Comments on: Voinovich: ‘Get the hell out’

By: Kathleen Kotalik

Kathleen Kotalik — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 14:03:03 +0000

When is Congress going to stop sitting on their thumbs and do something about the Day Traders that are jacking up the price per barrel of oil so that gas prices are out of site? I heard comments that “over in Europe” they have been paying high prices at the pump for years. If they like us just accept this and not fight I don’t feel sorry for them . Why are we waiting for the “next” election to do something? People are losing their jobs from one end of the country to the other. Its sad that here in the United States,people must make a choice between food and travel to a job. WAKE-UP people, now is the time to do something>

By: Corkey

Corkey — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 02:34:13 +0000

Aquinas and Augustine and even Mother Teresa are irrelevant. All that is important is the testimony of Jesus Christ who forgave the adulterer (but told her not to sin again), rebuked those who accused her and proceeded to give the Sermon on the Mount, the greatest speech of all time.

The simplicity of Christ is a wonderful thing. I really don’t care what these well meaning churchmen said, all I care about is what JC said. He is the King of Kings and thats the bottom line. All who believe on him and repent are saved no matter what. There are no exceptions here.

Mother Teresa is not saved for what she did, she is saved by her faith and her good works are a manifestation of her faith. Get it??

By: John Lowell

John Lowell — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 22:16:05 +0000

Lawrence,

A major theologian speaking specifically in this work as an interpreter – got it – interpreter of Aquinas and in a context dealing with the very question on theological anthropology you raised and his remarks are rhetorical? Ratzinger is simply making speeches? You entertain! He’s telling you precisely what it is that’s in the theology of Aquinas, Lawrence, but for some reason – probably ego – that would seem too much for you to bear. Truthfully, sir, you are both a most obvious poseur and a collosal waste of my time. Please, no more.

By: Lawrence

Lawrence — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 21:31:52 +0000

You’ve proven my point. Ratzinger is not Aquinas. Instead, he is making a rhetorical point, not a theological one. What I said stands, and you will not find your statement in Aquinas, notwithstanding your tremendously huge and pendulous tutelage.

By: John Lowell

John Lowell — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 20:36:28 +0000

Lawrence,

“PS: I don’t think Aquinas would have said (as you did) that the “body is the form of the soul” in the reversible sense you have written.”

If I’m going to have to keep giving you tutelage regarding Aquinas, his sources and his interpreters, I’m going to have to send you an invoice. This from Joseph Ratzinger’s Eschatology, Death and Eternal Life, p. 149, after he had dissected in an immediately earlier passage the particulars of Aquinas’ anima forma corporis:

“And so we come at last to a really tremendous idea: the human spirit is so utterly one with the body that the term “form” can be used of the body and retain its proper meaning. Conversely, the form of the body is spirit …”

Ratzinger, of course, was at the time the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Church’s chief theologian. Today, he’s Pope Benedict XVI. I’ll let you grapple with him as to what Aquinas may or may not have had in mind.

By: Lawrence

Lawrence — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 20:16:37 +0000

Dear Anti-neocon, Justasking, and Corkey: I find John Lowell’s defense of suffering (via Mother Teresa) to be confusing especially since he is a self-proclaimed Thomist. Above all, Aquinas (John must know this) disagreed with the view (shared by Manichaeans) that we as humans are only souls trapped in bodies and that the tangible world around us is of no account. On that score, Mother T was still drinking at the poisoned well of Augustine (who himself was a Manachaean and never really shook it). Augustine sidetracked Catholic (western) theology in a number of ways (free choice, the ability to persecute heretics, and the proper relationship of man with the physical world). While I am fascinated with theology and am not a believer, that does not make me hostile to any church. Frankly, I find Aquinas to be an improvement over much of what surrounds me. Unfortunately, all of us are not certain about what constitutes consciousness, the soul, the ability to choose, etc.

By: Lawrence

Lawrence — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 18:46:07 +0000

correction: “in” the reversible sense

By: Lawrence

Lawrence — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 18:45:28 +0000

PS: I don’t think Aquinas would have said (as you did) that the “body is the form of the soul” is the reversible sense you have written. As to your other point, perhaps I should add mangled thalidomide Thomism into the mix (mea culpa for lack of comprehensiveness). Unlike your statements, mine are completely understandable (you seemed to have no trouble) and require no explanation to give them meaning.

By: Lawrence

Lawrence — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 18:34:59 +0000

Whenever I hear a Thomist deny the impact of Plato and Plotinus on Aquinas — despite the flow of Aristotelian works during that time into Aquinas’ purview — I realize that it’s a case of deep denial.

By: John Lowell

John Lowell — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 18:09:39 +0000

Lawrence:

And you talk of my mangled, Platonism/Neoplatonism transformed into its 21st-century thalidomide rendition! Believe me, son, my lack of clarity couldn’t possibly compete with yours. First af all, mine is a more a 20th century von Balthsarian/Thomism than anything else and that, if it has a debt to the ancients, is more to Aristole by far than Plato. And you should know that we don’t do theology here the way that you might fix an electronic device, by slipping in replacement modules – this time the consciousness module – when needed. So, in sum, if you’re having a hard time keeping up with the lexicon, go spend a little money on an education.

By: Lawrence

Lawrence — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:48:05 +0000

John: I think you missed my point (which was quite simple) in your mangled Platonism and Neoplatonism transformed into its 21st-century thalidomide rendition. I simply meant that Toth was substituting “consciousness” for what you meant by “soul.” Consequently, when is the soul part of the person, and Toth’s point was that it entered at the point of consciousness (which can be discussed as it is complex), that’s all–unless Toth wishes to correct my interpretation of his words. Please dialogue with us instead of wrapping us in confusing word-play.

By: John Lowell

John Lowell — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:29:45 +0000

Lawrence,

Consciousness – awareness, reason, however you may express it – is a property of the soul, or life principle, but it is not exhaustive of that concept. Will is another such property. The two of them, as aspects of the soul, count for the spiritual substance that coinheres with our biology to make up what we call a human being. The soul is the form of the body and the body the form of the soul, they mutually inform one another and make us what we are. And this composit human substance, considered as act, is what makes them personal, they are “in relation”, so to speak. One accomodates the idea of consciousness quite readily. It has no impact on what you regard as my “argument”.