in things they don’t understand
Jesus Christ is God. I don't need to understand how that can be to know it can be. You're confusing natural theology with revelation.

>Whereas I will be searching for the sun albeit I might die without finding.
The sun is Christ. God Himself has reached down and given you guidance. It is your choice whether you accept that or not

>>20236150
What we see through a mirror darkly one day we will see face to face. I trust in God because Christ is risen.

>>20236152
There is no point discussing with you because your only argument is Jesus is Christ. You are bot interested in Aquinas arguments or counter arguments. You believe the revelation is true and not some schizo nonsense and you have no business proving it. So why do you even write here? Why do you and the hordes of you poison /lit/ and /his/? Get thee hence you mental fuck. You are not a christian you are a christcuck and you are not welcome here.

>>20236172
>You believe the revelation is true
So did Aquinas. Have you ever actually read the Summa Theologica? Many of his points are "Holy Scripture says...". Aquinas has zero pretensions of knowing the Christian faith apart from divine revelation and clearly states that the grace of faith is not something achievable by human power alone.

In fact it's literally in the very first article of the Summa:

>Objection 1. It seems that, besides philosophical science, we have no need of any further knowledge. For man should not seek to know what is above reason: "Seek not the things that are too high for thee" (Sirach 3:22). But whatever is not above reason is fully treated of in philosophical science. Therefore any other knowledge besides philosophical science is superfluous.

>I answer that, It was necessary for man's salvation that there should be a knowledge revealed by God besides philosophical science built up by human reason. Firstly, indeed, because man is directed to God, as to an end that surpasses the grasp of his reason: "The eye hath not seen, O God, besides Thee, what things Thou hast prepared for them that wait for Thee" (Isaiah 64:4). But the end must first be known by men who are to direct their thoughts and actions to the end. Hence it was necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed human reason should be made known to him by divine revelation.

EVERYTHING in Aquinas philosophy takes it as fact that revelation has been provided and it was provided in the scriptures and incarnation.

>>20236189
Ok so coming back to the original argument, you hold that these revelations are evident and in fact believing them are common sense, as seen from your opposition to my argument, where I hold the view that it is lunacy. It is not common sense to believe jesus is born of a virgin, that he was dead and resurrected and went to hell and came back and ascended to heaven, that he turned water to wine, that we walked on water, that he resurrected a man, that he will sit on the right side of god and judge the wicked and the righteous and that he is also the god. No sir, believe in what lunacy you want to believe, but don’t assume for a second that it is common sense or a sign of a sound mind.

>>20236214
For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel--not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."
Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.
Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom,
but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,

>>20234912
Aquinas is irrefutable and undefeated, so people just push him aside. Same with Berkeley.

>>20236222
What a clear display of a sickness of the mind.

>>20235553
IF he knew his Descartes better he wouldn't have made those silly claims about the criticisms of the senses provided by philosophers.

>>20236228
Teleology is the survivorship bias + an argument from ignorance

There, I refuted Aquinas, what do I win?

>>20236048
You fool do not bring up The Bible with me, something you don't understand
>But He answered and said, "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." - Matthew 15:24

A question arises here on that point: How is it that we have come from the Gentiles to the sheepfold of Christ if he was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel? What is the meaning of this puzzling dispensation? The Lord knew why he came—certainly to have a church among all the Gentiles—and he yet said that he was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel? We accordingly understand that he had to manifest in due sequence to that people first the presence of his body, his birth, the display of miracles and then the power of his resurrection. It had thus been predetermined from the beginning, such and such had been foretold and fulfilled, that Christ Jesus had to come to the Jewish people and to be seen and killed and to win for himself those whom he knew beforehand. The Gentiles were not to be condemned but to be winnowed like grain. A multitude of chaff was there, the hidden dignity of grain was there, burning was to take place there, and a storehouse to be filled there. In fact, where were the apostles if not there? Where was Peter? Where were the rest? Sermon
- Augustine of Hippo

>>20236048
You also conveniently left out Matthew 15:27-28 you lying deceiving subversive jew
>But she said: Yea, Lord; for the whelps also eat of the crumbs that fall from the table of their masters. - Matthew 15:27
>Then Jesus answering, said to her: O woman, great is thy faith: be it done to thee as thou wilt: and her daughter was cured from that hour. - Matthew 15:28

>>20236048
>Then Jesus answering, said to her: O woman, great is thy faith: be it done to thee as thou wilt: and her daughter was cured from that hour. - Matthew 15:28
See, brothers, how in this woman who was a Canaanite—who came from the Gentiles and represented a type (namely, a figure of the church)—how her humility is highly praised. Indeed, the Jewish people, as castigated in the Gospel, were puffed up with pride because they were chosen to receive the law, because the patriarchs proceeded from that people, the prophets appeared and God’s servant Moses performed great miracles in Egypt, which we hear about in the Psalms. He led the people through the Red Sea with the waters receding, and he received the law, which he gave to the same people. These were the grounds for extolling the Jewish people. Because of that pride, they were unwilling to respond to Christ the author of humility, the restrainer of swellheadedness, the physician God who, because he was God, became man that as a man he might know himself as man. What great medicine! If this medicine does not cure pride, what could possibly cure it? I do not know. God became a man. He put aside his divinity. That is to say, in a certain measure he kept out of sight—he hid what was his own, while it was evident what he had taken upon himself. He became a man, even though he is God. (1/2)

>>20236048
>>20236881
Yet man does not yet recognize that he is a man, that he is mortal; he does not recognize that he is weak, a sinner, sick, and that being a sick person, he should seek a physician! What is even worse, he sees himself as being healthy! Because of this, that people did not draw near—that is, because of their pride. And they were called from the olive tree—that is, from that people begotten of the patriarchs—broken natural branches (namely, Jews by right, barren in the spirit of pride). And in that olive tree a wild olive shoot was grafted. This wild olive shoot represents the Gentile people. But the apostle says that the wild shoot was grafted into the olive tree but the natural branches were broken. They were broken because of pride; the wild olive shoot was grafted in because of humility. The woman manifested this humility, saying, “Yes, Lord, I am a dog. I desire crumbs.” Jesus found favor also with the centurion, who had this humility. After he asked the Lord to cure his servant, the Lord said, “I will come and cure him.” He responded, “Lord, I am not worthy that you should come under my roof; but only say the word, and my servant will be healed. I am not worthy that you should come under my roof.” He did not receive the Lord under his roof; he received him in his heart. The more humble a person is, the more receptive and full he becomes. Hills repel water; valleys are filled up. What did the Lord reply, after the centurion said, “I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof”? He said, “Truly, I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith”—that is, among those people to whom I have come, “I have not found such faith.” What is the meaning of the word such? So great. In what way great? To say the least, great in humility. “I have not found such faith”: like a grain of mustard seed—the smaller it is, the more potent it is. The Lord therefore grafted the wild olive shoot into the olive tree. He did this when he said, “Truly, I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.”
- Augustine of Hippo
(2/2)

>>20236823
>>20236881
>>20236883
Amount of mental coping Augustine had to put lol.
>Akshtually what it means was…
What it means is what it means. Quit your mental gymnastics.

>>20236048
>"I, the LORD, have called You in righteousness, And will hold Your hand; I will keep You and give You as a covenant to the people, As a light to the Gentiles, - Isaiah 42:6
>Indeed He says, "It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant To raise up the tribes of Jacob, And to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also give You as a light to the Gentiles, That You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth."' - Isaiah 49:6
>A light to bring revelation to the Gentiles, And the glory of Your people Israel." - Luke 2:32
>that I might be a minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering of the Gentiles might be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit. - Romans 15:16
>And it shall come to pass That whoever calls on the name of the LORD Shall be saved.' - Acts 2:21
>Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, - Romans 3:29
Know your place deceitful jew and kneel
>Indeed I will make those of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not, but lie--indeed I will make them come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you. - Revelation 3:9

>>20235186
>tfw St. Joan of Arc is laughing her ass off at the millions of *nglos burning in hell

>>20236892
You have been refuted thoroughly including with scripture here >>20236929 and here >>20236857
But I will give you another
>And he answering, said: I was not sent but to the sheep that are lost of the house of Israel. - Matthew 15:24
Jesus did not say this to accord with the pride of the Pharisees or the arrogance of the scribes but lest he seem to contradict the instruction he had earlier given: “Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans.” For he was unwilling to give his detractors an opportunity to accuse him and was reserving a fully accomplished salvation for the Gentiles at the time of his Passion and resurrection. The disciples, yet unaware of the mysteries of the Lord or having been moved to mercy, beseeched the Lord on behalf of the Canaanite woman (whom the other Evangelist calls a SyroPhoenician). Or else they wanted to be rid of this importuning woman, for she repeatedly called upon him loudly, not as though he were a kind but an austere physician. .
- Jerome

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVLKURgfft0

not even king reddit could do it. notice every post ITT is just the typical smug atheist shit that isnt longer than a few lines

>>20234912
Unironically Guenon in some sense

>>20236796
Read this faggot

>>20234912
Adi Shankara and Guénon

>>20236929
>>20236963
You cannot prove bible by quoting bible. And your church fathers are just coping by changing the apparent meanings. You and they are mentally ill. Simple as.

