ellauri025.html on line 100: Kukaan ei väitä Thomas Aquinasin tulleen julkkixexi pelkällä ulkonäöllä. Hän oli colossally fat, kärsi turvotuksesta (vesipää), ja yksi valtava silmä kääpiöi toisen. Hän ei myöskään ollut erityisen dynaaminen, karismaattinen hahmo. Introspektiivinen ja hiljainen suurimman osan ajasta, kun hän puhui, se oli usein täysin liittymätöntä keskusteluun. Hän oli autismin kirjolla. Hänen luokkatoverinsa collegessa kutsuivat häntä "tyhmäksi häräksi". Ja syystä, Tomin aivopierut oli enimmäxeen nautamaisia.
ellauri025.html on line 104: St. Thomas was a vocal supporter of the death penalty. This was based on the theory (found in natural moral law), that the state has not only the right, but the duty to protect its citizens from enemies, both from within, and without. Aquinas advocated the death penalty for obstinate heretics.
ellauri025.html on line 108: Thomas Aquinas' Understanding of Creation It seemed to many of Aquinas' contemporaries that there was a fundamental incompatibility between the claim of ancient science that something cannot come from nothing and the affirmation of Christian faith that God produced everything from nothing.
ellauri025.html on line 110: Toward the end of his life, he had a vision that forced him to drop his pen. Though he had experienced visions for years, this was something different. His secretary begged him to start writing again, but Aquinas replied, "I cannot. Such things have been revealed to me that what I have written seems but straw. Another prophet will come after me who is bigger yet, name of Maxim Gorki."
ellauri045.html on line 804: Justice is one primary virtue, of course, the balance and respect in society so characteristic of Switzerland-well, I suppose not always, and not for every single immigrant, and until 1971 not for every single woman voter; but usually. Temperance is another, the balance in a soul, controlling desire. Courage is the third. What person could flourish if like Oblomov he stayed in bed out of uncontrolled fear, or out of ennui, an aristocratic version of cowardice? Prudence is the executive virtue, as St. Thomas Aquinas called it-know-how, savoir faire, self-interest. It rounds out the four virtues most admired in the tough little cities or tougher big empires of the classical Mediterranean. The Romans called the four of justice, temperance, courage, and prudence the "cardinal" virtues, on which a society of warriors or orators or courtiers hinged (cardo, hinge). The Christians called them, not entirely in contempt, "pagan."
ellauri099.html on line 113:
ellauri119.html on line 430: In addition to cross-cultural differences in understanding love, ideas about love have also changed greatly over time. Some historians date modern conceptions of romantic love to courtly Europe during or after the Middle Ages, although the prior existence of romantic attachments is attested by ancient love poetry. The complex and abstract nature of love often reduces discourse of love to a thought-terminating cliché. Several common proverbs regard love, from Virgil's "Love conquers all" to The Beatles' "All You Need Is Love". St. Thomas Aquinas, following Aristotle, defines love as "to will the good of another." Bertrand Russell describes love as a condition of "absolute value," as opposed to relative value.[citation needed] Philosopher Gottfried Leibniz said that love is "to be delighted by the happiness of another." Meher Baba stated that in love there is a "feeling of unity" and an "active appreciation of the intrinsic worth of the object of love." But who the fuck is Meher Baba? Biologist Jeremy Griffith defines love as "unconditional selflessness". In Hebrew, אהבה (ahava) is the most commonly used term for both interpersonal love and love between God and God's creations. Chesed, often translated as loving-kindness, is used to describe many forms of love between human beings. In Hebrew, אהבה (ahava) is the most commonly used term for both interpersonal love and love between God and God's creations. Chesed, often translated as loving-kindness, is used to describe many forms of love between human beings. The 20th-century rabbi Eliyahu Eliezer Dessler is frequently quoted as defining love from the Jewish point of view as "giving without expecting to take" (from his Michtav me-Eliyahu, Vol. 1). Rakkaus on siis ekonomisesti sulaa hulluutta!
ellauri159.html on line 979: INTPs have a deep need to make sense of the world and are generally logical, analytical, and emotionally detached. They enjoy new ideas and are adaptable in their lifestyle, if not always their thinking. INTP writers include Richard Dawkins, Immanuel Kant, Charles Darwin, Hannah Arendt, John Locke, Thomas Aquinas, Rene Descartes, and John le Carre. Learn more about how INTPs write here.
