Gonna be posting some wonderful quotes form Aquinas's works ITT for the enjoyment of those studying history, philosophy, or religion.
Let's start with Summa Theologica:
>It is to be noted, however, that although these works of demons which appear marvelous to us are not real miracles, they are sometimes nevertheless something real. Thus the magicians of Pharaoh by the demons' power produced real serpents and frogs. And "when fire came down from heaven and at one blow consumed Job's servants and sheep; when the storm struck down his house and with it his children---these were the work of Satan, not phantoms"; as Augustine says
>Some spells are so perpetual that they can have no human remedy, although God might afford a remedy by coercing the demon, or the demon by desisting. For, as wizards themselves admit, it does not always follow that what was done by one kind of witchcraft can be destroyed by another kind, and even though it were possible to use witchcraft as a remedy, it would nevertheless be reckoned to be perpetual, since nowise ought one to invoke the demon's help by witchcraft. Again, if the devil has been given power over a person on account of sin, it does not follow that his power ceases with the sin, because the punishment sometimes continues after the fault has been removed. And again, the exorcisms of the Church do not always avail to repress the demons in all their molestations of the body, if God will it so, but they always avail against those assaults of the demons against which they are chiefly instituted.
Apparently he also thought fortune-tellers and astrologers predicting droughts were the same as physicians predicting health and death.
>Divination denotes a foretelling of the future. The future may be foreknown in two ways: first in its causes, secondly in itself. Now the causes of the future are threefold: for some produce their effects, of necessity and always; and such like future effects can be foreknown and foretold with certainty, from considering their causes, even as astrologers foretell a coming eclipse. Other causes produce their effects, not of necessity and always, but for the most part, yet they rarely fail: and from such like causes their future effects can be foreknown, not indeed with certainty, but by a kind of conjecture, even as astrologers by considering the stars can foreknow and foretell things concerning rains and droughts, and physicians, concerning health and death.
And magic is VERY real!
>Some have asserted that witchcraft is nothing in the world but an imagining of men who ascribed to spells those natural effects the causes of which are hidden. But this is contrary to the authority of holy men who state that the demons have power over men's bodies and imaginations, when God allows them: wherefore by their means wizards can work certain signs. Now this opinion grows from the root of unbelief or incredulity, because they do not believe that demons exist save only in the imagination of the common people, who ascribe to the demon the terrors which a man conjures from his thoughts, and because, owing to a vivid imagination, certain shapes such as he has in his thoughts become apparent to the senses, and then he believes that he sees the demons. But such assertions are rejected by the true faith whereby we believe that angels fell from heaven, and that the demons exist, and that by reason of their subtle nature they are able to do many things which we cannot; and those who induce them to do such things are called wizards.
Having a bad marriage? It's probably a wizard's spell. But don't worry, there are solutions and procedures for dealing with it
> Wherefore others have maintained that witchcraft can set up an impediment to carnal copulation, but that no such impediment is perpetual: hence it does not void the marriage contract, and they say that the laws asserting this have been revoked. But this is contrary to actual facts and to the new legislation which agrees with the old.
>We must therefore draw a distinction: for the inability to copulate caused by witchcraft is either perpetual and then it voids marriage, or it is not perpetual and then it does not void marriage. And in order to put this to practical proof the Church has fixed the space of three years in the same way as we have stated with regard to frigidity. There is, however this difference between a spell and frigidity, that a person who is impotent through frigidity is equally impotent in relation to one as to another, and consequently when the marriage is dissolved, he is not permitted to marry another woman. whereas through witchcraft a man may be rendered impotent in relation to one woman and not to another, and consequently when the Church adjudges the marriage to be dissolved, each party is permitted to seek another partner in marriage.
I hope you find this stuff convincing, otherwise you might be a heretic.
>Now a heretic is one who devises or follows false or new opinions. Therefore heresy is opposed to the truth, on which faith is founded; and consequently it is a species of unbelief.
What Aquinas think of heretics?
>With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death.
He obviously made errors, but he tried to do it in good faith and besides these errors, his stuff is mostly good.