>>20236043
>let me tell you how to be Christian
>>20236048
There is no hypocrisy, Christianity does not challenge common sense, Christianity is common sense
>>20237028
You accuse me of being a slave with Bible Scripture, I show you I am no slave with Bible Scripture and church father teachings, then you say I cannot refute you with the same Bible Scripture you accuse me with. You subversive jew is the one who is mentally ill and you will never be a woman.
>"I know your works, tribulation, and poverty (but you are rich); and I know the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. - Revelation 2:9

>>20236100
>"Or could one seriously introduce the idea of a bad God, as it were by the back door, through a sort of extreme Calvinism? You could say we are fallen and depraved. We are so depraved that our ideas of goodness count for nothing; or worse than nothing—the very fact that we think something good is presumptive evidence that it is really bad. Now God has in fact—our worst fears are true—all the characteristics we regard as bad: unreasonableness, vanity, vindictiveness, injustice, cruelty. But all these blacks (as they seem to us) are really whites. It’s only our depravity that makes them look black to us. And so what? This, for all practical (and speculative) purposes, sponges God off the slate. The word good, applied to Him, becomes meaningless: like abracadabra. We have no motive for obeying Him. Not even fear. It is true we have His threats and promises. But why should we believe them? If cruelty is from His point of view ‘good,’ telling lies may be ‘good’ too. Even if they are true, what then? If His ideas of good are so very different from ours, what He calls Heaven might well be what we should call Hell, and vice-versa. Finally, if reality at its very root is so meaningless to us—or, putting it the other way round, if we are such total imbeciles—what is the point of trying to think either about God or about anything else? This knot comes undone when you try to pull it tight."
"You just can't comprehend God's morality bro" is hardly a Christian position to take, the very fact that humans are created in the image of God and can tell right from wrong is what is supposed to prevent the entire thing from devolving into worship of a blind idiot god

>>20237120
>Christianity is common sense
See >>20236214 and get thee to the nunnery you hypocrite lying jew lover schizo.

>>20237137
>black is actually white
Abrahamic religions in a nutshell.

>>20235106
The 14th century lol way worse

>>20235555
Incredibly gnostic quads, anon. Very nice.

>>20235026
how does Gorgias refute Aristotle?

I mean Aquinas just makes one logical fallacy after the other, so he hardly needs a rebuttal.

>>20236061
>eternal punishment for a sin
>perfect justice
Quite the niggerest post

>>20235555
Basado

>>20236061
Boiling peoples bodies and flaying them alive as they get sodomized by demons for eternity while their loved ones watch might be a deranged desert demon's idea of "perfect justice" but for most sane and compassionate beings it is quite self-evidently not

Narcissistic bullies who create beings without consent, set them up for failure, and then resort to utter barbarism and sadism as a response don't deserve respect or admiration, no matter how powerful they are

>>20237120
>>let me tell you what's literally in the holy book you claim everyone must follow to the letter

fify

>>20236992
You don't know what the survivorship bias is, do you?

>>20234912
Spinoza (fulfillment of Descartes) dismantled everything Scholastic using their very own terms.

>>20238010
>nooo I raped someone you set me up for heckin failure
passive fag mindset and youre projecting that narcissism if you think not being a piece of shit is some unfair challenge directed specifically at you

>>20238010
*posts quote from a christian author said by a sadistic nutjob who will not accept responsibility for his actions*
*fails to see the irony*

>>20238010
>No, just let me treat other people like trash for my own benefit have come compassionerino bro

>>20238189
This is Mark Twain (pbuh) retardo.

>>20238182
>let's create a rapist to then punish him forever, THAT will show him

>>20234912
Scotus presents specific counterarguments against Aquinas' notion of god

>>20238010
idk man, would you cry the same crocodile tears for somebody like Jeffrey Dahmer or Pol Pot? some people deserve something like eternal damnation, or at least extreme pain for a very long time, for their crimes.

YAY i love it when a thread hasn't closed a day later

>>20235510
>>which is an admission that the religion fails to instruct mankind
>Non-sequitur, show your reasoning if you want to say otherwise. Christianity does the best it can to
uh that's not what on sequitur means; you very clearly pointed out that judeo-christianity fails to manage to instruct anybody in the reason for virtuous conduct and abstaining from viceful conduct already when you were talking about how christianity "does its best" and when you presented an image of a stupid and emotionally and intellectually vacent god/angel/saint who would laugh at a cripple and then defended your view by saying "well we cant understand higher beings".

Emperor Flavius Iulianos already pointed out this evident "lack of human conscience and intellect" on the part of self-professed christian superior morality, refuting this bit alone in the late 3rd or 4th century.

>You also seem to be utterly confused about the actual reality of divinity as well, as you still conceive God or his Angels as anthropomorphic entities.
No, you're still doing apologetics which i pointed out already..

The aspect which concerns real humans wo live in reality is that you excuse your depraved amorality and sickening lack of understanding of human conscience by positing the existence of some "divine other world" where you think you and your ideas of gods and angels can escape being recognized as crude sonichus.

The point (all who were replying to you yesterday) were making re: Aquinas, was of ttype of mentality; the failings rather of intellect and awareness, that would allow a man to both believe and act as if god/angels/saints had the character low as to laugh at cripples in the first place.

>>20235961
absolutely key though in pointing out how (such a person) rejects what they claim to 'believe' is gods creation, treating the world an the human body and conscience with contempt, by making up heaven out of in air and claiming that nobody can understand anything to escape inquiry about why t is that their own personal character is so crappy.

>>20237256
it's just a lesser known route of the origins of where rhetoric, logic and philosophy actually came from in greece and rome, prior to the claim that socrates did anything useful and prior to the later christian magical claims of other worlds existing that (as the other person still attests to this very day) negate any study or accomplishment in and of 'this' world.

>>20237204
no way, the Tudors were awesome!

>>20236081
>The part where Allah could be the real God
Ahahaha muslims are some of the dumbest people on earth, they are no different than the sub saharan africans https://youtu.be/Rxj41M-xwa0 they worship a pagan religion, even the slightest examination of their false religion breaks it like a dry twig

>>20238236
A good summation of the creator deity's general mindset but not really sure how it relates to that post

"envy and jealousy do not come even near the most virtuous men, much more are they remote from angels and gods. But you concern yourselves with incomplete and partial powers, which if anyone call daemonic he does not err. For in them are pride and vanity, but in the gods there is nothing of the sort."

"(could not this Jesus change the dispositions of his own friends and kinsfolk to the end that he might save them?) Nay, the Galilaeans answer, they refused to hearken unto Jesus. What? How was it then that this hardhearted and stubborn-necked people hearkened unto Moses; but Jesus, who commanded the spirits and walked on the sea, and drove out demons..

..could not this Jesus change the dispositions of his own friends and kinsfolk to the end that he might save them?"


"But this learning of ours has caused every noble being that nature has produced among you to abandon impiety. Accordingly everyone who possessed even a small fraction of innate virtue has speedily abandoned your impiety. It were therefore better for you to keep men from learning rather than from sacrificial meats. But you yourselves know, it seems to me, the very different effect on the intelligence of your writings as compared with ours; and that from studying yours no man could attain to excellence or even to ordinary goodness, whereas from studying ours every man would become better than before,"

Flavius Iulianos

>>20238320
The difference between
>eternal
and
>a very long time
is infinite
No crime justifies an infinite amount of suffering in return

>>20238572
not even the Holocaust?

ed.
>>>20235510
>>>which is an admission that the religion fails to instruct mankind
>>Non-sequitur, show your reasoning if you want to say otherwise. Christianity does the best it can to

Also,
let's not forget how judeo-christianity and islam all accept the stupid story in the garden eden as being a true report on the character of their god; where the God is terrified at men and women learning 'the knowledge of good and evil' as knowing what is god and what is bad would "make them as powerful as (that god)".