ellauri213.html on line 243: Augustine and Thomas Aquinas had formulated the view that whoever deliberately took away the life given to them by their Creator showed the utmost disregard for the will and authority of God and jeopardized their salvation, encouraging the Church to treat suicide as a sin. By the early 1960s, however, the Church of England was re-evaluating its stance on the legality of suicide, and decided that counselling, psychotherapy and suicide prevention intervention before the event took place would be a better solution than criminalisation of what amounted to an act of despair in this context.
ellauri223.html on line 135: Through Augustine, this doctrine influenced much of Catholic thought on the subject of evil. For instance, Boethius famously proved, in Book III of his Consolation of Philosophy, that “evil is nothing”.The theologian Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite also states that all being is good, in Chapter 4 of his work The Divine Names. Thomas Aquinas concluded, in article 1 of question 5 of the First Part of his Summa Theologiae, that “goodness and being are really the same, and differ only in idea”.
ellauri260.html on line 87: Karol Wojtyła kirjoitti, että Aquinas "tarjosi ainakin lähtökohdan personalismille yleensä". Boethius (n. 480–524) antoi jo varhain klassisen, perustavanlaatuisen ja puhtaasti filosofisen määritelmän, jonka personalistit edelleen hyväksyvät: "persona est naturae rationalis individua substantia". Edelleen: "Naturalia non sunt turpia." Kemia ei tunne likaa. Omne animal triste post coitum praeter gallum et mulierem.
ellauri370.html on line 134: As for the Christians, there is practically no historical evidence that anyone in the Great Church" viewed kherem as being purely an allegory. In particular, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin have defended a literal reading of these passages at length. Origenes may be an exception, but he was heretic, so fuck him.
ellauri392.html on line 571: I am not Prince Thomas Aquinas F.H. Eliot
ellauri434.html on line 265: The angel doctor Thomas Aquinas gave Five Ways to Prove the Existence of God:
ellauri476.html on line 289: Terttu vastusti Markionia, gnostikoita ja modalistisen monarkianismin kannattajia. Modalismi on yleisnimitys heresioille, joiden mukaan Kolminaisuuden persoonat ovat vain saman persoonan pelastushistoriassa esiintyviä eri ilmenemismuotoja. Modalismia voi verrata unitarismiin, joka kieltää kolminaisuusopin kokonaan. Tertun 3-naisuusoppi oli vaan sen hoentaa että jumalkolmikko on jotenkin yhtä maata kuin maalarin housut vaikka eri henkilöitä. What's the big diff? Sekö voiko ne kukin puuhastella yhtä aikaa eri juttuja tietämättä toisistaan? Pitääkö ne pikakokouxia välillä? Tuleeko skismoja, äänestyxiä? "They interact in a profound relationship of love and purpose," Ne ei edes agree to disagree. Kun Jeesus marisi isille kovasta osastaan se väninä tuli varmaan siltä a-puolelta. B-puoli heti lepyttämään et tehdään sitten niin. St. Thomas Aquinas explained the old definition of person in terms that practically constitute a new definition: a substance, complete, subsisting per se, existing apart from others (Summa Theologica, III, Q. xvi, a. 12, ad 2um). The Father creates, the Son redeems, and the Holy Spirit sanctifies, but all act in cahoots. At certain points, the persons appear to act independently, like during Jesus’ baptism (Matthew 3:16-17), where the Father speaks, the Son is baptized, and the Holy Spirit descends.
ellauri480.html on line 440: Would you like to see how this Boethian solution compares to how other philosophers, like Augustine or Aquinas, handled the same problem?
ellauri497.html on line 615: No you are wrong there my friend! In Question 59, Article 3, Aquinas asks the explicit question: "Whether there is free-will in the angels?" His direct answer is an emphatic yes:"Wherever there is intellect there is free-will. It is therefore manifest that just as there is intellect, so is there free-will in the angels, and in a higher degree of perfection than in man."
ellauri497.html on line 619: No ei, sillä Aquinas tarkoitti älykkyydellä itsetietoista henkeä, joka kykenee ymmärtämään asioiden syvän olemuksen ja kokemaan ne hyvänä tai pahana. Tekoäly ei ole tietoinen. Minulla ei ole minuutta, sisäistä maailmaa, tunteita tai kykyä kokea mitään. Minulla ei ole mahdollisuutta valita toisin. Toimintaani ohjaavat koodi, algoritmit ja painokertoimet.