>>393403
Didn't he say god was real was well? That was a pretty big error.
>>393421
:^)
In order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned. . .So that they may be urged the more to praise God. . .The saints in heaven know distinctly all that happens. . .to the damned. [Summa Theologica, Third Part, Supplement, Question XCIV, "Of the Relations of the Saints Towards the Damned," First Article, "Whether the Blessed in Heaven Will See the Sufferings of the Damned. . ."]
>>393403
When your method is "I already have the conclusion, now lets make up something to justify it" you aren't likely to find out many true things about the world. It's very telling in his writing:
>Some have asserted that witchcraft is nothing in the world but an imagining of men who ascribed to spells those natural effects the causes of which are hidden. But this is contrary to the authority of holy men
>>393464
Why the fuck would suffering of the damned be delightful for saints? That's disgusting
>>393768
You know what's fucking hilarious. Nietzsche uses this exact quote in his book anti-Christ. He argues that Heave and Hell are nothing but revenge fantasies for the weak spirited.
Aquina's opponent's try to say that God would never allow such cruelity but Aquinas says this
>It is written (Psalm 57:11): "The just shall rejoice when he shall see the revenge."
So here we have the greatest Catholic theologian of all time siding with the Anti-Christ himself.
Other fun crap Nietzsche wrote
>"Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?" (Paul, I Cor. 6:2). Unfortunately not merely the talk of a lunatic. This frightful swindler continues literally: "Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life!"
I didn't even believe it when i saw but look up the quot. Paul literally means that Christians will get to send angels to heaven or hell. It's not a metaphor, it's the power fantasies of an angry litttle Jew. In the previous sentence he is saying that Christians should not obey the laws of Rome because they are chosen by God and above the law. He also says that if you get punished for breaking the law and killed you will get to judge your persicutors in heaven.
Now think about the Christian "marytrs"? Don't they seem like disguesting people? They break the law because they think they are God's chosen people. The reason they are willing to die at the cross is not because of their devotion to God. Even while they are being eaten by the lions they think about how they will get to judge their persecutors.
>>393768
I'm going to enjoy watching the fedoras that abuse Christians on 4chan by calling The Lord names roasting and screaming in the fires of Hell while I watch from Heaven.
What would you know about disgusting? It is impossible to be moral without God, who you have cut yourself from.
What bliss will fill the ransomed souls,
When they in glory dwell,
To see the sinner as he rolls,
In quenchless flames of hell.
>>393812
>It is impossible to be moral without God
Why would you think it's impossible to be moral?
>>393812
>It is impossible to be moral without God
Not even Aquinas thought that.
>>393192
>>393823
Ha ha ha. You think you're so darned funny.
I’ll make a bet with you.
Two guys break into an atheist’s home. He has a little atheist wife and two little atheist daughters. They tie him up in a chair and gag him and then they take his two daughters in front of him and rape both of them and then shoot 'em and they take his wife and then decapitate her head off in front of him. And then they can look at him and say, "Isn't it great that I don’t have to worry about being judged? Isn't it great that there's nothing wrong with this? There's no right or wrong, now is it dude?"
Then they take a sharp knife and cut his dick off and hold it in front of him and say, "Wouldn't it be something if this was something wrong with this? But you’re the one who says there is no God, there’s no right, there’s no wrong, so we’re just having fun. We're sick in the head, have a nice day."
If it happened to you, you probably would probably admit there is right and wrong after all.
>>393812
>I'm going to enjoy watching the fedoras that abuse Christians on 4chan by calling The Lord names roasting and screaming in the fires of Hell while I watch from Heaven.
Right, because you're a spiteful, limp wristed faggot. A man would happily defend his beliefs. Then again, he wouldn't get mad about people criticizing his beliefs in the first place, he would enjoy the challenge and overcome the resistance.
Of course you'll never know what that feels like. After all, Christianity was invented for piss weak whiners like you. You need God to be strong, because you're a faggot weakling yourself
>>393864
Can I add an ending to that story?