Setting out from a 'theological' starting point where you've estbalished basic goodness and basic intelligence as being 'evil things' is the worst possible starting point for ay religion which wishes to claim that it's all about teaching people to be actually good.

not to mention the silliness that 'the knowledge of god and evil' is not innate in the 'god given brain' and that it is like an artificial magic thing which men and women only get by eating a piece of orange or apple.

can you tell these stories were made up by crazy barbarians who knew nothing, yet?

>>20238582
Really actually think and reflect upon what "eternal", "infinite", and "everlasting" truly mean, particularly in regards to suffering, and you'll see pretty clearly the boundless gulf between even 10 quadrillian aeons of torture and an eternity of it

Literally no one deserves that, it's fucking impossible to deserve that, a God who would even dare to create beings capable of deserving that would be utterly and unequivocally insane

>>20238582
Read my post again

>>20238616
idk man, people like Dirlewanger aren't redeemable, even if you gave them an infinite amount of time

>>20238632
>idk man, people like Dirlewanger aren't redeemable, even if you gave them an infinite amount of time
There's no way to prove that unless you outright give him infinite time; leaving the door to redemption perpetually open is the least owed to a sentient creature capable of suffering that has had existence thrust upon it, regardless of its actions

>>20238664
how confident are you that a person like Dirlewanger would redeem himself eventually, given enough time? even if you view choice to be some kind of stochastic process, flipping between good and evil randomly, it still looks impossible for somebody like Dirlewanger, who is about as pure evil as you can get. it'd be like the Gambler's Ruin problem, where Dirlewanger is close to the pit of no return and has to "stochastically" make it to the opposite end of the virtue spectrum with what little virtue he has required (and against the grain of his immense vice). it's just not going to happen.

>>20238720
It doesn't matter if he ultimately will or won't; the point is that the opportunity needs to exist for everyone no matter what - creating beings that are capable of being irretrievably lost in any way would be the most catastrophic blunder God could possibly make (particularly if He is an omniscient, as He must be), an act of utterly pointless cruelty that does nothing in the final summation of things besides increase the net pain and misery within creation

The idea of God allowing any being to continue existing in a miserable state that is 100% "irredeemable" without any possible method of repair at any time is in itself tremendously suspect to begin with and would seriously impugn His supposed goodness if true

There must ALWAYS be a chance, the only alternative is complete futility

>>20238773
there was a chance. how many chances does somebody need?

>>20238823
>how many chances does somebody need?
Since the stakes are quite literally an eternity of unbearable agony, there being a limited number of chances at all is frankly fucking absurd

>>20238720
>>20238664
>>20238632
>idk man, people like Dirlewanger aren't redeemable,

That's a good point desu.. and why is the value of being heinously evil and then being 'redeemed' somehow superior to being a person who's never done such evil crimes inthe first place?

i'd think the focus of any legitimate religion/philosophy would be not at all on the aspect of being evil/stupid and then being redeemed (which is not really all that important) but on not having done the evil things in the first place,

i.e. the character of the 6 billion humans o have not raped a baby seem like more worthy subjects for study and attention- to be held up as being examples of merit -than the insanely evil 1 person who "is redeemed" after having already done the damage.

see earlier posts:
>>20235319
>>20235259

logically you'd conclude that the religion sees no point in teaching people who are already good to be good and would focus instead on the redemption of the evil person, but then the religion all the time tells everybody how they're all evil even if they're entirely innocent, etc. just more nonsense.

>>20238856
not really. life is pretty long. you have plenty of opportunities to prove your mettle, to repent for one's mistakes, etc. furthermore, your insistence on having certainty about the benefits and risks of morality defeats the point of morality.

>>20238872
>i'd think the focus of any legitimate religion/philosophy would be not at all on the aspect of being evil/stupid and then being redeemed (which is not really all that important) but on not having done the evil things in the first place
study the parable of the prodigal son.
>logically you'd conclude that the religion sees no point in teaching people who are already good to be good and would focus instead on the redemption of the evil person
we're all sinners.

>>20238885
>not really. life is pretty long. you have plenty of opportunities to prove your mettle, to repent for one's mistakes, etc.
Dude, our lives are fucking cosmic eye blinks in the span of things, compared to literally ENDLESS torture, I really don't think you're properly putting into perspective what it means to be in pain FOREVER

Like this isn't a game, we're gambling to escape eternal misery here and I'm supposed to accept the fact that screwing up our one run through this baffling nonsensical rat race automatically carries with it the sentence of inescapable agony for the rest of time, that's beyond insane, that's not the behavior of a loving and just God, that's the mentality of fucking Jigsaw

>>20238897
>we're all sinners.
no, we're not.

..and if you are then you have no place talking to anybody about morality and good conduct as you yourself have no practice of it.

study displacement and projection in (especially criminal) psychology.

>study the parable of the prodigal son.
yeah i believe i recall that one - and how does that relate to anything that was said?

>>20238885
>furthermore, your insistence on having certainty about the benefits and risks of morality defeats the point of morality.
ah but this is EXACTLY where the religion fails to instruct people: by placing the focus on life after death the idea of adhering to truly virtuous principles or practical virtues in conduct, are not explainable to anybody,whereas each virtue and th opposite vice is entirely explainable in terms of consequence of outcome in the real world;

sloth versus diligence
temperance versus gluttony
etc.

by making out that the object is 'not' on the consequence of outcome of ones own actions in the world, to the self, to the people around them, etc., then there is no tangibility to the request that anyone behaves intelligently and with well-reasoned mutually beneficial and therefore ultimately virtuous/good actions.

The religion could point this out at any time but it's built upon moving this goal and replacing it with an eternity of drunkenness in valhalla - as if the garden of eden story whereby the practical useful knowledge of right and wrong is deemed to be forbidden to humans lest we become as powerful as god,which is fuckin' lolz.

i mean, as if the eden story doesn't *already* undermine the entire religion by positing that kind of obviously false garbage (terrified that humans know right from wrong) as coming from the mouth of God.

"Moreover, is it not excessively strange that God should deny to the human beings whom he had fashioned the power to distinguish between good |327 and evil? What could be more foolish than a being unable to distinguish good from bad?

For it is evident that he would not avoid the latter, I mean things evil, nor would he strive after the former, I mean things good.

in short, God refused to let man taste of wisdom, than which there could be nothing of more value for man. For that the power to distinguish between good and less good is the property of wisdom is evident surely even to the witless; so that the serpent was a benefactor rather than a destroyer of the human race.

to refuse the knowledge of good and bad, which knowledge alone seems to give coherence to the mind of man;"

Flavius Iulianos

>>20238903
>I'm supposed to accept the fact that screwing up our one run through this baffling nonsensical rat race automatically carries with it the sentence of inescapable agony for the rest of time
look, you know what screwing up means, right? it's not just a small fucking mistake. we're talking about people like Dirlewanger.
>>20238929
>no, we're not.
come on, dude.
>..and if you are then you have no place talking to anybody about morality and good conduct
crab mentality. we're in this together.
>yeah i believe i recall that one - and how does that relate to anything that was said?
you don't get brownie points because you did what was expected of you.
>>20238968
>ah but this is EXACTLY where the religion fails to instruct people
nah, I think religion is pretty clear about this. you want religious morality to be like a contract. but if morality is a transaction, I do this and receive this in return, then you run into the problem of just desserts. morality can only be true if it is chosen for its own sake. there are plenty of descriptions of good, evil, and their consequences to get you thinking about it. and you may start to acquire something like "knowledge" (if that can be said to truly exist, see the Socratic dialogues like Meno). but ultimately, the human condition is such that the moral path requires faith at the end of the day. and that's a good thing.

>>20239007
>dude.
there is no "come on, dude" about this lol

The claim that humans are "all sinners" and "from birth" is an insane and false proposition which has no reasonable explanation to it, and is better answered by learning that the claim arises from displacement and projection of actual evil persons who wish to make themselves seem less evil by pretending "everybody else" is evil.

>>yeah i believe i recall that one - and how does that relate to anything that was said?
>you don't get brownie points because you did what was expected of you.
lol yeah likewise, you keep failing to provide any reasoning for your claims..

>crab mentality. we're in this together.
No, that's not what was said, but it could follow i suppose, - but let's already acknowledge that you do not understand what virtue even is before i help you out by explaining it,

diligence versus sloth, let's say for example; you will succeed if you are diligent and industrious in what you do and how you do things, whereas other people will not, because you have a habit of industry and they have a habit of sloth which they have never been educated out of.

