Oh that old one...can I assume that you are thin, catty, listen to Broadway musicals,and dress snappy?
It's been a long time since I studied this aspect of Christianity. I need to go back study it more. But I'll relay the story as best I can. I've forgotten the person's name. I can't remember who it was who talked to the chariot driver/Eunich in the road? But the hero of this biblical story is stopped I by this non christian, and asked about his faith. The hero doesn't judge the person, tell him he's wrong or going to hell for his conduct. The hero of the story listens and answers his questions. When he's done he moves on. He doesn't keep after the guy or any of the thing many modern day Christians do when trying to spread Jesus' word. In fact this example of spreading the word goes against the way many people evangilize.
Hey whoa! All I was trying to ask was if outlaw had read this work, which I consider prime for the average person interested in getting to the truth, or as you posit it in one of your earlier posts, the supreme absolute, which is a very good way to state it. If you know anything about Aquinas, which I'm guessing you do since you've cross referenced it with Damascene (which by the way I am very impressed you have read Damascene, I didn't think I'd ever hear that guy's name after I totally didn't pay attention to what he says in Systematic Theology I) you know that the Summa was to put it bluntly, written for the common man. It really isn't Aquinas to the full extent. Thats not to say that its wrong, its just that if you take his whole cannon of thought (which I haven't I'm definitely no Thomist, yet ) each argument in the Summa is drawn out into greater length and examined and clarified more deeply. I'm just saying for me, although I was raised with a pretty good faith, this book just did it for me, just totally got me engrossed in philosophy (even though I suck at it it was always my 3rd favorite subject) and I was thinking that it could help someone like outlaw diversify. Secondly to outlaw, diversity to me is kind of a joke. I go beyond culture. Human nature is the same everywhere and has been the same throughout time. The questions of Thucydides and Socrates are the same questions we think about today. outlaw dude, I just feel that a good metaphysics class is so essential to being a human, to look at and examine all of the conditions that surround our existence. I just think that its good that you take a look at these questions if you haven't already.
You make an excellent point, however, you could use the example in the Bible where Christ rebukes the pharicees for praying falsely in front of the chapel. I agree when its bad when one person tries to berate the other with his faith. However, like the good X-ian from the story you tell, there is nothing wrong with presenting the story. There is nothing wrong with telling someone something is wrong out of pure love for them and a want to see them do better. However, one should most assuredly take the beam out of their own eye before they start to talk about the splinter in someone else's and I think more often than not that this is the case in so called X-ian horror beatings. Far too many people do mess up when they try to do this, but it is just as easy to get mad at them as it is to get mad at the other person ( I don't know if that made any bit of grammatical sense)
Yes but the act of faith still takes reason. You really are getting in to an epistemelogical question, one of what it is the mind can know. By the way did you know Augustine wrote in the city of God, I doubt therefore I am. That's pretty interesting when you think about it. As for Descartes, for me the jury's still out, I'm gonna have some cool talks with my roomate who is getting his doctorate in philosophy pretty soon. I'll get back to you on him. I don't really think you can say the distinction between faith and reason is hollow. Like I said you are arguing more along the terms of epistemology, (which I totally got a bad grade in) i.e. the apple is red, how do I really know the apple is red. Hmmmm... I have to take it based on faith. In a way I think that kind of dehumanizes our rational gift, and I guess we just differ on this point. But I will bring it up with my roomie once I get back to Dallas and see what he thinks, because like I said, I suck at epistemology. Meno was a butt pirate but he asked the right questions. I don't know if I've ever agreed with his answers. Quite simply, like I said before. I disagree with your thoughts on faith's role on reason, and I think it stands just to repeat my earlier statement that even an act of faith takes reason as stimuli to even decide to do something. But like I said also, I suck at philosophy so I will ask my roomie and see what his opinion is, maybe I'll even make him join the BBS, even if he is a stupid Laker fan. No I'm not trying to use an Ad Hominem argument, its just that he's translating the Summa from Latin right now so he does have a good viewpoint. Yeah like I said, those were my rough composites from my phil of religion class. I agree Spinoza is no Machiavelle, yet he is a rationalist, which I have never really liked. My main contention with him is that religion just becomes about whatever you feel like. How do I feel about this and how do we feel about this. It takes so much away from what I believe in my faith, the power of the Eucharist able to unharden the harden heart. You know, just this real transformation that takes place, I mean its so real, and he denies it all but says to keep doing it because it makes you feel right. I think "(minus the belief part, well I guess in a way I can see what you are saying but I really do believe that is a seperate epistemological statement) Reason... the theological 1st step of faith on the road to religious conversion" is exactly what Aquinas is saying in the Summa Contra Gentiles (its the work that goes with Division of MEthods and Sciences, its a two parter). Which means, that A) I think you are very smart to have come to this conclusion, which I'm pretty sure if I was just doing free lance philosophy I would still be on 4 causes of a chair B) that I think you should change your name away from MacBeth, or the Duke, and change it to Prospero because those other guys are assholes. I really wish I could change my name cause I would change it to sonnet116. C) As you can see my thing is more English, and you are obvioulsy as read as a pretty decent professor in realms of philosophy, so I would appreciate a continuing dialogue in matters of this nature, I'm always trying to learn, Damn you Meno. What a pun if you think about it in English, Meknow! D) I need a beer. Peace and continue the good fight.