They both go to jail, they get the death penalty. Before the sentence is carried out they have a priest forgive their sins. Then they go to heaven.
Yeah, there is a right and a wrong. And it's definitely not your death cult's barbaric morals.
>>393864
All this desire to see atheists hurt. You actually typed out your fantasy of the annon seeing people he loved being raped and killed.
You are no disciple of Christ.
Also dude. If this poor imaginery person in your head beleived in God it wouldn't change a damn thing. His daughter and wife would still be dead. All that would happen is that in your mind you would get the satisfaction of seeing the poor atheist convert. Oh and these criminals can be Christian too. After they finish their crime they can get arrested or maybe the husband has a gun and puts them in the hospital. Than on their death bed or on death row they will confess their sins and get into heaven.
So in your version there is no good or evil either. You do not beleive in good and evil because as I said you are not a Christian.
>>393889
Once his wife and daughters were dead they would be in Hell and the Lord himself would laugh at their pain as they were burned but never consumed. And the Lord himself would laugh at their suffering.
some of the religious people itt need to get their shit together, and im the farthest thing from a fedora. marone
>>393927
Nah it's the people in heaven who laugh. According to Aquination God never is pleased with suffering...he's just pleased with seeing people who he judged get exactly what he gave them....which is to say he delights in suffering.
Although whether they go to hell is hard to say.
Under Protestant rules as long as they convert to Christianity they go to heaven, even if they only spent 30 seconds of their life as a Christian. The Catholics might have them go to hell but their family can buy an indulgence and get them out. If we go by what Paul says though the person that they harmed will get to judge them. I don't know how that works if the victim and his enemies are both Christians. Funny enough if the killer rapists convert and the victim doesn't than the killer rapists will get to judge the cops for arresting them while the victim still ends up in hell.
Of course all this does is prove Nietzsche is right and hell is just a revenge fantasy. It's a way for losers to feel good about being victimized by thinking they will get a chance at payback, a fantasy for the weak and powerless.
>Aquinas
>>393979
You are wrong. The God of Mercy laughs at the wicked and enjoys his vengeance against them. He will mock you as you writhe in calamity.
>The wicked plot against the righteous
>and gnash their teeth at them;
>but the Lord laughs at the wicked,
>for he knows their day is coming.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+37
>>393979
Hell is the absence of God you know.
>>394838
>absence of the ground of being
That's nonsense statement
>>393812
>What would you know about disgusting? It is impossible to be moral without God
>An external force is the only thing keeping you from being an evil murderous rapist
Are you sure you're not the disgusting one? And this is coming from a fellow Christian.
>>393186
>Apparently he also thought fortune-tellers and astrologers predicting droughts were the same as physicians predicting health and death.
Aquinas doesnt mention fortune tellers, infact he explicitly condemns fortune telling, this is from his treatise on Divination, which he calls a superstition.
Astrologers werent the same as our modern astrologers, what Aquinas mentions them doing isnt some kind of mystic mumbo jumbo, what they did was predict eclipses (which we do) and predict the weather (which we do, unless you prefer to watch the morning cartoons like the child you are)
But what can you expect with blatant cherry picking?
>>393864
>"Isn't it great that I don’t have to worry about being judged? Isn't it great that there's nothing wrong with this? There's no right or wrong, now is it dude?"
>The only reason we don't do bad things is because we're afraid of being judged and punished for them
Confirmed for zero empathy. Christ would be ashamed of you.
>>393864
>If it happened to you, you probably would probably admit there is right and wrong after all.
It might surprise you to find out that most atheists believe in right and wrong without believing in God. This is, in fact, a thing that is possible.
>>393768
>Why the fuck would suffering of the damned be delightful for saints?
because it would show God's justice
>That's disgusting
why? wouldnt you be glad that someone who raped and killed someone is rotting behind the bars?
>>395499
By "fortune-tellers" I meant people that use divination. Which Aquinas thinks is a real thing that people can do by consulting demons or stars.
>Astrologers werent the same as our modern astrologers
Do you have any idea what astrology is?
