Talk:Thomas Aquinas

Removed "sophisticated theology"

As I understand it, "sophisticated theology" is a term used by the Dawkinites, not Something That Actually Exists. It would be hard for this text to be "foundational" to something that isn't really a thing. OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 00:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• Fair enough. I'm not worried about being edited as long as it improves things. And what's written in the Summa doesn't need any snark to look absurd. Neonchameleon (talk) 00:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Clarification of "Protestantism"

There is much you do not know about Protestantism if you think Calvinism, Lutheranism, and Anglicanism are the only or main variants. There are the Baptists, the Evangelicals (the "Bible-only" sorts which probably have the greatest ties to Baptists, if any), Congregationalists, Church of God, Church of Christ, Church of God in Christ, the Latter-Day Saints (some of whom are Trinitarian, such as the RLDS Church), as well as the 'thousands' of free churches the world over - especially in America - that are not associated with 'any' particular denomination.

So, no. By putting Calvinists, Lutherans, and Anglicans, I am 'not' contradicting myself, much as you would probably like me to be. Happy Christmas. 174.19.85.155 (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC) PS: I am never buying anything from Ford.

Notice how I actually wrote European Protestants in the text? So, I guess you've demonstrated about as much of ignorance about Europe (note where the aka redirects), as you accuse me of in not understanding Protestantism. Also, to call the Mormons simply "Protestant" is stretching the definition quite a bit - unless the definition of "Protestant" is something like "less different from Protestantism than from Catholicism or Orthodoxy", being one of "the 'thousands' of free churches the world over" (particularly if broadened further to include churches "not associated with 'any' particular denomination") is an extremely vague (and thus useless) definition. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you talking "European" geographically, or as in place of origin? If you mean place of origin, I agree; it is primarily the "American"-sprung varieties of Protestantism that are susceptible to ignorance. That being said, 1) it gets very confusing to say "European" when there are evangelicals in Europe, and scholarly Anglicans, Calvinists, and Lutherans in the Americas, Africa, and Asia, and 2) perhaps it would be simpler just to say Baptists, Evangelical, and Free Church Christians are unlikely to read Thomas Aquinas.

Also, I assume you have never heard of the "Reformed Latter Day Saint" movement? Or, as they call themselves, the "Community of Christ"? Granted, they share the "There is no God but Jesus and Joe is His Prophet" hangup, but I think they could be called Christian, given they 'are' Trinitarian. I also assume you have never heard of nondenominational Christianity, if you are under the impression that a Christian has to be tied to a particular denomination to be a Christian. Yes, that is the sad state of Protestantism. The only things all Protestants have in common are 1) that Jesus Christ "is Lord", whatever that means, 2) you can be saved by "faith alone" (whatever that means, 3) you can only know Him by "Scripture alone", and 4) the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are, to some degree, wrong. Thank you for playing. Happy Christmas. 174.19.85.155 (talk) 14:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Those variants of revivalist Christianity are all marginal in Europe (as in geography). Pretty much all the large Protestant denominations in Europe are either Anglican, Lutheran or Calvinist. The revivalist forms are, however, large and fast-growing in the U.S., Latin America, and Africa (particularly Sub-Saharan Africa). I know of non-denominational Christianity, but these are equally marginal in Europe, which was what I was talking about the whole time. So bringing these aspects up are just another red herring just as the ability to call variants of Mormonism "Christian" is irrelevant as to whether they can accurately be described as Protestant.

In answer to 1), it's basically no more "confusing" to use "European Protestants" to mean the aforementioned three predominant types (Anglicanism, Lutheranism or Calvinism), than it would be to use "Iranian Muslims" as a description of Twelver Shiites, as this is by far the predominant form of Islam in Iran, despite the existence of various other Islamic denominations in Iran.

As regards 2) I've now edited the text somewhat in this direction. As well as reinstated snark (which you apparently don't understand the meaning of).

Just as you claimed that others are here to "get dirt on the Catholic Church", am I wrong in that you came here to throw some dirt at Protestants and atheists and present the most charitable picture possible of self-same Catholic Church? All your edits, your barely concealed disgust with ("the sad state of") Protestantism, and your condescending remarks certainly seem to indicate it. That's why I don't feel very warm and fuzzy from your seasonal greetings. You're welcome. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

How far to silver?

*Dope ass rap gestures* Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

BadPhilosophy doesn't like it

Some decent criticism. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 13:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Revision of first via

Considering the "Big Bang" article references this quote: "A common misconception is that the big bang provides a theory of cosmic origins. It doesn't. The big bang is a theory … that delineates cosmic evolution from a split second after whatever happened to bring the universe into existence, but it says nothing at all about time zero itself. And since, according to the big bang theory, the bang is what is supposed to have happened at the beginning, the big bang leaves out the bang. It tells us nothing about what banged, why it banged, how it banged, or, frankly, whether it really banged at all." I fail to see how the Big Bang could be the first mover. As Brian Green said, we don't know what actually banged, why etc. Whatever banged is the origin and the cause (X) that made it realize its potentiality (to "bang") is either God or some unknown force (assuming there is a cause, otherwise I'd BSOD myself), therefore X is the substitute for a deity (or the deity himself). Claiming the Big Bang could substitute God is misleading and I think this part should be elaborated a little more. 170.83.121.57 (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd also like to point out that, at least from what I've read/heard, "bang" is a bit of a misnomer, since the event in question is believed to be a rapid expansion rather than an explosion of some sort. Slightly pedantic, but it seems some people in this debate sphere tend to trip over this point. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Misrepresentation

Several of the sections on the Five Ways criticize Aquinas for simply assuming that god possesses the traditional attributes of the Christian god. This is a bizarre critique, as Aquinas devotes a large number of subsequent passages in the Summa to demonstrating that god has these attributes, following a strategy that traces back at least to Aristotle (it matters in which order the attributes are introduced, because the conclusions from the earlier arguments become premises in the later arguments; Question 11, for instance, deals partly with whether there are multiple gods, and appeals to questions 3 and 4). Given that Aquinas does argue for these attributes, the article's objections are meager counterpoints and misrepresent Aquinas by implying that he does not address the issue. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 20:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)