> religious morality
nobody has yet managed to prove that the abramic religions have any justification or evidence to how themselves as being interested in morality.

>morality can only be true if it is chosen for its own sake.
that really doesn't matter; anymore than it matters 'why' a person is doing good things, if their reasoning is a fantasy then they'll be fleeting and liable to get disillusioned obviously, so it's good that they have solid evidenced-based reasoning for what they do so that they can carry along and not need to be supervised..

> there are plenty of descriptions of good, evil, and their consequences to get you thinking about it. and you may start to acquire something like "knowledge"
yes, and there's no evidence that the religions have any interest in these things as 1) the god is said to be terrified of humans who know right from wrong, 2) the authors of that story consider that to know right from wrong is to be equal to god, and 3) the basis of 'moral isntruction' form those religions is not on the outcome of consequence of good verseus bad in a persons actions but is instead focused entirely upon "paradise in the afterlife vs. eternal torture in the afterlife," which is both stupid; making it seem like moral conduct is just a game of vain virtue-signalling pretense, and also posits the existence of unverifiable alternate dimensions.


i have missed talking about this subject hahaha

>>20239098
>there is no "come on, dude" about this lol
Idk how I'm suppose to argue with somebody who thinks that there are people who don't make mistakes. sorry pal, but you're delusional. I'm tapping out.

>>20239127
awwwwww come on duuuderino

...the christcuck flees, unable to offer any reasoning at all.

>>20239154
I'm happy to "reason" with reasonable people. somebody who thinks that there are people who never make mistakes in life is simply delusional. it's not worth my time.

>>20234912
Hans Ulrich Von Balthasar regarding Aquinas and Hell
The Dual model of nature vs supernatural forces is contentious against his definition of Being itself

Aquinas is generally near perfect but his conception of Being is not practically applied in a dogmatic sense because Being is degrees of infinity which is nonsensical.

"observe also from what follows how far superior are our teachings to theirs. The philosophers bid us imitate the gods so far as we can, and they teach us that this imitation consists in the contemplation of realities. And that this sort of study is remote from passion and is indeed based on freedom from passion, is, I suppose, evident, even without my saying it.

In proportion then as we, having been assigned to the contemplation of realities, attain to freedom from passion, in so far do we become like God.

But what sort of imitation of God is praised among the Hebrews? Anger and wrath and fierce jealousy.


Therefore, if we who have not given ourselves over to the spirit of apostasy, fare better than you in soul and body and external affairs, why do you abandon these teachings of ours and go over to those others?"

Flavius Iulianos

>>20239154
>the christcuck flees, unable to offer any reasoning at all.
Prose check

>>20239168
>I'm happy to "reason" with reasonable people.
Well if you're not being dishonest, and it seems to me that you have avoided answering anything asked of you, then how do you reconcile with proofs the claims that are made by that religion?

"The claim that humans are "all sinners" and "from birth" is an insane and false proposition which has no reasonable explanation to it,"

To reinterpret what was said there as to pretend anybody was claiming that "people do not make mistakes" was an obvious lie and addressed nothing of the content of what was actually said to you.

You can go away if you like, but I don't feel that anybody rereading this would think that your position was anything other than obvious dishonesty.

>>20239168
give me a few solid fat paragraphs in your next response or i'll just laugh at you and go on in my heathen delusions that your religion is the dos-house of the half-retarded and criminally suspect.

i'll give you some time to think on what i said in my earlier replies, and really come up with some good solid answers.

>>20239217

>>20238024
you don't know what teleology means

>>20238602
>you've estbalished basic goodness and basic intelligence as being 'evil things'
Are you daft? "Knowledge of good and evil" doesn't equate to knowledge in general or goodness in general, unless you are incapable of basic logic -- it literally just means means the ability to judge whether something is good or bad. Obviously you can have intelligence without knowing good or bad.
The reason it is undesirable in this context is because it takes away innocence. Animals engage in violence all the time, but you can't really judge them for it because animals have no concept of morality, in the way that humans do. Same for infants who have not yet been taught right from wrong. But if you do know right from wrong, then that means you have to take responsibility for your wrongs. Adam and Eve would have been all right with God if they had simply not eaten from the tree, but by disobeying God they wanted to be able to know for themselves what is good and bad. And they learned it the hard way.
Please think a bit before you post wilfully-ignorant attacks based on personal prejudices.

>>20238265
You could just...not rape? Seems like a good solution to me?

>>20238616
>Literally no one deserves that, it's fucking impossible to deserve that
Unjustifiable claim. You don't know what anything deserves. It's irrational to place absolute trust in your monkey brain above the eternal immutable creator of all.

>>20239961
>It's irrational to place absolute trust in your monkey brain above the eternal immutable creator of all.
Where is the stopping point for how much I should doubt my own mind, exactly? If I can't trust it in terms of moral judgments, can I truly trust it by any rational measure in terms of intellectual judgments or empirical judgments? If my moral compass is apparently so divorced from God's that I'm wrong about infinite torture being ethically abhorrent, what's off the table?

What if God's idea of "paradise" is actually torture, and His idea of "torture" is paradise? What if His other ideas of right and wrong conduct have as little to do with ours as His apparent stance on subjecting finite beings to infinite pains does to our sense of empathy? Can we rule out that in His inscrutable mind, it was actually completely moral to make every single word in the Bible a complete lie in order to mislead people for some unknowable purpose? Can we rule out that He actually thinks that a world full of babies with cancer and flesh-eating parasites is totally awesome and has no real intentions of ever correcting it? I'd ask what the sense is in giving creatures independent minds when those minds are completely useless in apprehending reality, but how can I even ask such a thing when all of my own mind's suppositions are totally invalid?

Such an idea makes reality itself completely absurd, if God's morality is totally alien to ours then we're essentially faced with an eldritch monstrosity who for all we know is entirely impossible to appease. There's no sane haven when the author of all existence is completely insane.

>>20238517
>no way, the Tudors were awesome!
not 14th century
>>20235364
either that or he's deliberately misconstruing descartes christcuck style, pretty terrible strawman too
>>20235553
sorry that your iq is too low to be able to understand what he's making implicit references to
>>20235901
>rabbi shekleberg
t. worships a jew
evola, nietzsche and heidegger were right about you people
>>20235184
the west already got destroyed by the marriage of jerusalem and rome in the 300s AD
>>20235285
northern europe was already protestant before the HRE was dissolved by napoleon, retard
how do i know you're an amerimutt just from reading this one comment?
>>20235296
>any normal human being with a shred of conscience would be sickened by laughing at another persons actual real pain
welcome to a religion founded on jewish mythology

well i guess that's a paragraph at least.. okay,

>>20239490
>Are you daft? "Knowledge of good and evil" doesn't equate to knowledge in general or goodness in general, unless you are incapable of basic logic -- it literally just means means the ability to judge whether something is good or bad.
>The reason it is undesirable in this context is because it takes away innocence.
first of all: those're two contradictory statements, obviously one is no longer innocent to X if they fully understand the good and bad aspects of X,

>"Knowledge of good and evil"
> Obviously you can have intelligence without knowing good or bad.

Have you thought very much about this? What kind of 'intelligence' is possible when one lacks the means to discern the right way from the wrong ways of doing or approaching any task? If one is incapable of knowing the correct way to (plant crops) then they possess no intelligence on the subject (of planting crops).

intelligence is not intelligence without the ability to discriminate between what works and what doesn't work; that's "basic logic".

Also,
your interpretation of this absurd story to make "knowledge of good and evil" mean something else is entirely your own, and the ambiguity of the phrase itself is ill-defined, with the conclusion of ignorance being as much as the outcome as the conclusion of innocence.

And why exactly is "innocence" held up as a good thing? All that means is dependency on a third partys commands, of which one lacs the worldly experience to know whether those commands are right or wrong or good or bad. There's only a very thin depth to the plausibility that retaining a naive character of child-like innocence was the point of the order to remain ignorant about god or evil, as more likely this is something any wicked person would desire or their slaves so that their slaves remained ignorant and obedient to viceful or stupid orders.

>. Adam and Eve would have been all right with God if they had simply not eaten from the tree, but by disobeying God they wanted to be able to know for themselves what is good and bad. And they learned it the hard way.

And from what evidence in reality that worldly experience to be able to tell "right from wrong" comes from eating a piece of fruit from a tree?