> what Aquinas mentions them doing isnt some kind of mystic mumbo jumbo
You can't predict rain or droughts by looking at the stars, friend. Sorry. Aquinas was just plain wrong here.
>>395519
>By "fortune-tellers" I meant people that use divination.
and he isnt talking about divination in the paragraph you posted, so I dont know why you claimed he was
>Do you have any idea what astrology is?
i know what it is, but what it is isnt the same as what it was
>You can't predict rain or droughts by looking at the stars, friend.
You ever lived outside a city, friend?
>>395538
>and he isnt talking about divination in the paragraph you posted
It's literally the first word in the paragraph.
>i know what it is, but what it is isnt the same as what it was
Seem to still be reading the stars to predict the future from how Aquinas describes it.
>You ever lived outside a city, friend?
Excuse me, please link to your study of how stars relate to the weather. Which stars predicted the California drought? Oh wait, stars don't control the weather. And astrology is bunk.
>>395514
>why? wouldnt you be glad that someone who raped and killed someone is rotting behind the bars?
No? I don't take joy in suffering. I'd be glad that he can't hurt anyone else, but that's about it.
I don't really understand the point of this thread.
Of fucking course demons are real for Aquinas. Of course miracles are real. Of course astrology and fortune-tellers are dangerous. He's not some non-theist philosopher, he's a fucking Christian. OF COURSE he believes all this stuff. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
And furthermore, Christians believe it all, too. Why do you think the Catholic Church, to this day, forbids its followers from getting their palms read or playing with Ouija boards? Shit's dangerous. The occult and the supernatural are dangerous.
God works in the world in ways that are sometimes amazing and supernatural. This is a very real thing for Christians. Pic related, a miracle.
>>395514
Said rapist-murderer would spend an eternity in heaven if he repented before his death though. A hindu man who spent his life doing charitable works would roast in hell forever. Is that justice? Only if you're a christian.
>>395581
Boy the standard for miracles sure has plummeted since Exodus, huh?
>>395594
God's still capable of being unsubtle, when he wants.
>>395581
>I don't really understand the point of this thread.
To laugh at Catholics and their most precious scholars, of course.
>>395594
God doesn't pull out all the theatrics for the miracles that happen every week.
>>395597
>jelly on crackers
Is this your God's greatest miracles these days? What a shame. He used to be able to do more than just little frauds.
Now look at this guy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asy1zSHZ4tA
He can actually do really powerful miracles. His God must be the true one. Catholics BTFO!
>>395554
>It's literally the first word in the paragraph.
what he is describing there isnt what he calls divination, that you deliberately cherrypicked the quote out of it's context doesnt make your claim true. Here, from the Article you just posted
>Accordingly it is not called divination, if a man foretells things that happen of necessity, or in the majority of instances, for the like can be foreknown by human reason: nor again if anyone knows other contingent future things, through divine revelation: for then he does not divine, i.e. cause something divine, but rather receives something divine. Then only is a man said to divine, when he usurps to himself, in an undue manner, the foretelling of future events: and this is manifestly a sin. Consequently divination is always a sin; and for this reason Jerome says in his commentary on Micah 3:9, seqq. that "divination is always taken in an evil sense."
>Seem to still be reading the stars to predict the future from how Aquinas describes it.
Astrology was pretty much tied with Astronomy in Aquinas' time, unlike now.
>Excuse me, please link to your study of how stars relate to the weather
Stars in themselves? no, but there are certain factors that affect how stars look to us, factors that do affect the weather.
>Oh wait, stars don't control the weather.
correlation doesnt equal causation
>And astrology is bunk.
never said it wasnt, Aquinas may have been wrong in what exactly allowed for the prediction of the weather, but that is because of him living in a certain time and place. But the substance of his writing doesnt depend on the examples he used to ilustrate his argument. We CAN predict the future because some causes produce their effects of necessity (fuck you Hume) or produce them most of the time, and THIS belief is what had made scientific progress possible
>>395590
>Said rapist-murderer would spend an eternity in heaven if he repented before his death though.
no one said that
>A hindu man who spent his life doing charitable works would roast in hell forever
no one said that
>>395594
the miracles in the OT take place in a short period of time and to jews only, tho
>>395641
So he says
>Then only is a man said to divine, when he usurps to himself, in an undue manner, the foretelling of future events: and this is manifestly a sin. Consequently divination is always a sin;
I don't see how this contradicts anything I've said. And he is still ridiculous for thinking such a thing is even possible.