As I am a little in the sauce at the moment, I'll be brief. (thwy77, you have no idea the sighs of relief that would follow this statement were it directed at some posters in here... ) 1) Cool. Will look forward to it. 2) Cool. 3) Same. 4) Thanks for the compliments. And I went with MacBeth as he was probably my favorite seriosu role among those I've played, although Hamlet was up there, but I thought it would be a tad pretentious. Was never old enough to play Prospero, but have played Iago, Hamlet, MacB, Horatio, Hank Cinque, Tricky Dicky, among others...I just felt that MacBeth had the most potential drama as a charected in each scene, aside perhaps from Hamlet...also the sppech following "The Queen my Lord is dead" is the closest to pure Nihilism I have ever seen century ere it was a formally recognized creed. I will look forward to discussing English, as it ranks higher for me, too, than philosophy. My primary academic interests are Classics, History, English, Theatre, Film, International Relations, Philosophy, and Religion...as well, obviously, as Sports. The latter two are more hobby than practice. Any time I can discuss any of those in here, I'll jump in with both feet. I am currently developing an interdisciplinary thesis about the American sociological pattern of hero building/dismanteling in reflection of the belief in Democracy as it applies to those accepted as 'Great" American writers vs. 'Great' American books... The only fly in the ointment is, potentially, Steinbeck.
You want to help me diversify but you think diversity is a joke? Seriously, would you be happy if everyone on earth was a practicing Catholic (I'm lapsed if were wondering) and believed what you believe? You will be assimilated, resistance is futile? How do you know your answers are right? Because some Saint from 800 years ago said so? All this source quoting reminds me of the scene from Good Will Hunting 2: Hunting Season: CLARK: There's no problem. I was still just hoping you might give me some insight into the evolution of the market economy in the Southern Colonies. See, Wood says-- MATT/WILL (stepping in): What'd I say? Didn't I say you'd be back here regurgitating Gordon Wood. But you forgot about Vickers-- CLARK: No, I just read Vickers, so I'm up on inherited wealth, Hunting. But you're not the angry, brilliant young mind you once were, just itching to vent your frustrations. Once Sean told you it wasn't your fault, you lost the edge, William. You stopped hitting the books with a vengeance, and now I've read sh*t you haven't even heard about yet. Face facts, my friend--love made you a soft little p*ssy boy, unable to stand up to an academic showdown, like you used to. You're just no longer that good--Will Hunting. (gets in his face) Now how do you like them apples? BEN/CHUCKIE: I don't like the sound of them apples. Will, what're we gonna do now? MATT/WILL: Chuckie--(snarling) It's Hunting season. BEN/CHUCKIE: Apple sauce, b****.
course i did. hope you didn't find my initial comment offensive either. i just think it's cool you can be intelligent and sexy at the same time. now if only you were gay...
I'b be more interesting if I were, but sadly no, straght as an arrow. No, I don't find your initial comment offensive, although I did probably react a little knee-jerk, 'cause it is a common assumption. There were many stereotypes about models that I felt were justified; shallow, vain, promiscuous, gay ( for the men),drugs, and insular, but the stupid one was not true at all. Many of the people I worked with were, like me, doing it to get through school or save up for school. But combinations of the other true ones can make them seem much less intelligent than they are...
names please...Michael Bergin by any chance? Just as I was starting to respect you as a poster you come up with this gem.
I'm sorry if that offended you. I don't like Meno. He's mean. Did you get what I meant about diversity being a joke? Human nature is human nature, we basically move on the same impulses. Different perspectives of truth I guess could be viewed as "diversity", but everyone these days wants to move to diversity and unity, well I say we should make up our mind and pick one. Sure blacks and whites have different backgrounds, but when I'm arguing about something in philosophy then I don't think those backgrounds really matter. Man is man, not some other type of man if they are black or Muslim. We all face death, we all are here together. Oh, and when you are ragging on someone for using sources, its usually not good to use a source to do so. I don't really think you were trying to be ironic either. And yes I would like it if everyone were Catholic. Doesn't mean we wouldn't have our individuality. Oh I know I'm going to catch hell for that one but thats what I think. Sorry if it offends anyone.
Oh yeah and I was being ironic as hell when I told MacBeth it would help you diversify. I don't even think that makes sense as something to do. Businesses diversify. Humans learn.
You wouldn't know of any of them. Male models weren't 'names' back then. I can tell you this: if the percentages stayed roughly the same as they seemed to be when I was in the industry, you have a decent shot at any random male model being at least bi.
So you know how to use irony but I don't? I was actually just trying to be funny but if you haven't seen the source material then maybe you wouldn't get that can i just ask why does it matter to you? how do you even know the catholic faith is even the right one? has god spoken to you personally during communion or something? it's all just theories that can't be proven wrong or right. no matter how many philosophy books you read, you don't have any more answers about life than the rest of us.
Dear Mr. Outlaw, You asked me a question, "Would you like it if everyone were Catholic?" I answered yes, I would like it if everyone were Catholic. Catholic in itself means universal. In my life, I have come to respect the Catholic understanding of life as it has been taught to me and as I have seen it. I think it provides a happy way of life in which people respect the temselves, others, and God. To me it is harmony. Thus said, it still doesn't mean a hill of beans because I'm not trying to force you to be Catholic, you asked me if I would like it if everyone where Catholic, I said yes. Like MacBeth said earlier, why have beliefs if you don't believe they are right. I think my beliefs are right, and therefore why would I want people to have wrong beliefs, so lets say if I was elected Supreme Lord Chancellor of the World (not likely to happen) I would enjoy it if everyone was Catholic. As for not being able to prove faith, that is a no brainer because then it wouldn't be faith. Sincerely, twhy77 (worst screen name ever)