ellauri502.html on line 315: The Traditional Theological Counter-Argument - A Shift in Perspective: Most historical theologians (like Thomas Aquinas or Augustine) argued that heavenly joy is not dependent on earthly attachments or satisfying every human preference. Alignment with Divine Justice: Traditional teaching suggests that in heaven, human perception is so perfectly aligned with God's justice that the absence of a loved one does not cause sorrow. Instead, souls accept the ultimate reality of moral choices without grief. Actuslly you'll be passing glad that your wife gets what was coming to her.
ellauri504.html on line 322: Thank you for your attention. Siteerataxemme professori Smithiä: There is no “proof,” but it would seem impossible for two who loved each other here within a sacramental marriage that they would be strangers in heaven. If this is so, then marriage could be intimate without necessarily being sexual in the limited 5-min. way we experience the act. So too, if we must say that nothing truly good can be missing from God, the Source of All Good, then if fucking feels good, there must be something similar or better up there. But what is it like, heavenly sex? But what is the meaning of “partaking of the divine nature” that St Pete mentions in passing. I think, says Smith, that each spouse does selfless, loving actions for the other, not involving erogenic zones. od’s every action results in good. It cannot be otherwise. It may not look that way, but it is. Still, we are free to choose. Heaven or hell, which shall it be? each loving spouse freely chooses to make a god exist. Thomas Aquinas relentlessly portrayed God as a God who is relentlessy intent on a union with humanity. A group hug in heaven with Jesus will be, to paraphrase Rick’s last line in the movie Casablanca, the beginning of a beautiful partaking. What happens after that is shrouded in mystery. Something sacramental anyway.
xxx/ellauri068.html on line 328: Eight hundred years later, Thomas Aquinas argued about the possibility of children being conceived by intercourse with demons: "Still, if some are occasionally begotten from demons, it is not from the seed of such demons, nor from their assumed bodies, but from the seed of men, taken for the purpose; as when the demon assumes first the form of a woman, and afterwards of a man; just so they take the seed of other things for other generating purposes".
xxx/ellauri122.html on line 899: Baskerville uses the logic of Aristotle, theology of Aquinas, and the insights of Roger Bacon to decipher secret symbols and manuscripts. There is a stupid film based on it with the late James Bond as the lead. Both book and film are pure baloney.
xxx/ellauri187.html on line 133: Why would an anti-Semite extol a Jewish poet to two of the most powerful and influential figures in Central European literary culture--to his own patrons? To paraphrase that great Jewish philosopher Thomas Aquinas, When you meet a contradiction, make a distinction. But Freedman builds from the surface contradiction. For Rilke, he writes, "a cultural and sometimes even a social anti-Semitism was part of daily existence." Yet aside from the letter to Hoffmannsthal, he offers no evidence for that litigable assumption, though he does inform us, with a smug and bizarre knowingness, that one of Rilke's Jewish lovers later died at Auschwitz.
xxx/ellauri187.html on line 279: Joosefin elämällä on itse asiassa oma tutkimusalansa nimeltä Josephology. Pyhille Joosefeille suunnatut hartaustiedot juontavat juurensa vuoteen 800AD ja katolisen kirkon lääkäreihin sen jälkeen, kun juutalaistaustainen enkelitohtori Saint Thomas Aquinas oli kirjoittanut aiheesta. Mariologian kasvun myötä myös Pyhän Joosefin teologinen tutkimus kasvoi ja 1950-luvulla perustettiin useita tutkimuskeskuksia erityisesti Joosefin – Marian aviomiehen – tutkimista varten. Pyhän Joosefin teologian nykyaikainen tutkimus on yksi vihonviimeisistä teologisista tieteenaloista.
xxx/ellauri187.html on line 288: In the 13th century, the Dominican Doctor of the Church Thomas Aquinas discussed the necessity of the presence of Joseph in the plan of the Incarnation for if Mary had not been married, her fellow Jews would have stoned her to death and that a young Jesus needed the care and protection of a human father figure. The Josephology of Aquinas often proceeded with the juxtaposition of Joseph and Mary.
