Does Aquinas argue for the existence of a soul that is separate from the body? Yes or no.
God is Good! And so random too.
- Thread starter SoProudNole
- Start date
Dunno...I'm not sure why your wording matters.
He believed the soul was immortal and immaterial and that most wouldn't make it to Heaven.
"Wording" is all. So Aquinas ascribed to the Greek tradition rather than the Biblical one. Might as well argue for Zeus.
You know exactly as much about that as I do. My opinion is no better than yours. If you need a heaven to justify your mortality, no problem. I don't - I'm perfectly ok with letting that play out however it does. I'd rather focus on the life I know I have and do what I can to leave this world a better place than I found it. If that isn't good enough for your heaven... f*ck it. Your heaven sucks a.ss.
So you bet on an outcome with zero evidence to support it because you fear "forever". And that's fine. I don't fear "forever". I'm not sure how to make that any clearer. As far as I'm concerned, any "god" that would ignore what you did over what you claimed to believe isn't worthy of the title.
I was always interested in the purpose to life and believe the purpose of life is to get to Heaven (and to get others there as well.)
Whatever you need to get you through your day. I have no need for a ridiculously wealthy church that sets criteria designed to enrich them even more. I can't even imagine what a poor, itinerant Jesus would say when faced with...I was always interested in the purpose to life and believe the purpose of life is to get to Heaven (and to get others there as well.)
Hey there ol’ Tar!
I agree with you a lot about Greek/gentile culture attributed to hell and what not. But, focusing on Jesus’s own words and Jewish tradition I think Jesus still had a LOT to say about the afterlife.
Curious, what are your thoughts on Matthew 22?
"If one exists"...well, it's a start.
Seriously, though, I think "zero" evidence is a bit overstated. There may be no conclusive scientific proof of a creator but there are certainly philosophical arguments and evidence that people reasonably point to such as the existence/origin of the universe, fine-tuning, consciousness, morality, etc. Now, you may find those arguments unpersuasive and thats fair. But dismissing them as literally zero evidence is different from demonstrating they have no evidentiary value.
It's astonishing to watch otherwise intelligent people do these mental gymnastics to convince, not only others, but themselves of this "reality". Amazing to witness
This is an interesting take- and I’m not arguing with it.
My perspective, however, is that there’s a lot of miracles happening in that cancer wing also.
Attachments
-
IMG_0031.jpeg -
IMG_8833.jpeg -
IMG_1907.jpeg
I don't think they're "mental gymnastics." FWIW, I almost never start these religious/God threads. I'll answer questions and give my thoughts when the subject comes up, but after 24+ years on here I've realized I'm probably not going to change many people's minds.
IMO, you can strip away the religion, the churches, the politics, the televangelists and the people who have weaponized Christianity, and actually examine the underlying questions: Why does anything exist? Why is the universe the way it is? Where does consciousness come from? Is there such a thing as objective morality? What do we make of the historical claims about Jesus?
You may decide the answers aren't persuasive, like tar, and that's completely fine. But there are serious philosophical arguments and historical claims behind it. Dismissing it as "zero evidence" or "mental gymnastics" doesn't really address any of it. Heck, you dont even have to find it convincing but that's different from pretending there is nothing there to consider.
And then there's Jesus himself. Forget Joel Osteen, forget the Catholic Church, forget every hypocritical Christian you've ever met...including some of us. Read what Jesus actually taught about how we're supposed to treat other people...forgive, serve, love our enemies, care for the poor and powerless, and judge ourselves before judging others. IMO that's remarkably different from the bs we see claiming to be "Christian" today.
As for the intelligent stuff...I don't think smart people have to be Christians. Obviously plenty aren't. I’ll just say Christianity isnt something only gullible or unintelligent people have believed. Alvin Plantinga was a philosopher whose work helped shape modern philosophy of religion and who argued belief in God need not be irrational. William Lane Craig is another philosopher and Christian apologist with doctorates in philosophy and theology. Historically, thinkers and scientists like Augustine, Aquinas, Pascal and Faraday took Christianity pretty seriously. None of that proves Christianity is true...I just think it shows we're not all crazy.
Lastly, I think the personal side gets missed in these conversations. For me, this is not just philosophy or an arguement to win. It is God as Creator, Jesus and what He did...and the way Scripture continues to convict/challenge me when I honestly apply it to my life. When I'm alone reading it...not using it for politics or to judge other people, but letting it speak to me...it is real in a way I can't explain away.
Last edited:
Jesus: So what do you think?
I raise my hand from the back.