>but by disobeying God they wanted to be able to know for themselves what is good and bad.
I can understand the criminal motivation of an older gentleman who would desire to keep two young children scampering nude in his garden so he could look at them, and I can understand from that motivation why he'd be inclined to claim he was God to make slaves out of them, and that when they displayed a desire to grow up that he, unlike any parent, would immediately kick them out of his house, figuring they were becoming too clever to be docile sex pets for him anymore.

Notice that from any point of view of the character of a creator of humans the lack of understanding he has about how their minds work.

>>20240195
>Where is the stopping point for how much I should doubt my own mind, exactly? If I can't trust it in terms of moral judgments, can I truly trust it by any rational measure in terms of intellectual judgments or empirical judgments?
No. Read Calvin.

>All this being admitted, it will be beyond dispute, that free will does not enable any man to perform good works, unless he is assisted by grace; indeed, the special grace which the elect alone receive through regeneration.

>>20240195
You can know good but only when you're regenerate and trust fully in Jesus Christ and his revelation. A disbelief in Hell means you are unregenerate and cannot recognize truth due to your nature being corrupted by sin.

>>20239228
yeah i know but it's a guilty pleasure

hey one day a christian may demonstrate a good excuse for these things.. you never know.

>>20240195
>Such an idea makes reality itself completely absurd, if God's morality is totally alien to ours then we're essentially faced with an eldritch monstrosity who for all we know is entirely impossible to appease. There's no sane haven when the author of all existence is completely insane.
good fucking point indeed

That's where the baselessness of the earlier guys point is so obviously highlighted; if a person thinks laughing at cripples is bad on earth but is totally fine 'in heaven' and indeed is what saints and angels do all the time in heaven, then there's an obvious lack of conscience or intelligence going on 'in heaven', which is the opposite entirely to the conscience and intelligence of an ordinary human.

It's obviously just an excuse to feign ignorance towards being good or decent in real life by making-up invisible universes where reality (the ability to tell the difference of good from evil lol) doesnt apply.

>>20240556
>listen to anything Calvin has to say about theology

>>20240224
>northern europe
pretty sure Neitzche was originally a catholic, wasn't he?

>welcome to a religion founded on jewish mythology
l'chaim

>>20240566
>You can know good but only when you're regenerate and trust fully in Jesus Christ and his revelation.
>A disbelief in Hell means you are unregenerate
>and cannot recognize truth

Sorry but you're not going to live forever and your entire life has been wasted on the kind of lies that a little toddler wouldn't even fall for.

now regenerate from that.

>>20236796
Survivorship bias can't even be thought of without presupposing teleology, so no.

>>20240584
I'm not even a Calvinist and I admit he has better theology than David "Gnostics were the first Christians" Hart

also
>Have you thought very much about this? What kind of 'intelligence' is possible when one lacks the means to discern the right way from the wrong ways of doing or approaching any task? If one is incapable of knowing the correct way to (plant crops) then they possess no intelligence on the subject (of planting crops).
>intelligence is not intelligence without the ability to discriminate between what works and what doesn't work; that's "basic logic".

This is really fun

>>20239490
Intelligence without means to discern anything 'from' it is not intelligence; and knowledge or information, then, is just ambiguous stuff which means nothing and one cannot tell the difference between anything; like to a mind like that an encyclopedia is the same as a kids popup book, and the instructional manual for a toaster is the same as a napkin with a doodle on it.

Idk how you can make such audaciously stupid remarks and manage not to plug your finger into an electrical outlet, anon.

Oh wait, i do. Its because you don't believe any of these crazy apologetics that you're having to make - from of the vice of pride lol

>>20240614
>What kind of 'intelligence' is possible when one lacks the means to discern the right way from the wrong ways of doing or approaching any task?
This is precisely why scripture calls the Godless fools. No knowledge is possible without being regenerate.

>>20240609
>David "Gnostics were the first Christians" Hart
...What? David Bentley Hart expresses incredibly low opinions of the Gnostics in his work, in one of his books he says that their cosmology was so low quality that it resembled comic book writing. Even exempting the obvious fact that Calvinism is straight up demon worship, that's just a really weird fucking thing to attempt to make a swipe at out of all the things in Hart's theology.

>>20240566
>A disbelief in Hell
is also shared by the original followers of that god, as the hebrews had no belief system where an 'evil god' existed to torture people for all eternity.

Hell itself is just a metaphor for being stupid and suffering the consequences in your life of .. being retarded enough to think you can get away with raping a child and suffering the consequences, or of living any of the classical vices and suffering as consequence,

whereas heaven is to be virtuous; reaping the rewards of being good and intelligent.


yahweh also wants you to have many wives.

>>20240618
>This is precisely why scripture calls the Godless fools. No knowledge is possible without being regenerate.
Can you define that word? I've never come across outside of ancient gnostic diet books where they're amazed by fasting.

It sounds like you're saying that to develop a conscience or a practical workable knowledge of good conduct as opposed to bad conduct is to be "born again" in the modern christian sense.

Is that more or less the idea?

>>20240634
>To begin with, we should learn to regard the “gnostic” schools of the early Christian centuries not as outlandish cults with no natural affinities to the church of the apostles, but instead as extreme expressions—bedizened with often tediously opulent mythologies, some perhaps only allegorical, many perhaps not—of a dualistic theological register already present, in only slightly more restrained form, in the New Testament, and most especially in the Pauline corpus and fourth gospel. Much of what we think of as the general “gnostic” narrative is merely scriptural.
- David Bentley Hart, Author of "Kenogaia, A Gnostic Tale"

>>20240618
truth is though, it doesn't matter whether a person has or has not got any belief in a god figure, or whether they read the bible or koran or anything else, as actual practical virtue isn't reliant at all on having such a system of 'beleif' but rather a comprehension of the mechanics of cause and effect from a persons own actions.

seeing a bad example, for instance, is typically enough to educate the observer into avoiding the same errors made by the person who serves as that bad example.

conversely, any non-reality based metric, seems to greatly impede the ability tfor a person to employ their own brain and powers of being able to observe the world and people around them in order comprehend the mechanics of cause and effect in the outcome of actions,

as: their focus is not on this world.

>>20240662
That's hardly saying "Gnostics were the first Christians"; that's saying that there were marginal sects among the early Christians who went off in extreme theological directions, and that ideas often automatically assumed to be "Gnostic" in character ("the flesh/material is evil", "the entities ruling the material cosmos are evil", "spirit is superior to matter", etc.) are really just identical to what the original Christians were already promulgating, not that Gnosticism was in any way the orthodoxy or norm

Elsewhere he writes of the Gnostics:
>"In reality, the early apologists characterized the Gnostics as marginal, eccentric, and novel almost certainly because, in relation to the Christian community at large, that is precisely what they were. At least, that is what any unprejudiced examination of the historical evidence should lead one to conclude. [...] Before all else, one should emphasize that Gnosticism as an identifiable religious phenomenon was not found only among those who called themselves Christians, but took in a number of communities and philosophies that were clearly extra-Christian. [...] More to the point, standing over and against all of these Gnostic Christianities was what any disinterested historian would have to call the dominant and mainstream Christian tradition, whose arguments for its own authenticity and authoritativeness were sound and attestable in a way that Gnostic claims were not. Not that Christian Gnostics did not share many themes, concerns, and ideas with the orthodox, not least the rejection of the rule of the cosmic powers; and there are certainly places within Christian tradition (such as parts of the fourth Gospel, for instance) where the distinction between Gnostic and orthodox forms of thought is more a matter of degree than of kind. [...] the orthodox were all bound to certain affirmations that the Gnostics were equally bound to reject: that this world is the good creature of the one God, who is both the God of the Jews and the Father of Jesus of Nazareth; that it was this same God who sent Christ for the redemption of the world; that all men and women are called to be sons and daughters of God; that, in dying and rising again, Christ overthrew the power of death for all humankind; and that, while God frequently imparts wisdom to those who seek it, Christ did not come to save only the wise. These were the beliefs held by the vast majority of those who called themselves Christians, and the only beliefs that we can attribute to the apostolic church without violently distorting the historical evidence; these are also the very beliefs whose rejection distinguishes the Gnostics from the Christians of the Great Church [...]"
- Hart, Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution And Its Fashionable Enemies, p. 135-136

>>20240595
That makes absolutely no sense at all, and I seriously feel like you're just spouting standard talking points you've just endlessly repeated over time, so let me explain.

The survivorship bias is a bias towards the succesful examples of something. For instance, the intricate ways an organism works would lead one to believe that this meant to be this way, and that the whole of life is working towards this 'goal' of creating such an intricate design, which would lead someone to believe that some entity is guiding this whole process, which is essentially the core of Aquinas' argument.