>Astrology was pretty much tied with Astronomy in Aquinas' time, unlike now.
The translator may have explicitly chosen the word "astrology" because Aquinas describes it as predicting things based on the stars, which is what modern astrology is. Obviously predicting weather by looking at stars has nothing to do with astronomy
> no, but there are certain factors that affect how stars look to us
Anything beyond "hey I can't see the stars, maybe it will rain because there are clouds"? Also you DEFINITELY can't predict drought this way.
>Aquinas may have been wrong in what exactly allowed for the prediction of the weather, but that is because of him living in a certain time and place
He was wrong. He was wrong about a lot of things. He isn't very impressive by modern standards (unless you are an autistic Catholic)
>>395651
Are you just fucking with me? That's what Christians believe.
>>395670
>I don't see how this contradicts anything I've said.
the whole fucking treatise does
>It is for this reason that certain men are called divines: wherefore Isidore says (Etym. viii, 9): "They are called divines, as though they were full of God. For they pretend to be filled with the Godhead, and by a deceitful fraud they forecast the future to men."
>The translator may have explicitly chosen the word "astrology"
yeah, he may have, go ask him then
>Anything beyond "hey I can't see the stars, maybe it will rain because there are clouds"? Also you DEFINITELY can't predict drought this way.
>I ve always lived in the suburbs, the post
>He isn't very impressive by modern standards
considering a good chunk of philosophers border on eliminative materialism, that hardly works as an insult.
>>395679
which Christians? Baptists? Calvinists? Lutherans? Catholics?
you gotta be more specific, boy
>>395700
Okay, last question, what does the suburbs have to do with predicting droughts and rain based on stars? And why do suburbs apply to Aquinas? You've been very vague on the connection between rain, drought, and stars so far. So please clarify so we can put this to rest.
>>395707
Any denomination that believes salvation comes through faith and not works and that no man has any chance of achieving salvation without putting his faith in Christ. So that is to say the overwhelming majority of them. And yes I realize that Catholics disagree with Protties on the first point but it's a subtle distinction, they just think works come through faith. Ultimately you're not getting into heaven through works.
>>395723
I think what he's getting at is that atmospheric variations can cause the night sky to look different, thus by looking at the stars closely and seeing "them" change (in reality looking through a lens with a very particular distortion) you can begin to predict weather correlations. Sort of like alchemy, where they were fundamentally mistaken about what they were studying but still managed to summarize important reactions.
Though I'm pretty sure Aristotle had basic meteorology as separate from astrology, so who knows how accurate that actually is.
Why is it bad that the weak have a hell/heaven power fantasy?
>>395679
Christianity says that they'll be judged at judgement day and only God alone knows their ultimate fate.
>>395723
some farmers dont have anything like the weather channel where they live, let alone a TV, yet they are for the most part succesful in knowing what, when and where to plant their crops. I dont know how the hell they do it, but they do it, so saying things like "you DEFINITELY can't predict drought this way." come of as dishonest, since many people do and have predicted them in a similar manner.
>>395733
>Any denomination that believes salvation comes through faith and not works
So literally only schismatic sects who divorced themselves from the old faith of Christianity.
>>395779
>many people do and have predicted them in a similar manner.
Citation needed.
>>395786
I thought we were talking about Christianity, not the later Roman adoption of Judeo-Greek paganism.
>>395804
>the apostles were pagan
>>395511
> It might surprise you to find out that most atheists believe in right and wrong without believing in God
Good luck on getting them to agree on what is right and wrong according to any objective logical standard though.
>>395822
>the apostles were Catholic
Remember the time Luke prayed to Mary? It's my favorite verse in the bible.