Jesus (rolling eyes): Yes, John the Quaker...what now?
Me: Well... why wasn't e'erbody invited from the beginning? I mean they drag some poor slob off the street because the king's friends tell him to pound sand... this guy didn't even know there was a party, but he went when they told him there was a banquet. Wouldn't you? Then he gets tossed out because he didn't wear "wedding clothes"... whatever those are. Did he have time to change? Does he even have wedding clothes? Seems kinda bitchy of the king to me. If the king is that big of a dick, I might ignore an invitation, too.
Jesus: *sigh*
Me: Was there an open bar? Can the king do that trick of yours with wine? Except with scotch, maybe? Invite me and tell me there's an open bar and I'm there, Jesus. I'm just sayin'.
Pick better friends? Don’t be an ******* to some guy doing you a favor by showing up to your party on short notice? If you’re a king hosting a bbq, spring for some kegs? I might ask if this was the same king who ordered the genocide of the Amalekites... down to the last infant. If so, I don't care if he's got an open bar... I'm not going.
I understand you want this story to be profound... I'm not seeing it. I'm seeing a king who isn't liked nearly as much as he thought he was and then f*cks with a guy whose only "offense" was showing up on short notice while underdressed. Might be why people ignored his invitation in the first place. They know exactly who he is.
Last edited:
I think it shows Jesus and Jewish tradition had a LOT to say about the afterlife.Pick better friends? Don’t be an ******* to some guy doing you a favor by showing up to your party on short notice? If you’re a king hosting a bbq, spring for some kegs? I might ask if this was the same king who ordered the genocide of the Amalekites... down to the last infant. If so, I don't care if he's got an open bar... I'm not going.
I understand you want this story to be profound... I'm not seeing it. I'm seeing a king who isn't liked nearly as much as he thought he was and then f*cks with a guy whose only "offense" was showing up on short notice while underdressed. Might be why people ignored his invitation in the first place. They know exactly who he is.
I never said differently. What I did say is the Jewish and early NT versions of the afterlife differ significantly from what Christianity espouses today. The current Christian view of the afterlife borrows heavily from Greek philosophy and mythology.
That's an unproven theory from the atheist Bart Ehrman.
Also, there are countless saints and people that have experienced Heaven and Hell personally.
Last edited:
All questions currently being investigated. The disconnect comes when science says, "We don't know" and religion responds, "That's god". An absence of an explanation isn't evidence for anything.
Plato argued for the existence of a soul discrete from the body. Early Christianity argued for a body and “soul” that were one. That’s indisputable. Given that Christianity adopted the Greek view, that would be the superior view... right? But how do you test that? How do you even demonstrate the existence of a "soul"? What is it? Where is it? Is it immortal? How would you know? If you can't even propose a test much less execute one, what use is the concept - beyond making us feel good about ourselves?
This^^^all of this... and you see very little of that in Christianity today. Interesting to note that little of what Jesus taught appears in the creeds of Christianity today.
The Apostles Creed
I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, God’s only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
[he descended to the dead.]
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.
Not a single word about service. Not a single word about sacrifice. Not a word about the poor or the sick or the powerless. The core tenets of what Jesus actually taught are nowhere to be found. This isn't Christianity... it's Paulianity.
Plantinga is still alive. I'll credit him with being smart. Smart people are often wrong. He dismisses science when it becomes troublesome and went so far as to say: "[T]he scientific theory of evolution, sensibly enough, says nothing one way or the other about divine guidance. It doesn't say that evolution is divinely guided; it also doesn't say that it isn't. Like almost any theist, I reject unguided evolution; but the contemporary scientific theory of evolution just as such—apart from philosophical or theological add-ons—doesn't say that evolution is unguided. Like science in general, it makes no pronouncements on the existence or activity of God".As for the intelligent stuff...I don't think smart people have to be Christians. Obviously plenty aren't. I’ll just say Christianity isnt something only gullible or unintelligent people have believed. Alvin Plantinga was a philosopher whose work helped shape modern philosophy of religion and who argued belief in God need not be irrational. William Lane Craig is another philosopher and Christian apologist with doctorates in philosophy and theology. Historically, thinkers and scientists like Augustine, Aquinas, Pascal and Faraday took Christianity pretty seriously. None of that proves Christianity is true...I just think it shows we're not all crazy.
Science doesn't address the supernatural. By definition. And that is part and parcel of getting evolution wrong. No biologist would say evolution is "unguided". There's no such thing. Evolution is guided by circumstance. The competition to survive guides evolution. That's the "natural selection" part. The random part of evolution is "genetic mutation".
