A Bible question!!

[Kidlicious]

Thomas Aquinas did believe in natural law but he didn't believe in individual rights. He believed that heretics should be punished by death. Why? So that the masses wouldn't be led astray.

[Ben Kenobi]

What's the problem with answering my question?

Because it's imprecise?

Thomas Aquinas did believe in natural law but he didn't believe in individual rights. He believed that heretics should be punished by death. Why? So that the masses wouldn't be led astray.

Uh, pretty silly of him to say that when he was under interdict for most of his life.

Yes, he believed in individual rights, and if you're going to argue that Aquinas said X, you'd better cite it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Let's see... I agree with BK and Kid on Jepthah. There is too much evidence that Jepthah's rash oath was not considered a good thing (as with many Biblical narratives the story is just presented as is, and there is no immediate judgement, good or bad, because the reader knows - its kind of like writing a history of Japanese internment by the US during WW2; does the author need to state it was wrong or does his silence on morality mean he approves of it?).

I disagree with BK and agree with Kid on natural rights. People take too many "rights" and call them God given. Jesus had little time for politics or the political structures of the day - give to Caesar what is Caesar's. We were called to love God with all our hearts, minds, and souls and love our neighbor as ourselves. "Rights" are human creations to deal with an imperfect society.

[Kidlicious]

BTW, Boris, if you don't mind my asking, why do you participate in these arguments? I'm just curious, because obviously you're not going to change BK's mind, nor Kid's, nor they yours. The argument doesn't really expand anyone's horizons either. Do you just enjoy the exercise of debate, or is it a way of letting off steam or something? It's puzzling to me, since a never-ending, unproductive argument over religion is my idea of perfect misery.

Although I disagree with Boris, it has not been unproductive for me.

[Kidlicious]

Because it's imprecise?

No it's not.

Uh, pretty silly of him to say that when he was under interdict for most of his life.

Yes, he believed in individual rights, and if you're going to argue that Aquinas said X, you'd better cite it.

wikipedia. There. Your turn.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oh crap... you can't even mention that word around Ben. He won't accept anything from wikipedia, regardless of how well sourced it may be.

[Kidlicious]

Will he accept anything at all?

[Felch]

Fox News

[Ben Kenobi]

wikipedia. There. Your turn.

Are you even familiar with what he wrote about Averreos?

He repudiated Averreos' claim that there was one soul for all of mankind, arguing in favour of individual liberty and responsibility.

Wikipedia *fart in general direction*. Good for finding primary sources, not good for much else.

You can find the source here:

http://dhspriory.org/thomas/DeUnitateIntellectus.htm

"If then intellect is not something of this man such that it is truly one with him, but is united to him only through phantasms or as a mover, will would not be in man, but in the separated intellect. And thus a man would not have dominion over his acts, nor could anyone be praised or blamed for his acts, which is to destroy the principles of moral philosophy. And since that is absurd and out of keeping with human life—it would be unnecessary to take counsel or to pass laws —it follows that intellect is united to us in such a way that we are truly one with it, which can only be in the way suggested, namely, that it be a power of the soul which is united to us as our form. It follows then that this must be held without any doubt, not because of the revelation of faith, as our opponents say, but because to deny it is go against things manifestly obvious.
"

Chapter 3 Paragraph 82. Translated from the latin.

Now, where's your citation?

[Ben Kenobi]

Will he accept anything at all?

Wikipedia has inline citations. Cite me the primary source that supports your claim and I can look it up for myself.

[Ben Kenobi]

I disagree with BK and agree with Kid on natural rights. People take too many "rights" and call them God given. Jesus had little time for politics or the political structures of the day - give to Caesar what is Caesar's. We were called to love God with all our hearts, minds, and souls and love our neighbor as ourselves. "Rights" are human creations to deal with an imperfect society.

Rights are not 'human created', but are granted by God. Arguing that

1. 'rights are political'
2. Jesus wasn't political

Ergo:

3. Jesus ergo didn't grant rights to people.

Dude, which premise do you want me to attack? 1 or 2? Take your pick.

[Kidlicious]

Are you even familiar with what he wrote about Averreos?

He repudiated Averreos' claim that there was one soul for all of mankind, arguing in favour of individual liberty and responsibility.

Wikipedia *fart in general direction*. Good for finding primary sources, not good for much else.

You can find the source here:

http://dhspriory.org/thomas/DeUnitateIntellectus.htm

"If then intellect is not something of this man such that it is truly one with him, but is united to him only through phantasms or as a mover, will would not be in man, but in the separated intellect. And thus a man would not have dominion over his acts, nor could anyone be praised or blamed for his acts, which is to destroy the principles of moral philosophy. And since that is absurd and out of keeping with human life—it would be unnecessary to take counsel or to pass laws —it follows that intellect is united to us in such a way that we are truly one with it, which can only be in the way suggested, namely, that it be a power of the soul which is united to us as our form. It follows then that this must be held without any doubt, not because of the revelation of faith, as our opponents say, but because to deny it is go against things manifestly obvious.
"

Chapter 3 Paragraph 82. Translated from the latin.

Now, where's your citation?

He never mentions political rights at all.

[Kidlicious]

The prmary source for my claim that Aquinas said that heretics should be executed is Summa Theologica, second part of the second part, question 11, article 3

[giblets]

The prmary source for my claim that Aquinas said that heretics should be executed is Summa Theologica, second part of the second part, question 11, article 3

I answer that, With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3011.htm

Wow, he doesn't seem like a first amendment kind of guy.

[Ben Kenobi]

He never mentions political rights at all.

Umm, wtf? Ok dude, I dunno what to say.

He's arguing that natural rights exist. That rights have nothing to do with politics.