However, this ignores all of the failed organisms whose designs were not very intricate and who, as a result of this, died. These examples will rot away, and thus not show up in the sample of all of your intricately designed organisms. For instance, Aristotle's book on animals deals exclusively with the workings of perfectly functional organic systems, and not of systems that are poorly built and will fail absolutely miserably. This is the survivorship bias in action.

The person who helped us the most to get rid of this bias is of course Darwin, who showed the real mechanism behind this 'design', namely trail and error. Nature effectively tries out every possible option, and keeps whatever works, and discards whatever doesn't work, which is the real origin of all of these intricate designs, which of course aren't designs at all

>>20240916
>were not very intricate
or overly intricate, as with giraffes neck.

>>20234912

While not a response to Aquinas directly, "The Dialogue between an Orthodox and a Barlaamite" is a written dialogue refuting Thomistic presuppositions, from the Orthodox Christian position.

Ignore the intro of this book because it's written by a liberal.

>>20240916
>just spouting standard talking points you've just endlessly repeated over time
That was my first post in the thread, I like to refute anti-teleological evolutionism whenever I see it appear.
>>However, this ignores all of the failed organisms whose designs were not very intricate and who, as a result of this, died.
Not at all. Read on. The failures are an important aspect of teleology, without failure there could be no intentionality, because intentionality requires the intent of one thing over the other. So failed organisms and species are, in one sense essential, in another more practical sense accidental, in that they are practically accidental products of a teleological mechanism, yet theoretically essential in that they would not be capable of being "failures" if there were no intentionality to begin with.
First of all, the notion of bias is a psychological phenomenon. Therefore, there is no conception of bias first of all without the conception of intentionality, which is teleology. This is only at a theoretical level, I am fully aware, and does not address physical fact. The point is that even conceptually observing "bias" in nature is an observation of teleology first and foremost, because it is the observation that something (environment) favors something else (an organism). At this point you will predictably write off "bias" as just being a word and something which doesn't apply to "things themselves", but then why does our notion of cause-and-effect (essential to the theoretical workings of evolution) not apply to them? It is inconsistent and does not make sense. You are free to go the route of absolute skepticism ("nothing is true of things"), but then evolution itself is no longer coherent.

Secondly, on a practical level, survivorship bias necessitates two things at least, a subject and an object (environment). The subject is something simply distinguished from its environment in any way. The "bias" is that certain subjects, in the flow of time, are favored by their environment, which means they increase quantitively or simply manage to maintain a certain average number through time, both of which constitute survivorship, so long as their numbers aren't decreasing. So by necessity we have to presuppose that the environment is capable of favoring certain subjects, and having no favor towards other subjects (which are the failed organisms when they by chance appear). This idea cannot be entertained without intentionality, because the environment must be predisposed (ie, possess intent) to favor X subject over Y subject, or when they are not mutually exclusive, then both together, at the expense of other contraries for each one. Conversely, animals, the subjects, and all other life forms are all in motion with a goal, which is to succeed in that game of "trial and error" that you mentioned, their goal is to maintain themselves and grow where possible, at whatever level you want to represent, genetic, species, genus, etc.

>>20240662
bro you have no reading comprehension why do you even read?

>>20240962
Barlaam was right by the way. Palamas was a monk not a philosopher and his positions refute themselves. You can't divide the Essence and Energies then claim that the "Essence infinitely transcends the Energies" AND claim that the Energies are divine. That's polytheism. Palamites try to defend this by claiming that God can be completely unified with distinctions and cite the Trinity as providing the basis for the Palamite distinction but a key point of Trinitarian theology is that no person of the Trinity transcends the others, they are all co-equal. In Palamas scheme the Energies are NOT equal with the Essence, they are derivative so the claim they are fully divine is dividing the Godhead in a manner that logically leads to two separate divinities.

>>20240979

>Palamas was a monk not a philosopher

St. Gregory was extensively academically trained. Have you actually read the Triads, or the 150 chapters?

>You can't divide the essence and the energies then claim that the energies are divine

The energies are distinct from the essence, not divided from it. The essence "infinitely transcends the energies" from our perspective, where we can experience more depths of the Energies of God, but never the essence.

>a key point of Trinitarian theology is that no person of the Trinity transcends the others, they are all co-equal

Co-equal according to what? Personal relation? Then the Son begets the Father, and the Spirit spirates the Father as well. That's absurd: The actual causal dependance of the Father to the Son and Spirit is dogmatic according to pre-schism theology.

Co-equal according to subject? Then the Father and Holy Spirit must also have become incarnate, and crucified. The idea that the Father has been crucified is Patripassianism, a condemned heresy, so they cannot be equal according to subject.

The above problems, among many others, are fallen into if difference always and unequivocally implies division, which means that the persons of the trinity cannot be different in any way at all. Orthodox metaphysics does not subscribe to this pagan notion that difference and distinction implies division.

>Essence energies distinction makes two divinities.

St Gregory goes into why Barlaamism results in an actual two divinities in the Triads, by bringing up an example from scripture, and citing what the Fathers have said about it, in particular the Glory of Christ in the transfiguration of Mt. Tabor, which St Gregory the Theologian has said "It was as light that the divinity was manifested to the disciples on the Mountain.", and St John Chrysostom does not say "divinity appeared", but rather "*the" divinity appeared, making it clear he was referring to God Himself appearing.

According to Barlaamism, was this light the essence of God? It cannot be, since the divinity is not sensible.

The Fathers also say that in the eschaton, we will be united with the light and glory of God.

Which light and glory of God are we united with, according to Barlaamism? It cannot be, the essence, since it is impossible to experience as a created being.

So in both cases, the light we are united with, and the light on Mt. Tabor, must be a creation. To be consistent with the Fathers, it must be a created divinity, distinct from the human nature, and it is this divinity we will be united with. And this must be a created divinity, since the Fathers do not say that this was a light from Christ's humanity, but from his divinity.

So then Christ is then composed of not two, but THREE natures - His eternal divine nature, his created human nature, and the created divinity that we will partake in.

It is actually in Barlaamism where there are two separate divinities - but worse, one is a created divinity.

>>20241056
>The energies are distinct from the essence, not divided from it.
Needs to be divided if the Essence can transcend the Energies. This is sophism and mysterianism.

>The essence "infinitely transcends the energies" from our perspective, where we can experience more depths of the Energies of God, but never the essence.
The energies of God are necessarily an extension of the Essence. They are the Essence of God in action. Claiming you experience the energies but not the essence is complete nonsense since the nature of the Energies are necessarily part of Gods essence.

David Bentley Hart, Orthodox Theologian dismantles Palamism quite well.

>The formal division between essence and energies became fixed as a kind of – in some formulations of Neo-Palamism – something like a Nominalism. If we think about this, Palamas was arguing for the real presence of the trinitarian God in his energies, whereas more and more in the American version of Neo-Palamism the energies become a kind of boundary wall that cuts us off from God in his own true nature, and are treated and sometimes spoken of almost as there is no analogy that can be drawn between energies… I think in many ways it was a narrow, philosophically unsophisticated movement – in this country especially, because I think it became more simplified here, because for many who converted to Orthodoxy it was the first exposure to Orthodoxy, so they received it as a dogmatic system.

>>20241083
Even more DBH

>They weren’t aware that, just a handful of decades earlier, had they looked at the state of Orthodoxy around the world before that Parisian period, they would’ve found far greater diversity, and far greater division. It also meant accepting uncritically George Florovsky’s hostility towards Bulgakov and others. The situation now is different: while the Neo-Palamite synthesis has remained sort of the dominant grammar of theology for the Orthodox in this country, more and more we associate it with converts to Orthodoxy from American Evangelicalism. Unfortunately, American Evangelicalism is an extraordinarily crude and fundamentalist religion. And so they’ve taken on their Palamism almost like a faith statement, just an unarguable set of propositions. And the state of Orthodoxy in America right now is absolutely catastrophic, precisely because it’s been so successful in gaining converts.

>>20241056
>Co-equal according to what?
In all ways except their specific hypostatic properties that distinguish each person of the Trinity from the others (The Son being begotten, the Holy Spirit being spirated by the Father through the Son as secondary cause)

>The above problems, among many others, are fallen into if difference always and unequivocally implies division,
This doesn't help you because the issue is that saying one person of the Trinity transcends another is heresy because transcendence DOES imply division and Palamas explicitly says that the Essence TRANSCENDS the Energies. You cannot have transcendence without division. Full stop.