That it's extremely extravagant is demonstrated by the fact that over 99% of all species that have ever existed didn't survive. If that's how a creator came to produce today's world, it's wildly inefficient. More importantly, it doesn't in any way, demonstrate that WE are the purpose. If you accept divinely guided evolution... how do we know we are its goal? Because we write books telling ourselves it's so? What if we go extinct and some sentient species arises in 100 million years claiming it's what god had in mind all along?
Craig is of a similar stripe. He said: "Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter". Then he turns around and claims that science - the science he just dismissed - demonstrates the truth of God when it suits him. In his view, argument and evidence are only valid if he can twist them to meet his pre-established criteria. Otherwise, they can be dismissed out-of-hand.
You and I are of a mind on this. If it gives you comfort or purpose and doesn't infringe on the beliefs of other, think whatever you like. But, to get back to my original point, anyone who wants to claim divine intervention because THEY survived a bear attack either has to address why they were favored over those mauled to death by bears or be mocked for their hypocrisy. "Mysterious ways" is a cop-out.
I agree "mysterious ways" is a cop-out...espcially when it's used as an answer to difficult questions or questions we don't want to (or can't) answer. I don’t think the Christian answer to the bear example needs to be God specifically wanted that person to get mauled, or there was some secret reason God picked that particular person (to be mauled or spared)
We live in a fallen world. Sin didn't just mean humans started making bad choices...the whole creation is now subject to decay, suffering, and death, and is not yet what God ultimately intends to restore (restoration is a huge part of the story). Now, that doesn't make suffering easy or make every tragedy understandable..,for me it just means tragedy is something to be opposed, mourned and ultimately redeemed. It's not something we are supposed to call good, per se'.
Jesus himself rejected the idea tragedy automatically means the victim was somehow more sinful or deserved what happened. When people brought up the Galileans who were killed and the people crushed by the tower at Siloam Jesus didn't say, "Those people must have done something to deserve it." He rejected that premise. Same thing when his disciples asked whether a man's blindness was because of his sin or his parents' sin.
So no, I don’t think "the guy got mauled by a bear because God had a mysterious plan" is what Christians should be touting. I don’t know why that particular person suffered that particular tragedy and I'm not going to pretend I do. I will say this, I do believe that God can work something through every tragedy if we choose to turn our focus to Him.
As a CHrist follower, my position is death, suffering and disorder are features of a creation that is not yet what it is supposed to be. The Bible does not promise good people will not suffer in this life. It promises suffering and death do not get the final word. For me that different than "God made the bear attack him because some specific reasons."
------
And yup, you and I will always agree we should never govern through anyone's faith. I want a free society where people are free to live out, practice, and speak about their faith (or reject faith altogether) so long as they respect the same freedom and rights of everyone else. I can believe Christianity is true and try to live by it without believing the government should force anyone else to convert...never understood why believers try to hold non-believers accountable to Scripture. Makes zero sense to me.
Imagine what Christianity would look like if we were more focused on the service Jesus talked about...serving people, caring for the poor, forgiving, loving enemies, etc. than being fully focued on "behavior modification." Le sigh...
"For hundreds and thousands of years this kind of discussion would have been impossible to have or [we] would have been having it at the risk of our lives. Religion now comes to us in this smiley-faced ingratiating way because it's had to give so much ground and because we know so much more. But you've no right to forget the way it behaved when it was strong and when it really did believe it had God on its side".
-Christopher Hitchens
We condemn Islamic fundamentalism today and barely acknowledge where Christianity was as little as 200 years ago. In 1826, Cayetano Ripoll, after being imprisoned for two years, was hanged in Spain at the behest of the Catholic Church for teaching deism. He had been exposed to deism when he was imprisoned in France with Quakers. As a Quaker and a teacher, that hits a little close to home.
These are the folks who talk about "objective morality" based on the Bible. So that was objectively moral then... but not now? How does that work? Does "objective" mean something different than I thought?
Latest
-
01
Tiger Illustrated Football
A major challenge awaits Clemson's defensive front
-
02
Tiger Illustrated Football Recruiting
Wednesday Clemson Recruiting Nuggets: Updates on 4 stars Sam Walker, Camden Noe + official visit intel
-
03
Tiger Illustrated Football
Clemson is asking a lot of Tait Reynolds under current circumstances
-
04
On3 Football
The Athletic lists 15 Power Four roster budgets estimated to be over $35 million in 2026
-
05
Tiger Illustrated Football
WEDNESDAY INTERVIEWS: Chad Morris, Tait Reynolds, Devarrick Woods