The universe could be made of intangible puppet strings for all we know, but for it to exist, it must have a shape and location.
My mind is open. I'm here, aren't I? It isn't that I haven't read Aquinas, it's that Aquinas birthed a revolution in thought that even God is subservient to reason.
That's not St. Thomas's position, Thomas would just say that God can be known, to a degree by natural reason alone, but not necessarily the Christian God, such as the trinitarian nature of the Godhead.
I agree the universe is material, obviously. But I also think Metaphysics is incredibly important and the most ignored aspect of Philosophy today, especially in academia and by modern "scientists" because it means they'd have to change their positions. Without the metaphysical, we couldn't have the physical. When St. Thomas discusses metaphysics, he comes to it by observing reality from the senses.
You might enjoy that book The Last Superstition by Edward Feser, he explains it pretty well in there.
Aquinas thought Yeshua Yosephson was YHWH made flesh. He believed God alone could forgive sins and Christ alone could pay their price. Let us forgive our trespassers as God forgave us and sacrifice ourselves for others as Christ sacrificed for us. It's anathema to the concept of justice, a satanic inversion of the Natural Law of reciprocity.
I'm enjoying talking to you. You're giving me home work. I listened to a few lectures by Edward Feser. He seems to borrow the polemic contrarianism of Hitchens without the relevant examples. The Ancients were brilliant, therefore God. Whereas Hitchens says Mother Teresa was a masochist, therefore no God. Both stupid arguments.
I do sincerely find Aquinas valuable, Christcuck he may be. He's not an oracle of reason. I can't find essence and being on the page you linked. I will read Summa Theologica. I did read his essay on Free Will. He states:
And forasmuch as man is rational is it necessary that man have a free-will.
His argument is contingent on rationality. If you read E. Bernays, D. Kahneman, or D. Ariely; you'd learn that people are predictably irrational creatures easily manipulated by dedicated people who care to master the occult arts of psychology. If this is the quality of thinking we're dealing with, it's gravely outdated and I think Aquinas would agree with me were he alive today.
Aquinas thought Yeshua Yosephson was YHWH made flesh. He believed God alone could forgive sins and Christ alone could pay their price. Let us forgive our trespassers as God forgave us and sacrifice ourselves for others as Christ sacrificed for us. It's anathema to the concept of justice, a satanic inversion of the Natural Law of reciprocity.
It is a supreme act of mercy, which isn't different than Justice. For someone who doesn't believe in the divinity of Christ, it might be difficult to understand. Christ is God incarnate. For God to take on a human nature, united to His divinity, suffer, die and rise again and conquer death and sin is the ultimate act of mercy and love towards His creatures. I'm not sure why you would say it's a Satanic inversion of Justice, people still go to Hell for rejecting this mercy. Christ's atonement was enough to cover the multitude of creatures sins because Christ is eternal, He is God, so for Him to become the sacrifice is enough to expiate the wrath of the Father in Justice for the sins of men. His blood is eternally and infinitely meritorious and efficacious, He alone was able to do this and show His supreme act of love and humility towards His creation.
Sacrificing for others doesn't mean you ignore when they do evil. The Church always punished sin, always teaches and has taught against it and Christ always condemned sin.
Here is the link to Being and Essence: https://isidore.co/aquinas/DeEnte&Essentia.htm
His argument is contingent on rationality.
All men are rational creatures, some use it better than others. It's part of human nature and what makes us human. Some people are irrational to greater or lesser degrees because they have sinned, or are ignorant, it is directly related to how sinful they are, they still have reason, they just make less use of it. Like a degenerate woman leftist would be a perfect example of this. Aristotle would be a great example of someone who used reason to the fullest. Both have reason, some are better at using it than others, but both of them freely make their own choices at the end of the day.
Psychology for the most part, only deals with the material or emotional states of creatures, it doesn't delve much into the immaterial aspects of the soul, although the material and emotional states are governed by reason. Too much emphasis is put on psychology today and not enough on the spiritual state of man. People are taking pills in record numbers for depression, some of them might have a legitimate use-case, but the vast majority of them are steeped in sin and are looking for happiness in the wrong place (drugs). Happiness consists in God and exercising virtue to the highest degree possible, and Aristotle taught that and wasn't even Catholic, but that's what the Church has always taught and believed.
Look, there isn't a material answer for everything. People are afraid to turn to God because it means they have to change their lives, people don't want to change their lives because it's hard, they'd rather just take Zoloft and look at porn.
We'll continue going down this dark path into degeneracy as long as God and traditional morals are kept out of the picture, it's just a fact.
(post is archived)