John Platko wrote:

Agrippina wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Agrippina wrote::crazy:

Indeed, the online versions of the Bible should be:

"When his family heard about this they went to take charge of him, for they said, "he's ".

You know your superciliousness is not going to win you any brownie points on this forum.

That kind of comment won't get you any brownie points from me.

Calilasseia wrote:But of course, those of us concerned with proper discourse, aren't interested in brownie points. What we're interested in, is whether the ideas presented withstand appropriate scrutiny. If they don't they're discarded.

Agrippina wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Agrippina wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Indeed, the online versions of the Bible should be:

"When his family heard about this they went to take charge of him, for they said, "he's ".

You know your superciliousness is not going to win you any brownie points on this forum.

That kind of comment won't get you any brownie points from me.

Do I look like I care? If you want to engage with people who are educated about what they're discussing, at least give them the respect of using proper language. Calling the topic of the conversation "loony" only leads to a derail regarding what is actually meant by the term. But then that's your posting style isn't it? When the discussion isn't going your way, introduce some one-liner to derail the discussion, and then follow it up with condescension. (And no that's not a personal attack, the evidence of this behaviour is all over this forum. I'm not the only person who's told you not be condescending).

John Platko wrote:

Agrippina wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Agrippina wrote:

You know your superciliousness is not going to win you any brownie points on this forum.

That kind of comment won't get you any brownie points from me.

Do I look like I care? If you want to engage with people who are educated about what they're discussing, at least give them the respect of using proper language. Calling the topic of the conversation "loony" only leads to a derail regarding what is actually meant by the term. But then that's your posting style isn't it? When the discussion isn't going your way, introduce some one-liner to derail the discussion, and then follow it up with condescension. (And no that's not a personal attack, the evidence of this behaviour is all over this forum. I'm not the only person who's told you not be condescending).

As I amply demonstrated, "loony" is an appropriate synonym for the more commonly found word "crazy" which appears in the Bible passage I was discussing. And a bit more in keeping with the historical period that is being referred to since the field of psychology was not on the playing field of the time in question.

proudfootz wrote:One difficulty apparent to me is the notions of this god being 'pure act' and all that.

It seems that this god is depicted as imparting all kinds of qualities to its creations which the god itself has none of: complexity, potential, moral agency, etc.

proudfootz wrote:One difficulty apparent to me is the notions of this god being 'pure act' and all that.

It seems that this god is depicted as imparting all kinds of qualities to its creations which the god itself has none of: complexity, potential, moral agency, etc.

John Platko wrote:

proudfootz wrote:One difficulty apparent to me is the notions of this god being 'pure act' and all that.

It seems that this god is depicted as imparting all kinds of qualities to its creations which the god itself has none of: complexity, potential, moral agency, etc.

Interesting, for me imagining God as "pure act" is among the least troubling of the Thomistic fantasies of what is and what should be. I mean, I can sort of go along with imagining God as a Star Wars like "the force" moving through things- but when Aquinas starts piling on other attributes to this "force" the nightmare begins for me.

John Platko wrote:

proudfootz wrote:One difficulty apparent to me is the notions of this god being 'pure act' and all that.

It seems that this god is depicted as imparting all kinds of qualities to its creations which the god itself has none of: complexity, potential, moral agency, etc.

Interesting, for me imagining God as "pure act" is among the least troubling of the Thomistic fantasies of what is and what should be. I mean, I can sort of go along with imagining God as a Star Wars like "the force" moving through things- but when Aquinas starts piling on other attributes to this "force" the nightmare begins for me.

Exodus 35:2 For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.
Leviticus 10:1-2 AND Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not. And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.
Leviticus 24:16 anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death.
Deuteronomy 13:6-15 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, Let us go and worship other gods gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other , do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you to live in that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, Let us go and worship other gods gods you have not known , then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock.
Deuteronomy 17:3-5...and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars of the sky, and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death.
Deuteronomy 20: 10-14 When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with the, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD they God hath given thee.
Deuteronomy 20:16-18 But of the cities of these people which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee: That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the LORD your God.
Deuteronomy 28:27 The LORD will smite thee with the botch of Egypt, and with the emerods, and with the scab, and with the itch, whereof thou canst not be healed.
Joshua 10:11 And it came to pass, as they fled from before Israel, and were in the going down to Bethhoron, that the LORD cast down great stones from heaven upon them unto Azekah, and they died they were more which died with hailstones than they whom the children of Israel slew with the sword.
I Samuel 5:6 But the hand of the LORD was heavy upon them of Ashdod, and he destroyed them, and smote them with emerods, [even] Ashdod and the coasts thereof
I Samuel 5:9 And it was [so], that, after they had carried it about, the hand of the LORD was against the city with a very great destruction and he smote the men of the city, both small and great, and they had emerods in their secret parts.
I Samuel 5:11 And they laid the ark of the Lord upon the cart, and the coffer with the mice of gold and the images of their emerods.
I Samuel 5:19 And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the Lord, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men and the people lamented, because the Lord had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter.
I Kings 18:38 Then the fire of the LORD fell, and consumed the burnt sacrifice, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench.
2 Kings 19:35 And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the LORD went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses.
Psalm 139:21 Do I not hate those who hate you, O LORD, and abhor those who rise up against you? I have nothing but hatred for them;  I count them my enemies.
Proverbs 8:13 The fear of the Lord is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the forward mouth, do I hate.
Isaiah 29:14 Therefore once more I will astound these people with wonder upon wonder;        the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish.
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness I make peace, and create evil I the LORD do all these things.
Jeremiah 9:4-6  Beware of your friends; do not trust your brothers. For every brother is a deceiver, and every friend a slanderer. Friend deceives friend,  and no one speaks the truth.        They have taught their tongues to lie; they weary themselves with sinning.  You live in the midst of deception;  in their deceit they refuse to acknowledge me, declares the LORD.
Galatians 5:12 I wish those who unsettle you would castrate themselves!