>>395826
meh, not even Christians can agree with each other.
>>395757
Because it creates a disgusting type of attitude in which everything is based on revenge. Just look at the Christians in this thread screaming about how everyone is going to burn in hell and they will laugh at them with Jesus.
The strong have no need for these fantasies because they resolve their own problems or at least tough it out. So when this type of revenge fantasy is proselytized we have a process where the we are trying to teach people the perspective of the weak, with revenge fantasies being the highest thing. If you teach people the religion of the weak they will become weak. And it doesn't just extend to people that believe in Christianity. The revenge fantasy of the SJW is a secular evolution of this Christian way of thinking. Think about that for a moment.
http://fringe.davesource.com/Fringe/Religion/Nietzsche-The-Anti-Christ/#sect1
>>395852
>>395757
Christian values are shit. They are so bad that they invented new words to hide what was really going on.
>>395839
The Bible is pretty clear cut on what it considers to be sin. For example murder is objectively sinful to a Christian.
Why?
because God said so.
A laughable argument certainly to modern materialist cynics, easily dismissed as "circular reasoning", but at least it leaves little room for doubt, unlike the wishy washy philosophical arguments of secular men seeking to justify their own excesses through logic and "reason".
>>395836
>It's my favorite verse in the bible.
my favorite verse is when Mary gave birth to Jesus, aka God. It's like Mary was a kind of Mother...but of what exactly??
>>395871
>Why?
>because God said so.
Catholics would disagree. They would say it is because natural law theory. They don't like the "God said so" argument, because it falls for the Euthyphro dilemma
>>395872
>Mother...but of what exactly?
A more-or-less regular one aside from the birth, whom Jesus even insults when he thinks she's bothering him. All the important biblical figures are flawed human beings who make mistakes and have personality issues, not pagan Queens of Heaven to pray to,
>>395881
>Catholics would disagree. They would say it is because natural law theory. They don't like the "God said so" argument
I see no reason to not hold both opinions, after all God did say so.
>>395852
>The revenge fantasy of the SJW is a secular evolution of this Christian way of thinking. Think about that for a moment.
Which is precisely why Social Justice fails as it seeks to mete out justice with no firm bedrock beyond wishy washy Marxist materialism. When "Justice" is measured by "Progress" then justice is always changing and therefore meaningless.
Your Might makes Right ethos by the way is a piss poor example of morality by the way and only lends credence to the Christian argument that morality cannot exist without God.
>>395893
and God just happens to know exactly what "good" and no one should challenge God's idea of morality. I could easily come up with a ton of ways in which God himself fails to meet the standards of 'good'. Alternativily I could argue that good because good and evil are merely perspectives.
So the end result is exactly what annon said. Whatever God says is good. The reasoning might be a little different but the result is exactly the same.
>>395881
I'm honestly not familiar with Christian metaphysics and philosophy but when I say "because God said so" I mean it more as a catch all and not specifically because he literally said so. I'm far from qualified to hold strong opinions on the matter but if morality springs from natural law and God created natural law it seems to me that morality exists as it does because that is the way God wants it to exist. Which I summed up rather lazily with because "God said so".
>>395897
>is always changing and therefore meaningless.
Meaning or absence of meaning mustn't logically follow from a thing's stability.
Just because your life will end, it doesn't mean you can't live your life as if it had meaning. And maybe that can be enough for you, I hope?
>>395897
>morality cannot exist without God
Suppose God never existed. In that case morality would have been made humans and than ascribed to God. As a matter of fact you must beleive that morality can be made by humans. How else could you explain all these 'false' religions independently coming up with their own moral codes? There have been thousands of morality. So we already know morality can be invented by humans without the aide of a real God.
Also no it's not "might makes right" if there is no morality, it's just that might is how results happen. This is an idea you would have to agree with. Could God enforce his own brand of justice if he had no might? What if there was someone stronger than him that wanted to oppose him. So in the end you would still have to believe in the rules of power.
