Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All extremists are slightly nuts. Atheism is as extreme as being a religious fanatic...To proclaim that you know everything about God is extreme...thus nuts...To proclaim that there is no God is extreme and a bit nuts. How can a sane person say there is no GOD----how would they know? They don't...
Why is not believing in a god nuts and extreme. A sane person doesn't need to believe in an unknown entity. They believe in themselves without a crutch. I do believe in god but I live my own life. I think the weak need to believe in him as a crutch because they aren't strong enough to believe in themselves. This is just my opinion. But please tell me your proof that god exists. Of course you can't tell me because you blindly believe. I can't do that because I am my own person.
Some of Thomas Aquinas' propositions were condemned by the local Bishop of Paris (not the Magisterium) in 1270 and 1277[citation needed], but his dedication to the use of philosophy to elucidate theology was so thorough that he was proclaimed a saint in 1328 and a Doctor of the Church in 1568. Those who adopt it are called Thomists.
St. Thomas' analogy of being
In a single sentence, parallel to Aristotle's statement asserting that being is substance, St. Thomas pushes away from the Aristotelian doctrine:[6] "Being is not a genus, since it is not predicated univocally but only analogically." His term for analogy is Latin analogia. In the categorical classification of all beings, all substances are partly the same: man and chimpanzee are both animals and the animal part in man is "the same" as the animal part in chimpanzee. Most fundamentally all substances are matter, a theme taken up by science, which postulated one or more matters, such as earth, air, fire or water (Empedocles). In today's chemistry the carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen in a chimpanzee are identical to the same elements in a man.
And acknowledging God as First Cause and True Existence does not mean a person is crazy.
Question One: "Would you please say a few words of introduction about yourself.?"
I am a Catholic man whose faith also functions in his professional life. I think that I know a good philosophical argument when I see one and that I am cognizant and respectful of the norms of philosophical discourse; nevertheless, I do not wish to do my thinking in a hermetically sealed chamber. Just as a mathematics student is assisted, encouraged, and guided by studying a math book that provides answers at the back, so to my Catholic faith assists, encourages, and guides my work in philosophy.
I am also a committed Thomist. My passion is the speculative side of Aquinas’s thought: his metaphysics, epistemology, and natural philosophy. As I reflect upon my scholarly activities of the past 25 years, I realize that I was decisively formed by my undergraduate professors at Boston College, especially Oliva Blanchette and Joseph Flanagan. In my mind I am still arguing with them. The point of the debate is whether realism can be mediated or not, and if not, must realism be dogmatic, uncritical and naïve. I was then and remain of the direct realist opinion. In that respect, it can be said that I am coming out of Gilson’s approach to Aquinas. Another point of profound sympathy between Gilson and myself concerns the intellect’s secunda operatio as a distinct grasp of actus essendi . Long before I had ever read Gilson, Maritain, or Owens, I possessed a lively sense that "the existence of the thing" meant much more than the fact of the thing. When I did discover the above authors (through an undergraduate course with Donald Gallagher), it was like rain in the desert.
Invisible relative to human eyesight. Kind of like electromagnetic radiation that is infrared. Or sexually transmitted viruses.
The existence of something is not predicate on you visually seeing it.
If we wish to debate the existence of something with the hope of reaching some sort of agreement, isn't it necessary for us to at least agree on what evidence there is for that something existing? What criteria do we use to decide the existence of something, and should we use different criteria for the existence of a deity? If so, why?
I wonder why Christians can't see that it doesn't make any sense for Jesus to die for our sins.
Jesus had two natures: one divine and one human. According to orthodox Christian theology.
The crucifixion, sacrifice, of Jesus might be understood framed this way: God allowed humans to kill him as a sacrificial offering for the sins mankind brought into the world. That a man's blood could not pay for this except for that man being God.
