Summa Theologica
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-02-2013, 12:01 PM
Summa Theologica
Is it worth reading and critiquing? I've never read it and I was curious any thoughts? My religion teacher says that Thomas Aquinas was very logical and clear in his works.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-02-2013, 12:04 PM
RE: Summa Theologica
(11-02-2013 12:01 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  Is it worth reading and critiquing? I've never read it and I was curious any thoughts? My religion teacher says that Thomas Aquinas was very logical and clear in his works.
Oh yes. Just check this:

Quote: "Woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence, such as that of a south wind, which is moist."
That's very logical and clear to me. No

DISCLAIMER: If you find a message from me offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it.
If you don't know how to ignore a message, complain to me and I will be happy to demonstrate.

[Image: tta.php]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-02-2013, 12:11 PM
RE: Summa Theologica
(11-02-2013 12:01 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  Is it worth reading and critiquing? I've never read it and I was curious any thoughts? My religion teacher says that Thomas Aquinas was very logical and clear in his works.
It' worth reading, just so you will know what he's all about. His arguments are "said" to be "logical", in fact he's pretty easy to debunk, but you should see for yourself. We've talked about him here .
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ht=Aquinas

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-02-2013, 12:15 PM
RE: Summa Theologica
(11-02-2013 12:04 PM)KVron Wrote:  
(11-02-2013 12:01 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  Is it worth reading and critiquing? I've never read it and I was curious any thoughts? My religion teacher says that Thomas Aquinas was very logical and clear in his works.
Oh yes. Just check this:

Quote: "Woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence, such as that of a south wind, which is moist."
That's very logical and clear to me. No
He also said in the Compendium of Theology that the reason the serpent approahed Eve first was because "the light of reason shone less brightly in her". He hated women, and he thought they were flawed men. Now is it any wonder the Roman Church has the attitudes it does ? Weeping

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
11-02-2013, 12:18 PM
RE: Summa Theologica
Not worth reading. 1300 pages of dense, cumbersome logical arguments translated from Latin making the same fallacies you hear out of all modern theists, often not even hidden or disguised by the writing style. Only about 1/8th of the book has to do with proving god, with the rest being dedicated to obscure theological bullshit, and that 1/8th is not all in one place, it's in chapters spread willy-nilly through the text because Aquinas wrote in "cycles" of topics, an idea fortunately long left behind in the wastebin of poor literary choices.


It's a dreary, dull read. Give it a miss unless reading it is absolutely critical to winning a debate.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-02-2013, 12:25 PM
RE: Summa Theologica
(11-02-2013 12:18 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  Not worth reading. 1300 pages of dense, cumbersome logical arguments translated from Latin making the same fallacies you hear out of all modern theists, often not even hidden or disguised by the writing style. Only about 1/8th of the book has to do with proving god, with the rest being dedicated to obscure theological bullshit, and that 1/8th is not all in one place, it's in chapters spread willy-nilly through the text because Aquinas wrote in "cycles" of topics, an idea fortunately long left behind in the wastebin of poor literary choices.


It's a dreary, dull read. Give it a miss unless reading it is absolutely critical to winning a debate.
They also want you to forget that he was denounced as a heretic, and banned for a long time, by the Archbishop of Paris in the Condemnations of 1277.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/condemnation/

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-02-2013, 01:47 PM
RE: Summa Theologica
(11-02-2013 12:04 PM)KVron Wrote:  
Quote: "Woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence, such as that of a south wind, which is moist."
That's very logical and clear to me. No

What exactly do you disagree with? Sounds just about right to me. Or do you prefer to call spades pitchforks?

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderò."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: