English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Don't you hate it when people ask questions that you simply can't answer in this limited forum?
C'mon people. If your question resembles mine, you need to google it and/or go to your local library.
Thank you.

2007-02-09 03:29:48 · 9 answers · asked by Born of a Broken Man 5 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

LOL
Well, I love that fact that some of you actually answered the question.
I will surely be more careful with my assumptions in the future.

2007-02-09 03:42:42 · update #1

9 answers

Good point. Seeing just the heading, I was going to say that this must be a homework question and I am not going to do your homework for you. I might have given a link to something. I would be happy if people would ask some deep questions, instead of the more stupid ones that get asked time and time again. Like this: "what is the difference between being a Catholic and a Christian". I hate those questions the most. Also when I see a question like yours, I tend to think that the asker is just a troll and I skip it.

2007-02-09 03:40:12 · answer #1 · answered by tonks_op 7 · 0 0

Actually I can, having read the Summa a number of times.

Aquinas was a counter-reformationist who basically compiled all the various objections to the Roman Catholic Church's (RCC) teachings, classified them into slightly larger questions (ie three or four specific points might be mentioned under a single question's heading). He then compiled the resources with answers to those questions, and formally proofed from those sources why the objections were in error and the RCC's teachings were correct.

Any protestant who genuinely read the Summa would have no choice but to convert because they would see that the Reformation was completely contrary to the logical conclusions of the Bible.

However, the Summa Theologicae never really specifically delved into pure philosophy, nor did it discuss philosophical theology -- it used philosophical theology as a tool to teach theology both to those questioning their faith as well as being questioned about it.

In short, your question, while intelligent, is almost trivially non-issue. The Summa Theologicae assumed the Bible as axiomic and used formal philosophical rules but otherwise remained squarely seated in the theological discorse with the reader.

2007-02-09 03:38:04 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

First of all, St. Thomas countered both the Averroistic interpretations of Aristotle and the Franciscan tendency to reject Greek philosophy. The result was a new modus vivendi between faith and philosophy which survived until the rise of the new physics. St. Thomas's theological writings became regulative of the Catholic Church and his close textual commentaries on Aristotle represent a cultural resource which is now receiving increased recognition. The following account concentrates on Thomas the philosopher and presents him as fundamentally an Aristotelian.

The cross-over, if you will, might be seen in the Thomist doctrine modern Catholics call "Transubstantiation" - which, at least for me - as an Orthodox Anglican, looks too much like Aristotelian metaphysics.

Did St. Thomas fail? No - he was a great scholar, and he worked with what he knew to be true.

2007-02-09 03:37:03 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Amen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summa_Theologiae

2007-02-09 03:33:19 · answer #4 · answered by pops 6 · 1 0

Then why waste your five points posting it here?
You just gave me 2 points.

Points from Summa Theologiae;

** Theology is the greatest and most certain of all the sciences, since its source is from God, who is omniscient.
** The natural desire of the soul or mind is to understand the essence of something.
** The existence of something and its essence are separate (that is, its being and the conception of being man has or can imagine of it [for example, a mountain of solid gold would have essence, since it can be imagined, but not existence, as it is not in the world]) in all things except for God, who is simple.
** The existence of God, his total simplicity or lack of composition, his eternal nature ("eternal", in this case, means that he is altogether outside of time; time is held to be a part of the universe that God created), his knowledge, the way his will operates, and his power can all be proved by human reasoning alone, by anyone and at any time.
** All statements about God are either analogical or metaphorical; one cannot say man is "good" in exactly the same sense as God, but rather that he imitates in some way the simple nature of God in being good, just or wise.
** Unbelief is the greatest sin in the realm of morals.
** The principles of Just War and Natural Law.
** The greatest happiness of all, the ultimate good, consists in the beatific vision.
** Defense lawyers cannot defend a person they know to be guilty.
** Taking interest on loans is forbidden, because it is charging people twice for the same thing.
** In and of itself, selling a thing for more or less than it is worth is unlawful (the just price theory).
** The contemplative life is greater than the active life, but greater still is the contemplative life that sometimes takes actions to call others to the contemplative life and give them the fruits of contemplation. (This actually was the lifestyle of the Dominican friars, of which Aquinas was a member).
** Being a monk is greater than being married and even greater in many ways than being a priest, but it is not as good as being a bishop. Both monks and bishops are in a state of perfection.
** It is always a good thing to become a monk or a nun.
** Everyone is called to religious life; it is easier than being married.
** Children should become nuns or monks, parents cannot stop children from becoming religious, and everyone should encourage others to do so. No deliberation is required to figure out if you should be one, and it is not necessary to already be holy to become a nun or a monk.
** Those who voluntarily practice poverty will be assistant judges at the final judgment.
** Martyrs, teachers of the faith (doctors), and virgins, in that order, receive special crowns in heaven for their achievements.
** If a person has a spell put on them to cause them to get married, that marriage is invalid.
** Although the Jews delivered Christ to die, it was the Gentiles who killed him, symbolising how salvation started with the Jews but then was spread to the Gentiles.
** Heavenly bodies, such as the planets, sun, moon, and stars, can somehow cause physical effects on the human body, leading to mood changes or changes in dreams.
** Homosexuality or bestiality may be a greater sin than rape.
** After the end of the world, in which all living material will be destroyed, the world will be composed of non-living matter (such as rocks), but it will be illuminated or enhanced in beauty by the fires of the apocalypse.

grace2u

2007-02-09 03:48:05 · answer #5 · answered by Theophilus 6 · 0 0

nicely, i understand I actual tend to prefer to look at issues in basic terms somewhat off the crushed direction and from way exterior the container, so i will furnish this one a try! i understand for a fact that it has each bit to do with the lack of ability of a superb of passage into adulthood in our subculture! the fact that mom & Dad are too bussy making a residing to furnish appropriate education with many families additionally finally leads to what you have termed "Marriage companions", as they frequently get married to get out of the homestead. This genuine loss of adulthood has no longer something to do with age, yet with a loss of being taught a value equipment as would be stumbled on interior maximum religious amassing places. infants exchange into fanatics via getting intercourse, and not understanding that a marriage is meant to be a bond of friendship no longer in basic terms lust! Do you realize that Divorce has exchange into the huge form one good of passage into adulthood interior the yankee subculture? Many think of that's the drivers license or turning 21... i assume the easy way is to declare that marriage companions have intercourse, whilst religious companions have intercourse. What passes for an intimate relationship with marriage companions isn't even stable foreplay while compaired to that of non secular companions! ME! .

2016-09-28 21:15:04 · answer #6 · answered by riopel 4 · 0 0

Good Point. I've read the book but had no idea how to answer it in such a forum.

2007-02-09 03:33:24 · answer #7 · answered by Ryan B 2 · 1 0

Theology is the diction. Aristotle is the sytnax.

2007-02-09 03:34:47 · answer #8 · answered by Aspurtaime Dog Sneeze 6 · 0 0

Thomas Aquinas Burned cats because he believed animals had no souls, he also killed women His philosophies belong in the trash, along with the rest of christianity.

2007-02-09 03:34:01 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 3

fedest.com, questions and answers