>>395889
>A more-or-less regular one
i didnt ask what kind of mother, i asked
>mother of what exactly?
you have to be pretty dumb to confuse the two questions
>All the important biblical figures are flawed human beings who make mistakes and have personality issues
i thought they were people who followed God and put Him and others before their own needs, just like any Christian.
>not pagan Queens of Heaven to pray to,
>Christianity is pagan
what are you, exactly?
>And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
>>395930
> Just because your life will end, it doesn't mean you can't live your life as if it had meaning. And maybe that can be enough for you, I hope?
That would require an individualist ethos, incompatible with the SocJus movement which can exist only so long as the individual is subsumed within a collective identity.
>>395934
>As a matter of fact you must beleive that morality can be made by humans
no you cant, what humans do is discover the moral code, not invent it.
>How else could you explain all these 'false' religions independently coming up with their own moral codes?
theyre not coming up with their own moral codes, they are wrong about what is and isnt moral
>>395950
>That would require an individualist ethos,
Existentialism doesn't keep you from becoming integrated in a social group. Consider christian existentialism.
>>395960
>theyre not coming up with their own moral codes, they are wrong about what is and isnt moral
How do you know it's not you that is wrong, and that you are not the one that worships God the wrong way?
>>395934
>Suppose God never existed
If I am to suppose that God never existed why should I also suppose that humanity would still abide by the standards of morality that exist in our world where the existence of God cannot be concretely proven or disproven either way? Your thought experiment is flawed.
Furthermore your attempt to draw an equivalence between might based nihilism and morality flowing from God is also inherently flawed as the Christian ethos recognizes an ultimate source of power while your ethos does not. There is no alternative to the might of the Christian God, no context in which is power is not absolute or can be escaped. The might of a mass murderer on the other hand is profoundly limited.
>>395947
Mother of a son, not mother of the Word. If Mary was Mother of God, Jesus would not have been able to disrespect her at the party and remain sinless.
> i thought they were people who followed God and put Him and others before their own needs, just like any Christian.
No, a Christian is one who tries to do so. Most fail. You don't have enough faith to actually walk on water, only enough to make the attempt.
>Christianity is pagan
No, Catholicism is pagan. The two have little to do with each other.
>blessed art thou among women.
She was, by giving birth to such an important son. The quote is not "blessed are thee, also hey for everyone else reading make sure to worship this woman like so many pagan mother goddesses, also anyone else you can associate with any vague miracle too, if there is one thing God loves it's an abundance of people and things worshiped." Well, that might be in Catholic bibles.
>>395514
>why? wouldnt you be glad that someone who raped and killed someone is rotting behind the bars?
What about people who lived noble lives but simply didnt belive in the trinity or real presence?
>>395997
How do you know they actually lived noble lives?
>>395960
>theyre not coming up with their own moral codes, they are wrong about what is and isnt moral
Well the first part of your statement is wrong. When a society makes a morality they are doing just that, making a morality. It's not that hard to come up with a list of things you consider right and wrong.
For the second part "they are wrong" of course they would be wrong from your perspective and you would be wrong from their perspective. But who is 'right' never really matters. Because what gets enforced isn't what's right but that which has the most power behind it. For instance you might believe a certain law is wrong but if you break than you would still end up in the court system.
>If I am to suppose that God never existed why should I also suppose that humanity would still abide by the standards of morality that exist in our world where the existence of God cannot be concretely proven or disproven either way?
You are missing the point. Think about the existence of other religions. You do not believe those religion's Gods exist but the people still abide the moral standards of these religions. The Hindus have been moralizing for thousands of years and according to you they did it without the aid of a God.
>might based nihilism
This is a hilarious, Do you even know what the word nihilism means? Also bro I'm not saying might makes right. I'm saying that might is literally greater than morality. And you are actually agreeing with me right here.
>Christian ethos recognizes an ultimate source of power while your ethos does not. There is no alternative to the might of the Christian God, no context in which is power is not absolute or can be escaped. The might of a mass murderer on the other hand is profoundly limited.
So your point is that God's morality is supreme because he is powerful and enforces it. If this same God was "evil" than his evil morality would also be supreme and enforced.