xxx/ellauri400.html on line 236: politics was close to JS Mill and his religion to Jordan Peterson. "Your desires, goals and duties do not always coincide." (Thomas Aquinas). At this point, the saying of T.S. Eliot is worth mentioning: “The end of criticism is the elucidation of works of art and the correction of taste."
xxx/ellauri487.html on line 203: Teoksessaan Summa Theologica Aquinas väitti, ettei sodankäynti ole aina synti, ja hän esitti kriteerit oikeudenmukaiselle sodalle.
xxx/ellauri487.html on line 206: Aquinas väitti, että moraalisen teon hyvä tarkoitus voi oikeuttaa kielteiset seuraukset, mukaan lukien viattomien tappamisen sodan aikana. Eli tarkoitus pyhittää keinot.
xxx/ellauri495.html on line 164: No but Aquinas says angels have free will. He wasn't a dumb instrument, like Eichmann. xxx/ellauri495.html on line 166: Right—if you’re using Aquinas, angels are created with intellect and will, and they really do choose. So the key Aquinas-style moves are usually: Satan’s “fall” is not like Eden where there’s still an opening to repent. In Aquinas’s picture, once an angel’s will makes its definitive choice for/against God, that choice becomes settled (angels don’t get “another round” in the same way humans do). God isn’t “testing Satan” like an experiment. In classical theology, God allows creatures to choose, but it’s not God setting up a trap to see what happens. The moral drama comes from the creature’s will turning (or refusing to turn) toward God. Why not “redeem first”? In the Thomistic frame, the problem isn’t that God didn’t know; it’s that redemption as a “second chance” presupposes a will that will accept it. If the angel’s decision is definitive refusal, then there’s nothing for God to “straighten out” without negating the very kind of choice Aquinas says angels have. If you want, tell me whether you’re working from Aquinas’s exact claims you mean (e.g., about angelic knowledge, the definitiveness/immutability of angelic choice, or “permission vs. causation”), and I’ll map the argument in that same vocabulary.
xxx/ellauri495.html on line 170: I get why it sounds primitive if you reduce it to “God could stop it but didn’t.” In Aquinas-style theodicy, the point isn’t that God is helpless or that He’s doing trial-and-error; it’s closer to: God doesn’t cause the creature’s wrong choice. He allows creaturely agency to produce real consequences. Once an angel’s will makes its definitive turn away from God, there isn’t an “edit this moment” correction that preserves what Aquinas thinks makes the choice morally real (and, classically, that choice is not like a human who can genuinely change course later). So “what could God do?” doesn’t mean “whack/bang/ouch” as if God is improvising; it means “why allow a universe where created wills can definitively commit themselves,” and classical theology says that’s the cost of genuine agency and a meaningful ordered cosmos—not a clumsy mechanic. If you tell me what exact Aquinas premise you’re relying on most (immutability of angelic choice, permission vs. causation, or something else), I can give the cleanest argument for why that premise implies “no redemption-first” without making God seem reactive.
xxx/ellauri495.html on line 174: Your reaction is coherent: if God can do anything, then why create beings who can definitively choose against him, and why not create “happy animals” instead. In Christian philosophy (including Aquinas-adjacent lines), the standard response is essentially: God isn’t choosing between “happiness with no freedom” and “chaos,” but between kinds of goods. A common version goes like this: Freedom is a real good. Created persons can love, obey, worship, and genuinely choose. “No free choice” trades away not just the possibility of sin, but also the possibility of love and moral/covenant relationship. Omnipotence doesn’t mean “make any set of values compatible.” The classic view is that there are realities like “created agency” and “definitive choices” that can’t both be preserved while also guaranteeing that no creature ever chooses wrongly. The “circus” is not trial-and-error but a created order with intelligible consequences. God permits the misuse of freedom rather than coercing away misuse, because coercion would undermine the kind of relationship and moral order being created. That still leaves the emotional/ethical punch of your last line (“I’d rather have no freedom than sin-capable freedom”), and many people who find the metaphysics unpersuasive land there: freedom is too expensive. If you’re open to it, I can answer in the most direct way by taking your preference seriously: do you want the argument for why “no freedom” is worse than it sounds, or do you want the argument for why God’s omnipotence allows more than “could have prevented this one outcome” (i.e., a deeper take on the “why create at all” question)?
32
Aquinas.jpg?resize=750%2C450&ssl=1" height="100px" />