(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.
