Aquinas on Natural Law | Poal: Say what you want.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.

Click here to see all the comments (38).

[–] • -1 pt

I ask you again...are we in motion? Can you show me anything in existence that isn't defined by constant change?

The only thing that does not change is God, and anything essentially unified with Him (like Truth).

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

This thread and the responses you are getting exemplify why we need our own sub. I don't mean to disrespect EIM, but I actually can't even make sense of his posts. To my mind, they aren't even coherent. I think they're approaching something sensible - I believe EIM does have a legitimate idea in mind - which could be more well formed. It ought to be appreciated that this is coming from me, Deepak.

@ARM

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

I wrote my other comment about my eyes glazing over before I saw this comment. Yes, I'm on the same page - I sense there is some truth, at some level of understanding, to what he is saying, but his presentation or language or something is just so off that I can't parse it.

@ARM

parent
link

[+] [deleted] • 0 pt

[–] • 0 pt

as long as you don't proclaim it as a "truth" because that proclamation would make you the ONE defining for all other ONEs what ALL means.

I think this is reasonable - in a way. What you are basically saying is that we are finite creatures and we cannot, by our own powers anyway, fully understand the Divine. This is in accord with Church teaching.

But to say we can understand nothing of the Divine is a mistake. We have a rational nature, and the universe is intelligible. These two facts enable us to determine certain things that cannot be said of the Divine, and certain things which must be the case, necessarily. This is not the full picture, but it is part of it, and it is a meaningful fragment at that.

because believing represents ONEs ignorance of the rules laid out by the highest authority

If we acknowledge the Most High exists, then we can reasonably expect He would provide sufficiently for His purposes to be fulfilled through us. So it is not unreasonable to suggest that this Most High would provide a means in time (within the realm of motions) to guide those moving things in the use of their free will such that His will is accomplished, voluntarily, by them. That the Most High do this would actually be necessary (given that He chose to create us in the first place), based on what we already said about our inability as finite creatures to understand Him by our own power. So in principle my belief in the Church is not unreasonable, not mere ignorance.

@CHIRO @ARM

parent
link

[+] [deleted] • 0 pt

[–] • 0 pt

they mimicked from the father/son relationship, yet as I pointed out earlier...motion teaches us from inception over infancy to childhood to adulthood, that dependency becomes independent.

do you suppose this is intentional slieght of hand/Talmudic reasoning? (((they))) seem to hide the fallacy of god in plain view; a 'god' who is a 'father' of what should otherwise be an independent 'son'... as such those who accept get what is coming; an unnecessary over-controlling authority 'governing' your life; they rationalize & offload the karma of inflicting 'father gods' subsequent control by clearly exposing this fallacy in the terms for those who cared to assess the original offer.

The "highest authority" is not a creator; not a conscious being; not judging anything; not restricting ONEs actions in any way, shape or form. What it is; is information (energy) sustaining itself by inspiring each ONE within through motion.

If the 'highest authority' is simply energy self-sustaining (through us) does this not imply energy is self-architecting too? ie- our reality

For example, the world for which we find ourselves in - ALL a result of energy self sustaining itself. Energy's inception then must have architected itself to where we understand it to be today. Energy's movement from inception to this point could perhaps be also understood as its movement and thus its architecting of current state - eventually to a final state (death).

The next question I guess is the architeture up to us to build; ie- energy is simply a moving force and so the concious ONEs within thus are the designers & architects of what the experience looks like as the thing moves? ie- the birds, the bees, the trees and everything you sea not a concious design of this highest authority but rather the collective result of the actions of those who adhere to it?

Or, since energy may represent infinite information, would you rather explain our 'current world state' simply a result of our limited comprehension; that it is the comprehension of the ONEs which is responsible for the 'architecting' of the ALL for which the ONEs understand themselves to be inside; our ecosystem as we understand it to be is but a result of the extent of comprehension we collectively have applied thus far? And it is our comprehension, not energy itself, which drives the forthcoming 'architecting'; which is more of an unveiling process but again a process based on the free will choices & actions of the many; and thus again the manifestation of reality representing a seemingly random yet balanced pattern of motion (since our choices & actions are a result of adapting & adhering to the constant movement of energy) ?

> they mimicked from the father/son relationship, yet as I pointed out earlier...motion teaches us from inception over infancy to childhood to adulthood, that dependency becomes independent. do you suppose this is intentional slieght of hand/Talmudic reasoning? (((they))) seem to hide the fallacy of god in plain view; a 'god' who is a 'father' of what should otherwise be an independent 'son'... as such those who accept get what is coming; an unnecessary over-controlling authority 'governing' your life; they rationalize & offload the karma of inflicting 'father gods' subsequent control by clearly exposing this fallacy in the terms for those who cared to assess the original offer. > The "highest authority" is not a creator; not a conscious being; not judging anything; not restricting ONEs actions in any way, shape or form. What it is; is information (energy) sustaining itself by inspiring each ONE within through motion. If the 'highest authority' is simply energy self-sustaining (through us) does this not imply energy is self-architecting too? ie- our reality For example, the world for which we find ourselves in - ALL a result of energy self sustaining itself. Energy's inception then must have architected itself to where we understand it to be today. Energy's movement from inception to this point could perhaps be also understood as its movement and thus its architecting of current state - eventually to a final state (death). The next question I guess is the architeture up to us to build; ie- energy is simply a moving force and so the concious ONEs within thus are the designers & architects of what the experience looks like as the thing moves? ie- the birds, the bees, the trees and everything you sea not a concious design of this highest authority but rather the collective result of the actions of those who adhere to it? Or, since energy may represent infinite information, would you rather explain our 'current world state' simply a result of our limited comprehension; that it is the comprehension of the ONEs which is responsible for the 'architecting' of the ALL for which the ONEs understand themselves to be inside; our ecosystem as we understand it to be is but a result of the extent of comprehension we collectively have applied thus far? And it is our comprehension, not energy itself, which drives the forthcoming 'architecting'; which is more of an unveiling process but again a process based on the free will choices & actions of the many; and thus again the manifestation of reality representing a seemingly random yet balanced pattern of motion (since our choices & actions are a result of adapting & adhering to the constant movement of energy) ?

parent
link

[+] [deleted] • 0 pt