Wow lots of insults. Good job.

(November 17, 2016 at 1:45 pm)Rhythm Wrote: ...Telling people that they'rte not full and whole, somehow, because they don't have jesus? [1] Put down the pipe, leave the theology and fishing of men to someone better qualified, and go do some work.  It would be better for the apologist, it would be better for the people he;s trying to bullshit, it would be better for the church, it would be better for the world. [2]

1) Where did I say that? I don't actually believe this, I don't believe I said it, but if I did I'd like to correct my error.

2) Make up your mind. One minute you're hassling me to keep talking, the next minute you're telling me to shut up. This is an internet forum, you can ignore what I write.

Also, I am here to get better at articulating things. I know I'm not good at it, but how else do you get good at things?

(November 17, 2016 at 12:51 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote:

(November 17, 2016 at 12:41 pm)Ignorant Wrote: No. God is the goodness in which things participate. The goodness of things will differ depending on the nature of that participation, which could be called a thing's "intrinsic goodness'. If that term is what you need to make sense of it, god is subsisting "intrinsic goodness"

Okay so, are you defining "God" as "the goodness in which things participate"?  Are you labelling the goodness within anything with the word "God"?

Yes. No.

(November 17, 2016 at 1:56 pm)Whateverist Wrote: This post ought to have received many more kudos, people.  You all should give props where they are deserved.  

---

---

Thank you for you kinds words!

(November 17, 2016 at 6:01 pm)Ignorant Wrote:

(November 17, 2016 at 1:45 pm)Rhythm Wrote: ...Telling people that they'rte not full and whole, somehow, because they don't have jesus? [1] Put down the pipe, leave the theology and fishing of men to someone better qualified, and go do some work.  It would be better for the apologist, it would be better for the people he;s trying to bullshit, it would be better for the church, it would be better for the world. [2]

1) Where did I say that? I don't actually believe this, I don't believe I said it, but if I did I'd like to correct my error.

Really?  Fucking -really-?  If I live my life as if there's no god, or I never understand god, If I never know god...what will I have missed out on.......what does belief in god or knowledge of god grant, by reference to your own statements earlier in thread......? Don't make the mistake of thinking that you can absolve yourself of the implications of your statements by mentioning that you didn't explicitly say them yourself. That's brinksmanship and deeply, deeply dishonest. I feel the need to remind you here, that doing this is to be deeply dishonest about something that is roundly dismissive of the very humanity of others........are you that guy, do you want to be that guy, does it need to be done in service of christ? I'd answer no to all three if I were you, and for you.

Quote:2) Make up your mind. One minute you're hassling me to keep talking, the next minute you're telling me to shut up. This is an internet forum, you can ignore what I write.

I;m imploring you to -step up-...not -shut up-.  

Quote:Also, I am here to get better at articulating things. I know I'm not good at it, but how else do you get good at things?

:channeling his inner jesuit:....by doing good work..........not -any- old work. I know you can do better because I've -seen- you do better, even if I don't agree.

(November 17, 2016 at 12:03 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Not me...so, clearly, not everyone. [1]

Not me.....so, clearly, not everyone. [2]

I guess I can stop you right there, since the rest requires these twin statements, both equally false on their faces, and without them, it crumbles. [3]

Should it [this anthropology be shared by everyone in western culture], is that what you heard in my ethical objection to the god of vicarious redemption? [4]

The business at the end was some serious scrote twisting.  You can;t really grant it in my cvase without contradicting your every statement and claim about god that preceeded it...you realize?

"Yes, see, my evil god was relevant to your happiness".  Really?  Sure, if that's the sense you want to refer to, and you don't mind your god being evil, lol?  How successful do you feel this has been, in that case?  Have you gotten your message across, or are you looking for a way to be right, no matter the consequence or implications? [5]

1) Oh really? Maybe that's why I didn't lead with Thomas, lol.

2) See #1

3) Right, because you want the bad aspects of things and not the good aspects?

4) My statement was sarcastic. The point being, almost no one holds Thomas's anthropology or metaphysics, so why would they relate to his theory of human happiness? Why would merely repeating Thomas's stuff in Thomas's terms be helpful to the modern western person? Oh ya, it's not.

5) Are you being serious right now? I don't share your understanding of god, and that is irrelevant. What I have told Robvalue and Alasdair is that the manner in which you understand the relation between god and humanity WILL DETERMINE the significance you hold for it. Your particular understanding of the hypothetical god demands that you care about it BECAUSE you hold it to be a relation with an evil god. If it existed, you couldn't remain neutral. That is why you would care about it.

Is it impossible to say that and not also hold that your understanding of god falls short of the actual Catholic teaching? No, it isn't.

(November 17, 2016 at 6:13 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Really?  Fucking -really-?  If I live my life as if there's no god, or I never understand god, If I never know god...what will I have missed out on.......what does belief in god or knowledge of god grant, by reference to your own statements earlier in thread......? [1] Don't make the mistake of thinking that you can absolve yourself of the implications of your statements by mentioning that you didn't explicitly say them yourself.  That's brinksmanship and deeply, deeply dishonest.  I feel the need to remind you here, that doing this is to be deeply dishonest about something that is roundly dismissive of the very humanity of others........are you that guy, do you want to be that guy, does it need to be done in service of christ?  I'd answer no to all three if I were you, and for you.   [2]

I;m imploring you to -step up-...not -shut up-.  

