05 May 05
St. Thomas Aquinas argued against taking the bible literally. He referred to the six days in Genesis as being favored "by the superficial reading of Scripture."
Archbishop James Ussher proclaimed that every species of organism had been created at nightfall preceding Sunday, Oct. 23, 4004 BC and that they had remained permanently unaltered since then.
Whose hermeneutic principles is more relevant to Christians today?
05 May 05
2 edits
Originally posted by ColettiThe Catholic Church has no philosophy of its own. Thomism is highly regarded for its synthesis of the faith and philosophy, but so is Augustinianism and Scotism.
Since Aquinas is the official philosopher of the RCC, then I would say he had the greatest impact on Christianity.
EDIT: But yes, I'd say St. Thomas had the greater impact.
06 May 05
Originally posted by WulebgrI'm sure Bishop Ussher would receive the more vocal welcome from the extreme right of Christendom and more media attention; but I feel it is St. Thomas Aquinas who would feel more comfortable in the modern intellectual atmosphere. Most Christians recognise a smart bugger when they see one.
Letme restate the question for clarity: who would feel more at home, and receive a warmer welcome among Chritians today in America and elsewhere?
06 May 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou seem to imply that Ussher was not a smart bugger.
I'm sure Bishop Ussher would receive the more vocal welcome from the extreme right of Christendom and more media attention; but I feel it is St. Thomas Aquinas who would feel more comfortable in the modern intellectual atmosphere. Most Christians recognise a smart bugger when they see one.
06 May 05
Originally posted by WulebgrI'm sure Ussher was a reasonably smart chap in his day; after all, he was a well-known Biblical scholar. In a head-to-head, however, St. Thomas would've had him for dinner. Come to think of it, he wouldn't stand much of a chance against Augustine (who lived around a millennium before him) either. Several writers here on RHP (like Nemesio, for instance) would've given him a good run for his money.
You seem to imply that Ussher was not a smart bugger.
Based on their output, I think St. Thomas would've been the better placed of the two to synthesise Christian faith and modern technological and hermeneutical principles. In the wider Christian world (outside the sola scriptura/Bible inerrancy groups), his views would've gained more popularity.
09 May 05
Originally posted by WulebgrWait a minute? Where is this "elsewhere" of which you speak? I do hope that you are not implying the existence of a world outside of the U.S.A.? One with a couple of Christians in it?
Letme restate the question for clarity: who would feel more at home, and receive a warmer welcome among Chritians today in America and elsewhere?
Come now.... I find that to be rather far-fetched. 😕
09 May 06
Originally posted by Hand of HecateHe once PM'd me saying something like, "I hope you are not a Jew, cuz all Jews burn in Hell". I'm glad he was looking out for me.
What about the Jews Phlabibit?... tell us about the RB's wisdom regarding the Jews.
Did I ever tell you about the time I had Jesus in my heart next to Buddha and Jesus sucker punched Buddha for being a false God? Buddha was pretty upset, considering he never claimed to be a God.
P-
09 May 06
Originally posted by PhlabibitViolence is the only language Buddha understands.
He once PM'd me saying something like, "I hope you are not a Jew, cuz all Jews burn in Hell". I'm glad he was looking out for me.
Did I ever tell you about the time I had Jesus in my heart next to Buddha and Jesus sucker punched Buddha for being a false God? Buddha was pretty upset, considering he never claimed to be a God.
P-