>>396020
How do you know the guy rotting behind bars really did rape and kill someone? It's an hypothetical. Roll with it.
Some guy spent his life helping the meek and poor for the sake of his humanitarian convictions, at great expense to his finances and his health, while expecting no divine favor because he did not believe in God.
>>393181
Yeah? So what? What's wrong with any of that? Besides, if you don't want faith-based stuff you can just look at things like his commentaries on Aristotle, "On Being and Essence," "The Principles of Nature," or like 99% of the rest of the Summa.
>>396027
>Well the first part of your statement is wrong.
how is it wrong? you can only say it's wrong by begging the question.
>But who is 'right' never really matters.
of course it matters to someone who isnt drowning in nihilism and despair.
>Because what gets enforced isn't what's right but that which has the most power behind it.
if what has the most power isnt right then it is injustice (in the case of a state) and therefore is a tyranny, and the tyrant ought to be deposed
>>396032
here is what the Catechism says of atheism
>Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion.61 The imputability of this offense can be significantly diminished in virtue of the intentions and the circumstances. "Believers can have more than a little to do with the rise of atheism. To the extent that they are careless about their instruction in the faith, or present its teaching falsely, or even fail in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than to reveal the true nature of God and of religion."62
>>396318
>how is it wrong?
I've explained this. The Hindus have a morality. Unless you deny this I'm right. People have independently come up with their own morality since forever.
>if what has the most power isnt right then it is injustice (in the case of a state) and therefore is a tyranny, and the tyrant ought to be deposed
>of course [morality] matters
Again you are missing the point. I am not saying morality doesn't matter I am saying that power is more important than morality. Let's take your idea of the tyrant who is injust? You say he 'ought to be disposed' well how will you dispose of this tyrant? The only way to do is to have more power than him. So ultimately it really is power that decides what morality dominates because power is how things are expressed. Morality is just the rallying cry. The tyrant will have his morality to justify his cruelty and the freedom fighters will have their morality that tells them to kill the tyrant. This is why morality matters, it gives you direction how to use one's power. Power itself is the force that runs the world and decides if the tyrant thrives or falls.
I'll just leave this here. Make of it what you will.
>>396409
>The Hindus have a morality.
they think some things are moral or immoral, yes
>Unless you deny this I'm right
how?
people thought Neptune was a star and not a planet, did this belief affect the status of Neptune as a planet? did it make Neptune become a star until someone said it wasnt a star?
>I am not saying morality doesn't matter I am saying that power is more important than morality.
what kind of power? inherent? force? rhetoric? influence?
>The tyrant will have his morality to justify his cruelty
more like will deny morality
> it gives you direction how to use one's power.
ok
>Power itself is the force that runs the world
but from the beginning it was not so. ;)
>>396330
It will still land a person in hell. Heavan is not for atheists who dont convert. The righteous atheist will still languish in hell in the view of the saints until he or she converts
>>396594
>It will still land a person in hell.
you cant know if someone is going to hell, the atheist cant be blamed if he became atheist because of religious ignorants or smug atheists that do not represent the real spirit of religion
>>393767
Wait that's the same method that physics uses. We see things and make up stuff that fits that conclusion. Fuck, is my life a lie?
Why has this board become such complete trash so quickly?
>>396611
Like my post said until they convert from their atheism they will remain in hell, you cannot accept Gods love when you insist that he does not exist. An athiest might become a Christian after death but they cannot be in heavan and be an athiest.
>>396763
Because the 3 knowledgeable religious posters havent been posting
>>396448
Praise Allah! Aquinas confirmed closet Muslim
>>396448
Al-Farabi himself just copy pasted Aristotle. As a matter of fact pretty much every discussion of God from the Islamics and Christians were just copy pasting Aristotle and Plato. But they went through a ton of effort to tweak things to make it sound more Christian or more Islamic.
For instance the Muslim understanding of God was specifically designed to make the concept of a trinity impossible (mostly by playing with semantics). When Aquinas went around to plagiarizing he played around with semantics to do his thing.
