Poll: Have you read "Summa Theologica"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter wussup
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

wussup

Guest
I was wondering how many of the participants have read “Summa Theologica”?
 
A rather intimidating tome but I hope to read much more of it.
 
If I’ve read portions of it for a class (well, the Prima Pars for three different classes totaling about 3/4 of it…) what do I choose?
 
Its a pretty deep book to wade through…I tried to read it and succeeded at some parts but its one of those books that I keep trying at when ever I get some free time.
 
It isn’t exactly a cover-to-cover kind of text (though anything can be read this way if you want to badly enough). I have read large portions, some of it in Latin, but nowhere near the whole thing. I am sure that over a lifetime of serious academic study, I will get through it.
 
The Summa Theologica is a very difficult text to handle, especially if you have no knowledge of the necessary philosophical lingo employed. Not to mention the fact that its a humongous book! You have to be very serious about study if you plan to conquer the mountain that is the Summa Theologica, and even then there is no guarantee that you will understand it or retain any of the knowledge inside. But consider this. If you do achieve the momentous feat of climbing such a mountain, in understanding it you will have achieved a great wealth of knowledge, which hopefully you will put to use by helping others understand it.
 
The ironic thing in all of this is that the Summa was intended as an introductory text for beginning theology students back in the Middle Ages. I somehow think that standards of scholarship have slipped a little in the area of theology. 😉
 
Katholish said:
The ironic thing in all of this is that the Summa was intended as an introductory text for beginning theology students back in the Middle Ages. I somehow think that standards of scholarship have slipped a little in the area of theology. 😉
Click to expand...
Theology is not taken seriously any more. The world of popular academics has taken care of that in my opinion.😦
 
MindOverMatter said:
Theology is not taken seriously any more. The world of popular academics has taken care of that in my opinion.😦
Click to expand...
Yes, curse those academics for foisting on us these useless studies like biology, algebra, a culturally balanced intake of literature, foreign languages, world history…We don’t need 'em as long as we got the Bible and our good ‘ol God-fearin’ culture! :rolleyes:
 
Oreoracle said:
Yes, curse those academics for foisting on us these useless studies like biology, algebra, a culturally balanced intake of literature, foreign languages, world history…We don’t need 'em as long as we got the Bible and our good ‘ol God-fearin’ culture! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Biology? Gregor Mendel, the man who discovered biological heredity, the father of genetics, was an Abbot of a monastery in what is now the Czech Republic. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel

Robert Grosseteste, the founder of the scientific method, was Bishop of Lincoln.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Grosseteste

Actually, here, a whole list of Christian thinkers in science en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science

I think you have Catholicism confused with Fundamentalism.
 
redhen said:
I think you have Catholicism confused with Fundamentalism.
Click to expand...
No, I just always have a good laugh when people suggest that theology is worth being taught in schools. What classes would we replace in favor of theology? And if it is possible to add theology into the mix without damaging the education of children, what would be taught there? Surely Catholics will say Catholicism, but since Catholicism has no evidence to support its metaphysical claims, it is no better than any other speculative metaphysical doctrine. No, if we teach one theory with no supporting evidence, it is only fair to teach them all. This means I could claim that the universe was hatched from a giant chicken named Lord Bawk-Bawk and demand that it be taught in schools, since my theory has achieved the same level of scientific excellence as any other form of intelligent design/creationism.
 
Oreoracle said:
No, I just always have a good laugh when people suggest that theology is worth being taught in schools. What classes would we replace in favor of theology?
Click to expand...
Why would one have to replace any classes?:confused:
 
Oreoracle said:
This means I could claim that the universe was hatched from a giant chicken named Lord Bawk-Bawk and demand that it be taught in schools, since my theory has achieved the same level of scientific excellence as any other form of intelligent design/creationism.
Click to expand...
If you could offer a rational behind your unique religion, and convince the LOCAL school board of the efficacy of your belief structure sure, why not give you and your Lord Bawk-Bawk, pbuh, your 5 minutes in the sun.

There is lots of room to teach a philosophy/religion class. Some of the ridiculous classes my children have to take are useless. The RCC has easily the best education system in America today and they teach religion.
 
Oreoracle said:
Yes, curse those academics for foisting on us these useless studies like biology, algebra, a culturally balanced intake of literature, foreign languages, world history…We don’t need 'em as long as we got the Bible and our good ‘ol God-fearin’ culture! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I have no problem with science. I say God have mercy on those who intend to force philosophical naturalism and atheism down are throats under the pretense that science supports it!!
 
MindOverMatter said:
Why would one have to replace any classes?:confused:
Click to expand...
My high school has only a few courses more than the average amount because of its selection of AP courses (those that allow for college credits to be obtained). Just recently, they had to cut a few classes, including Geography, because of their tight budget. Also, they made Driver’s Ed. a separate class (one not regarded as being part of the school’s curriculum), meaning that my parents had to pay $400 just to get me in the class. Schools don’t have as much room in their budget as people would like to think, and every additional class is an expensive prospect.
 
wussup said:
If you could offer a rational behind your unique religion, and convince the LOCAL school board of the efficacy of your belief structure sure, why not give you and your Lord Bawk-Bawk, pbuh, your 5 minutes in the sun.
Click to expand...
Simply stop and consider what a theology student’s schedule would look like if we had to give every crackpot theory its five minutes in the sun. There wouldn’t be enough time to cover all the material, even if the student took the class for their entire four years at high school. That’s eight semesters down the drain.
 
Oreoracle said:
No, I just always have a good laugh when people suggest that theology is worth being taught in schools.
Click to expand...
I guess it depends what you mean by schools. I think theology, philosophy of religion and comparative religions are valid studies for post secondary education.

I have a problem with early childhood catechism. The prefrontal cortex, which is responsible for higher order cognitive functions, is still in the development stage in adolescents.
 
The question is not one of substitution. It is a question of teaching people to think theologically. It can be taught along aside other world views, not as an absolute but as a way of orienting one’s thoughts.

I have to admit that “Americans” are already pretty poor in geography when compared to others. To see that even the poor teaching they receive today has been cut hurts. I went to a small school in Massachusetts in the '60’s and got a pretty good grounding, but because of my foreign birth and interest, I always did well in geography.
 
redhen said:
I guess it depends what you mean by schools. I think theology, philosophy of religion and comparative religions are valid studies for post secondary education.
Click to expand...
I agree. I’m talking about the people who believe that creationism should be taught alongside evolution (since evolution is usually required to be taught in some degree, it follows that it would be required to teach creationism). These people never tell you that there are different forms of creationism (one for nearly every religion) and they always default to the Christian version. This is absurd, because the Christian version has no more evidence to back it than any other iteration of creationism, so stating that only the Christian perspective should be taught is completely arbitrary.

Even if we elaborated on the perspectives of every major religion, it is still unfair to exclude the minor religions and the views held by individuals, since all have no evidence. We might as well have each student stand in front of the class and describe how they think the universe was created and who did it whilst citing no sources.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top