>Orthodox metaphysics does not subscribe to this pagan notion that difference and distinction implies division.
Transcendence does. Checkmate. Neo-Palamism is nonsensical/

>>20241083
>Needs to be divided if the Essence can transcend the Energies. This is sophism and mysterianism.

You proceeds to ignore literally everything I've written that demonstrates that taking distinction and differentiation to unequivocally mean division results in immediate and synodally condemned trinitarian heresy. It's obvious to everyone now that it is you who is the sophist.

>Citing liberal Arch-Heretic universalist academic DBH for literally anything

He's no more an Orthodox theologian than Gustavo Gutiérrez is a Catholic theologian. It would be disingenuous for me to cite Liberation Theologians, obvious modernists, as representative of Roman Catholicism. If you care about talking about this in good faith, you would do the same.

>>20241111

>In all ways except their specific hypostatic properties that distinguish each person of the Trinity from the others

Are these hypostatic properties things that distinguish the persons differences, or distinctions?

If so, do they imply division?

>The above problems, among many others, are fallen into if difference always and unequivocally implies division,

>This doesn't help you because (avoids explaining how the persons of the trinity can be different according to Thomism, and deflects by repeating his initial accusation)

You have avoided the critique by deflecting, and just repeating your initial attack.

Are the Father, Son, and Spirit different persons? Did the Father and Son become incaranate, or become crucified?

If yes, then they must be different in some way.

Does this difference imply division of any kind? If not, how?

The crux of this debate is whether distinction implies division.

So far, you have affirmed that the Father, Son, and Spirit are co-equal *except for their specific hypostatic properties*.

The question then is: Are these hypostatic properties differences, or distinctions?

If yes, then do these differences and distinctions imply division?

>>20234988
Modern physics refute Aristotle.

>>20241114
You tried to retreat to the Thomist position.

>The essence "infinitely transcends the energies" from our perspective
Saying "from our perspective" means that it's only a logical distinction not a real distinction. This is the Thomistic position. Palamite theology demands that the E/E distinction is not merely from "our perspective" but is a real distinction within God Himself. The key here is real distinction which is causing you issues because the E/E distinction can't be a matter of analogically going from created realities to God, but needs to be accepted as something that is part of the very nature of God apart from our finititude.

This is what the Orthodox claim is "Absolute Divine Simplicity", because Thomism only recognizes the activities of God as a logical distinction and not a real distinction. SOmething that only exists because of our finite perception and inability to comprehend God in His absolute unity and simplicity, but only as a myriad of concepts such as Goodness, Justice, Mercy, Love, etc.

So you can't run back to "from our perspective" because that's not the Palamite position, it's not just "from our perspective", the Energies are REALLY distinct from the Essence in the same way as the Persons of the Trinity are. The issues are:

1. There is absolutely zero reason to dogmatize what is a speculative theological position.

2. Giving the E/E distinction the same position as the Trinity compromises the paradoxical nature of the Trinity and opens up splitting God into infinite number of distinctions while claiming it's ok because the Persons a really distinct but form a unity. The Trinity is the keystone of Christian theological thought and Palamite theology treats it like it's just an example by adding even more real distinctions and claiming that Trinitarian theology allows such things therefore there's no issue.

>>20241131
>If so, do they imply division?
No because none of the persons transcend the others. Transcendence implies division.

There are only two outs here. Either Palamas was speaking of a Logical distinction and is accord with the Thomistic position or he's speaking of a real distinction and has split the Godhead into two divinities, one of which transcends the other.

>>20241163

>No because none of the persons transcend the others. Transcendence implies division.

So then it is perfectly valid for there to be distinctions in God without division. The only thing left, is to explore in which way St Gregory said that the essence of God transcends the energies.

Can you address the problem of the created divinity of Christ here >>20241056 , then? Whether what was experienced on Mt Tabor was the divine essence, or a created light?


>>20241145

>You tried to retreat to the Thomist position.. Saying "from our perspective" means that it's only a logical distinction not a real distinction.

I'm not appealing to subjectivist nominalism by saying "From our perspective.".

To demonstrate this, you can clearly see that past events from before our creation completely transcends our experience. We are, by ontological necessity, unable to experience them. However, within the whole context of time since time began, prior moments of time do not transcend the whole context of time, and from the context of persons created prior to us, they are capable of experiencing creation in a state that completely transcends our capacity to experience.

All of this is completely true, and does not require an appeal to nominalism.

I'm saying that, from our perspective ontologically, we cannot reach the divine essence. That is, from our ontological position as created beings, the essence of God infinitely transcends the energies of God, which we do experience.

This is absolutely clear if you read the surrounding context in the Triads a few paragraphs right before what you cited. Surely, you're being intellectually honest enough to look at the whole context of a quote, instead of simply quote mining and ignoring context?

It is there that St Gregory Palamas cites St Maximus in saying that the Essence infinitely transcends the energies - it is within the context of created beings, and therefore beings bound by time, participating in the uncreated energies of God to the degree that created beings are ontologically capable, since everything that exists must be sustained directly by the energies of God, but cannot participate in them outside of the ontological capacities of their created natures.

From the ontological position of God, God does not transcend Himself, since God eternally knows His own essence. In exactly the same way that God is undividedly yet distinctly in unity of the three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, God is undividedly yet distinctly in unity of three ontological realities: Essence, Person, and Energy.

>>20239490
>good
>bad
>innocence
>morality
>responsibility

you are just throwing around meaningless words

>>20241567
>you are just throwing around meaningless words
theology in a nut shell.

>>20236228
Based. Those who shit on Berkeley do not understand him. I have been seriously considering the possibility of immaterialism since reading him and a little Bernardo Kastrup

>>20240587
>pretty sure Neitzche was originally a catholic
amerimutt moment
>l'chaim
uh huh, yahweh moment

>>20240963
>The failures are an important aspect of teleology, without failure there could be no intentionality, because intentionality requires the intent of one thing over the other. So failed organisms and species are, in one sense essential, in another more practical sense accidental, in that they are practically accidental products of a teleological mechanism, yet theoretically essential in that they would not be capable of being "failures" if there were no intentionality to begin with.

Utter gibberish. You're claiming here that failures are intentional and accidental at the same time. Do you ever read back the stuff you write down? Those two are complete opposites of one another.

>First of all, the notion of bias is a psychological phenomenon. Therefore, there is no conception of bias first of all without the conception of intentionality, which is teleology. This is only at a theoretical level, I am fully aware, and does not address physical fact. The point is that even conceptually observing "bias" in nature is an observation of teleology first and foremost, because it is the observation that something (environment) favors something else (an organism).

Again, another contradiction. You first state that this bias is a psychological phenomenon, and then you turn around and insist that it's a part of teleology itself, which is a feature of the natural world, which would make it very much not a psychological phenomenon, but a natural one

>So by necessity we have to presuppose that the environment is capable of favoring certain subjects, and having no favor towards other subjects (which are the failed organisms when they by chance appear). This idea cannot be entertained without intentionality, because the environment must be predisposed (ie, possess intent) to favor X subject over Y subject, or when they are not mutually exclusive, then both together, at the expense of other contraries for each one.

This makes no sense at all. An environment needs an intentional will in order to select fitness? That's utter nonsense, and not something we see at all in the real world. Instead, we have an environment, which has no conscious will of any kind, and organisms trying to fit within this environment. The mechanism behind this adaptation towards fitness is trail (surviving organisms) and error (dying organisms). None of this requires a single intervention or a single intention by some kind of overseeing will above, as has been very clearly demonstrated by Darwin. Teleology just becomes the assumption of a mechanism that isn't even necessary

>>20245686
>None of this requires a single intervention or a single intention by some kind of overseeing will above, as has been very clearly demonstrated by Darwin.
The guy you're replying to explained it kind of bad but teleology doesn't need to be imposed by something "from above", it can literally be boiled down to something as simple as a thing's innate tendency to do what it does as a result of being what it is; not even the strictest Darwinist would deny something like that

>Instead, we have an environment, which has no conscious will of any kind
Also this is just kind of a flat assertion that's presupposed basically out of the blue, it's not exactly like there's any real existent hard divide between organisms and their environment from either a scientific or philosophical standpoint, it's one continuous process (doubly so, even, if you're a monist in either direction)

>>20245708
>teleology doesn't need to be imposed by something "from above", it can literally be boiled down to something as simple as a thing's innate tendency to do what it does as a result of being what it is

And the survivorship bias is the very reason why that's nonsense, because you're not seeing all the things that apparently didn't have an innate tendency to do what it does as a result of what it is

>Also this is just kind of a flat assertion that's presupposed basically out of the blue

No, because zero evidence has thusfar been provided by anyone claiming that it does have a conscious will

>>20245762
>And the survivorship bias is the very reason why that's nonsense, because you're not seeing all the things that apparently didn't have an innate tendency to do what it does as a result of what it is
Nigga what? You're saying that there are things which don't have any properties or interactions with the world? How does that even make sense?