Also, Christians in terms of the Orthodox and Catholics, who combined must make up at least 50% of global Christianity, do not think that Jesus only died for our sins, but that he has given us his flesh to eat and blood to drink ever since his death. The ancient writings of St. Justin martyr confirms this ancient Christian belief in the eating of the real flesh of Jesus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oleg Bach
Jesus was murdered by the state of Rome and did not die for your sins. He would have done better if he could have lived to be an old man and continued teaching. It was not in the death of Christ that we are saved but in the life of this wonderful and brilliant man...Human sacrifice is barbaric and fanciful...nothing was accomplished with the death of Christ- Pagans look at his death no differently than the killing of a goat and offering up the animal to God- It is simply back ward and stupid. Christ never said;;;I have come to die for you so you can live...He came to live so we could live better. Death is ugly and should never be associated with life or the promise of life...Blood sacrifice is primitive and ineffective- If Christ died for our sins there would be no sin or anything sinister in our midst.
Buddha already came to live nice before Jesus. I think Buddha might have been vegetarian too (but I'm not totally sure of that).
Jesus was not an abolitionist. He also had no problem with Jews giving to the Roman Caesar what was supposedly his due.
I don't know why people never read the New Testament or the 4 gospels but pontificate on like they've actually read it. Many people get their hippie impression of Jesus or impression of him as Fidel Castro from listening to left wing people cherry picking statements of Jesus. No prophet of the bible--none of the Old Testament--warned about being sent to hell for sinning as much as Jesus did. Jesus spoke about morality and theology in cultural-religious context he was brought up in and his Hebrew Jewish audience was largely brought up in. Many of sayings and doings must be understood in that context. You won't find treaties from Jesus on economics or political philosophy. And Jesus was not a labor leader like Jimmy Hoffa of the Teamsters.
Perhaps if you read the article and supporting links you would see the point the author was trying to make. I guess atheists are too smart to read what others write yet still think they are still qualified to comment on the writing.
Considering that most atheists are liberals, and that many liberals see themselves as smarter than everyone else and look down on those who disagree. People of faith might think that atheists are going to hell or whatever because they do not believe in God, and atheists may think that people of faith are delusional for believing in something that cannot be measured and quantified by science. However, something for those of us who do believe in the Bible and the existence of God to keep in mind...are WE the ones that are going to sit in judgement over others? No. It will be God and God alone, and would a completely just God judge atheists by the same standards he holds others to? I highly doubt it. Everyone will be judged according to the tenets of their own belief and how well they followed their beliefs. I know many Christians and non-Christians alike that are fantastic people, and I know some atheists that are better people than many Christians.
It is not my belief that atheists are mentally ill, although my beloved wife who is a Pagan has a pretty twisted sense of humor so she might be an exception.
A nice way of putting it. I think they are the height of ignorance and self-centeredness. They actually believe the universe revolves around them, and there is nothing beyond their five senses. No spiritual realm, no extra-terrestial entities, no other dimensions, no power behind their thoughts or reason for being. They don't ask questions or seek answers. No depth or purpose, except immediate gratification.
Atheists believe in nothing and pride themselves in feeling superior to those that believe in something outside of themselves. It's a pity to be so unaware.
If we wish to debate the existence of something with the hope of reaching some sort of agreement, isn't it necessary for us to at least agree on what evidence there is for that something existing? What criteria do we use to decide the existence of something, and should we use different criteria for the existence of a deity? If so, why?
I have no objection to those questions.
I'm not a philosopher myself. I respect philosophy but hate philosophy as well.
But I do respect the way philosophy can help sharpen your thinking. But philosophy is mad tough. At least if it's rigorously done. And Aquinas used one of the most rigorous methods to structure his philosophical arguments that you find in philosophy. I don't think the method was of his creation but one he adopted. Many philosophers today do not take the time to structure their arguments in that pain-in-the-a__ way.
Anyways... my understanding is that anything can have essence if you can conceive of it in your mind. A human baby, a car, a unicorn, a vampire, a submarine. The essence being simply what they are by our conceptions of what distinguishes them. Existence on the other hand is actual "being."
The material world's "being" comes from a First Cause that caused the universe, and that first cause being "being" itself, that existence or "being" not being logically contingent on anything else.
On the other hand... our existence is contingent on God as true existence. The same with the rest of the material world, it's existence is contingent on God.
But given I'm no philosopher I really can't answer your questions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