proudfootz wrote:

John Platko wrote:

proudfootz wrote:One difficulty apparent to me is the notions of this god being 'pure act' and all that.

It seems that this god is depicted as imparting all kinds of qualities to its creations which the god itself has none of: complexity, potential, moral agency, etc.

Interesting, for me imagining God as "pure act" is among the least troubling of the Thomistic fantasies of what is and what should be. I mean, I can sort of go along with imagining God as a Star Wars like "the force" moving through things- but when Aquinas starts piling on other attributes to this "force" the nightmare begins for me.

I don't think there is any commonality between the 'god of the philosophers' and the 'god of the christians'.

John Platko wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

John Platko wrote:

proudfootz wrote:One difficulty apparent to me is the notions of this god being 'pure act' and all that.

It seems that this god is depicted as imparting all kinds of qualities to its creations which the god itself has none of: complexity, potential, moral agency, etc.

Interesting, for me imagining God as "pure act" is among the least troubling of the Thomistic fantasies of what is and what should be. I mean, I can sort of go along with imagining God as a Star Wars like "the force" moving through things- but when Aquinas starts piling on other attributes to this "force" the nightmare begins for me.

I don't think there is any commonality between the 'god of the philosophers' and the 'god of the christians'.

Which Christian God are you talking about? It seems to me that the official Catholic God has been heavenly morphed into the god of the philosophers by Aquinas.

proudfootz wrote:

John Platko wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Interesting, for me imagining God as "pure act" is among the least troubling of the Thomistic fantasies of what is and what should be. I mean, I can sort of go along with imagining God as a Star Wars like "the force" moving through things- but when Aquinas starts piling on other attributes to this "force" the nightmare begins for me.

I don't think there is any commonality between the 'god of the philosophers' and the 'god of the christians'.

Which Christian God are you talking about? It seems to me that the official Catholic God has been heavenly morphed into the god of the philosophers by Aquinas.

The one that hears and answers prayers, acts in history, impregnates young girls, visits holy people with stigmata... the one Catholics worship.

John Platko wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

John Platko wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

I don't think there is any commonality between the 'god of the philosophers' and the 'god of the christians'.

Which Christian God are you talking about? It seems to me that the official Catholic God has been heavenly morphed into the god of the philosophers by Aquinas.

The one that hears and answers prayers, acts in history, impregnates young girls, visits holy people with stigmata... the one Catholics worship.

Catholics merged that God with the philosophers God in the 13th century.

Agrippina wrote:

John Platko wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Which Christian God are you talking about? It seems to me that the official Catholic God has been heavenly morphed into the god of the philosophers by Aquinas.

The one that hears and answers prayers, acts in history, impregnates young girls, visits holy people with stigmata... the one Catholics worship.

Catholics merged that God with the philosophers God in the 13th century.

Bullshit, as long as people are taught to feel guilty about sex, and not allowed to use birth control, the mindset is still very much that of the pre-reformation world.

John Platko wrote:

Agrippina wrote:

John Platko wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

The one that hears and answers prayers, acts in history, impregnates young girls, visits holy people with stigmata... the one Catholics worship.

Catholics merged that God with the philosophers God in the 13th century.

Bullshit, as long as people are taught to feel guilty about sex, and not allowed to use birth control, the mindset is still very much that of the pre-reformation world.

The catholic position on birth control comes directly from philosophical ideas. Specifically, the concept of final cause.

John Platko wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

John Platko wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

I don't think there is any commonality between the 'god of the philosophers' and the 'god of the christians'.

Which Christian God are you talking about? It seems to me that the official Catholic God has been heavenly morphed into the god of the philosophers by Aquinas.

The one that hears and answers prayers, acts in history, impregnates young girls, visits holy people with stigmata... the one Catholics worship.

Catholics merged that God with the philosophers God in the 13th century.

You really don't have a clue about this subject. Aquinas helped bring Aristotle I to the mix, forcefully. Before that time, the Catholic God was still depicted in Greek philosophy, though it had more of a neo-platonic or platonic influence.