>No, because zero evidence has thusfar been provided by anyone claiming that it does have a conscious will
It's a meaningless statement; how the fuck would anyone even go about testing whether or not the entire cosmic environment has intentions or not, what criteria would be used and how could it be falsified in any way? To say that "the environment" (whatever that's even supposed to be, human beings and other organisms are part of "the environment" too and they obviously have consciousness and intentions) either does or doesn't have any conscious will is a completely bogus statement, it's a metaphysical presupposition at best

>>20245855
>You're saying that there are things which don't have any properties or interactions with the world?

Lol what? What are talking about? Are you having a mental breakdown right now?

>how the fuck would anyone even go about testing whether or not the entire cosmic environment has intentions or not, what criteria would be used and how could it be falsified in any way?

Ok, why believe that it does, then?

not a book, but our reality itself brutally refutes Aquinas every second of every hour of every day.

>>20245855
>>20245898
>>how the fuck would anyone even go about testing whether or not the entire cosmic environment has intentions or not, what criteria would be used and how could it be falsified in any way?

With the scientific method.

When you stumble upon a thing that cannot be examined in reality; is unverifiable or is claimd to exist "BEYOND YOU MERE MORTAL CAPACITY TO UNDERSTANDDDD" in a alternate dimension (heavens etc.) then you ought realize it's been made up by somebody and is a nonsense.

Welcome to practical real-world philosophy. The agricultural sciences wing is to your right, by the statue of Cato the Elder, just next door to the Cao Chinese Militarism wing.

>>20245946
Whats going on here?

>>20246479
Probably a trick. The ground is really soft so it doesn't hurt their hands.

>>20236228
same with Shankara

>>20246474
>I, a retarded primate whose brain evolved to bang rocks together and eat nuts, am totally capable of comprehending the entirety of reality with complete accuracy
Imagine unironically believing this, positivism is a cult

>>20235034
You can tell he molests kids

>>20247470
>>I, a retarded primate whose brain evolved to bang rocks together and eat nuts, am totally capable of comprehending the entirety of reality with complete accuracy
yeah dumbfuck, that's what science and philosophy is all about; some people managed to learn how to do some amazing things that way, whereas some others preferred to play pretend and bite off their rape-conceived childs penis.

lol imagine 'ironically' believing something, what kind of poseur society do you live in?

>>20247532
eheh he's supposedly a nice guy, i have family who worked with him at one point.. but anyway i'm sure they're all nice guys until they're forced to become crazy reality-deniers for the sake of their pokemon go club.

as if humanity hadn't well surpassed this clown shit by the roman republic.

>>20246474
>>20247634
>muh scientific method
read Hume

>>20247634
>as if humanity hadn't well surpassed this clown shit by the roman republic.
Oh god, don't tell me he's going to bust out the "gap in scientific progress left by the dark ages" memegraph

>>20247470
also, a 2nd reply is way more than your one-liner deserves,

but this point of being able to actually prove something is true 'in' reality is literally the entire point of science and philosophy and religion,
in the sense of...
e.g. divination to predict the weather tomorrow

not understanding big ideas and misinterpreting practical sciences as if they were talking about magic invisible god-kings who look at you from the sky is a simple barbarians misunderstanding.

>>20247678
>also, a 2nd reply is way more than your one-liner deserves,
And yet you still replied, didn't you

>>20247647
>read Hume
you read hume you faggot, nobody cares about you incel or your ladyboy theologians, go eat a bullet.

>>20247655
>"gap in scientific progress left by the dark ages"
eh not really, that point doesn't really need to even be made when a person is aware of the real-world actual real-life achievements of civilizations prior to the hebrews and the christians arrival, and their rewriting of history into an evil fairy story.

You theology guys are exactly like Socrates in Aristophanes play, if you recall. It was comedy at the time, people like that, but really they should've been all killed, seeing as what happened when this evil religion cancer grew.

>>20247686
ah, but only for the sake of the other half of this thread who have a brain,

you don't really think i expect anything seriousness from you, do you? you guys are like british cyber intelligence whose entire job is to make low iq comments and drown comments boards in some feeble attempt to push your cult delusion but really just to drown out any conversation.

the equivalent of banging pots and pans to make noise.

>>20247721
I dunno, you seem pretty mad to me bro

>>20247686
i mean, you can 'pretend' youre trolling and "having fun", but this level of strange meme images is the highest mark you can attain in spoken english, and we both know it, you grandpa who is malding and has spent the better part of their life doing this lol

>>20247707
>they should've been all killed seeing as what happened when this evil religion cancer grew.
The only way to eradicate religion is to kill all humans. It cannot be excised from the human mind.

>>20247736
>u mad bro
sum total of western christian culture, sad.

>>20247742
I find the average imageboard christlarper and fedora to be equally insufferable to the point where they're both cultists in my eyes

>>20247741
i disagree, i think if people werne't actually told about religious ideas they'd never come to them naturally as there's no logical route to conflate actual practical sciences; based entirely upon observation of things in the world and the discipline of cause and proof, with the alt-reality pseudo-goddery where the focus is not on life and doing things in the world but on "immortality when you die".

it just doesn't come naturally.

>>20247747
hmm that's a good subject desu
i think we're running out of thread space tho

i disagree, this is just a notepad conversation i'm having, i'm not part of any 'organized effort' and i would even say that the christian isn't either, since masturbating on the internet is hardly living the mormon lifestyle.

>>20247768
A general study of man shows that 1. every culture has some kind of religious vision and 2. wherever there is an atheistic void, some kind of religious belief will eventually fill it.

>>20247768
>if people werne't actually told about religious ideas they'd never come to them naturally
so uh. who was it that first told humans about religious ideas?

>>20247741
>The only way to eradicate religion is to kill all humans
that's also not logical; you could say the only way to eradicate pedophilia is to kill all humans, instead of the people actually guilty of having done or attempted to do that.

orrrrr.. you could say that if your car windshield is dirty you should destroy your car with a sledgehammer and go buy another one.

in fact, anon, it sounds like you're coming from a position where you've internalized the lie of original sin; where the very very obviously guilty criminals have their crimes seem to be diminished or concealed by the claim that "everyone" is a criminal.

>>20247818
>the point
>(You)

All evidence of anthropology and psychology points to innate religious characteristics. Perhaps your totalitarian religion police would kill anyone who mentions it aloud but it will not be repressed in the unconscious mind. At best it will be transmuted.

>>20247804
>some kind of religious vision
ah see above: >>20247818
there's a vast difference between one religion and the next; not all religions adopt the nihilism toward reality (the claim that humans are evil from birth and the body is evil and devils made the world, etc.) as the abrahamic religions do.

>an atheistic void
i'm in two minds on this; i think, in general, a religious delusion which blinds the self to reality 'is' atheism - which is what the romans said of the first christians when they starting noticing them... but on the other hand is 'religious focus' on science, then, the answer? probably not, since that was where platos magical preoccupations came from.

>>20247812
obviously it was people not understanding the point of the first so-called religions and 'holy people' who were men (and women) of practical sciences, the best they knew at the time;

the word divination for example; "to divine a thing", is where the theologians concept of the divine comes from through the latin - and we can observe for ourselves that the business of ancient priests the world over was based in some primitive form of scientific examination in order to predict things...

....but with no discipline they could make shit up, which is why the philosophies of cause and proof came about.

>>20247846
>Perhaps your totalitarian religion police would kill anyone who mentions it aloud but it will not be repressed in the unconscious mind.
that's not necessary; teaching kids about the history of how religions came about would suffice to immunize them against the worst sorts of behaviors and influences.

i mean, i don't think this is even so much a big deal, i wasn't raised in the "western christian" style and when i first experienced people who were like that i thought it was incredibly strange that people were play-acting as if actual human history didn't exist and that they, as europeans, were related somehow to jews in another part of the world, whilst knowing nothing of their own histories.

beyond that, obviously, it's poverty and desperation that sends people into these things. same equation as how the late roman empire went mad.