[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 64 KB, 326x500, 61w9VAgGLBL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13908765 No.13908765 [Reply] [Original]

>important question
>objection 1: some dude in a historically unsound, a dozen times translated in the biggest game of telephone in history, said this
>objection 2: this other dude said this while jerking off thinking of god
>objection 3: principles upon principles either part of circular logic or "dude God said so lmao"
>synthesis: Have this response out of my ass because it's obvious, otherwise you just don't get it.

How is this book one of the staples of Christianity? It's basically just exercises in mental gymnastics

>> No.13908767

>>13908765
>his mind is too fat to do mental gymnastics

>> No.13908778

>>13908765
>Christinaity
>mental gymnastics
I don't see any contradiction.
Catholicism has top-tier esthetics and writers, excellent historical relevance (even now), very good ethics when it really cared about ethics which wasn't all the time, and nice social integration when it was dominant. It also carved some pretty major steps in the history of science.

But like any religion with a strong tradition of argumentation it was choke-full of mental gymnastics.

>> No.13908780

>>13908765
I think it's intellectually dishonest of you to call Christian scripture historically unsound and then question why someone who tries to make sense of it might be well regarded by Christians

>> No.13908809

>>13908765
>t. not a philosopher, and does not shy from using a strawman fallacy
gtfo brainlet this is the board reserved for intelligent people

>> No.13908827

>>13908809
not an argument

>> No.13908846

>>13908827
actually it is. I identified your greentext as a strawman, which it is, because you didn't prove your exaggerated claims against the actual text of Aquinas (which is sublime and technical and exceedingly thorough).

>> No.13908852

(...very unlike your characterization of it.)

>> No.13908898

>>13908846
Pick any question from the book and it follows that format. Give me a single example that doesn't

>> No.13908922

>>13908898
I'm well aware of its format. But I disagree with your childish characterization in the OP. You still haven't actually refuted any of Aquinas btw. Go ahead and begin anytime.