:channeling his inner jesuit:....by doing good work..........not -any- old work.  I know you can do better because I've -seen- you do better, even if I don't agree. [3]

1) The full human life would include living life according to all that is true about it. IF god is real, and IF the full human life consists in acting according to that knowledge, then living as if he is not real can't lead you to this full human life. Does that mean "you" have a shit life? Does that mean "you" are a horrible person? Does that mean "your" life is meaningless? No. I have never said that, and I never would. Even living as if there were no god can provide a certain fullness, but it can never be the fullEST because it is lacking a part of reality. Is that really that controversial? Even so:
You didn't say that is what I said, you said that I said: "[People are] not full and whole, somehow, because they don't have jesus"

I don't believe that. I believe people can lead a full human life without the Christian revelation. The Jesuits that taught you and me believe the same. They probably would also agree that a full human life can't be lived without "natural knowledge" of god. They also believe, like me, that living as if there were no god is not an automatic disqualification from heaven. Living (i.e. doing work) according to what you hold to be true is the measure. The Christian revelation teaches that Christ fills up what is lacking.

2) No I don't want to be that guy. I asked the question exactly BECAUSE I don't want to be that guy. Your assessment of my position was about a relation with Jesus, about which I have said very little. Your response made it clear that you meant god (i.e. god in the rational sense), not Jesus (i.e. god in the revelation sense). Thanks for clearing that up.

3) I really can't. I am sorry to disappoint you. 

(November 17, 2016 at 6:48 pm)Ignorant Wrote: 1) The full human life would include living life according to all that is true about it. IF god is real,

skiiiiiiiiiiirt.  You're about to take liberties not granted, aren't you? LOL. Your god is real for purposes of discussion, your every argument -about- that real god has not been granted.

Quote:I don't believe that. I believe people can lead a full human life without the Christian revelation. The Jesuits that taught you and me believe the same. They probably would also agree that a full human life can't be lived without "natural knowledge" of god.

Nope, they wouldn't, and your statements are false by reference to themselves in any case. If I can lead a full and human life without christian revelation that I don;t need jesus to live a full and human life. Jesus is not an issue of general revelation, jesus is an issue of special revelation. That's where the "christ" bit comes from.

Jesuits aren't classical thomists (something they've been getting shit for, for centuries - that would be the dominicans). They think that a full human life might be able to be lived by nothing other than good work.  After all....to do good work is to do gods work. Natural revelation?......any philosophy or theology, really, unnecessary. Good work, that's it, that's all. Jesuit pope says atheists can get into heaven. That's no revelation, special or general, no revelation whatsoever. Ignore that at your own peril, catholic.

(November 17, 2016 at 6:53 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Nope, they wouldn't, [1] and your statements are false by reference to themselves. Jesuits aren't thomists (something they've been getting shit for, for centuries). [2] They think that a full human life can be lived by nothing other than good work. [3] After all....to do good work is to do gods work. Agreed? [4]

1) I am currently being educated by Jesuits, and they taught me this exact thing. I don't know what to tell you.

2) I know several of Jesuits personally, and many of them are also Thomists. Two of the most influential renaissance Jesuits, Louis de Molina (joined the order while Ignatius was still living) and Francisco Suarez (who joined about a decade later), were both Thomists. They have had Thomists since the beginning. One of the two contributors to the "24 Theses of Thomas" was a Jesuit Thomist. They have been getting shit for centuries OVER Thomas, about whose teachings they had deep disagreements with the Dominicans (beginning with Molina's "new" interpretation). You don't need to be a Thomist to be a Jesuit, but to make a sweeping statement like "Jesuits aren't Thomists" is just not true. The Jesuits who taught you were probably not Thomists, and that's fine. 

3) No. Not all Jesuits think this.

4) Yes, doing good work is doing god's work. And doing good work because its god's work is better.

Oh boy, here we go again, bicker with me on everythng -except- the thing you were asked for.  Tell your jesuits that you're so bored that you're here at af, that you need more work to occupy you.

Do work, man, do work. Doing work -because- it's god's work doesn't make it better, that's just brown nosing. Doing good work even though you don't think it's gods work, no hope or belief in points or rewards...now that's -real- decency. Good for the sake of good, even when you can;t see it....not for the sake of god. Piety is the cloak of a wicked man. Earnest, unconditional, and unexpectent work is the labor of a saint.

(whatevs...lol, shades of apolorhythm?)

I;'m surprised to hear you imply disagreement with the pope, btw, as a catholic. Are you more qualified than the pope, Igno? Is the pope not the most qualified jesuit? In any case, jesuits think a great many different things, that's kind of the point.....lol. That's how they can produce a guy like me.....or a guy like you.