Roy Moore


The debate (well, sometime after it was about Roy Moore) was about WHETHER OR NOT GOD IS A BEING.

He is.

“I AM.”

Your argument is sophistry lawyer-talk.



And like it or not FC, there has been discussion on that going back 1800 years.

I didn’t come to you, you came to me about this. I wasn’t even talking to you when I brought this up.

Which means, if you aren’t prepared to make the argument based on claims I was operating on, you weren’t coming to discuss anything.

You were coming to pontificate.

Yes, and so what? I just showed you two sources of people using that to affirm God as Being-itself.

This isn’t a counter, this you not acknowledging what I was saying.

It’s you, delving into a sophistic straw man.

Nope, this has been debunked. Aquinas shows nothing I’ve done here is something philosophers haven’t already been doing, centuries before you were even born.

Quit defending your on-the-spot assumptions of what I was doing, as none of them were right.

Every single one of your accusations of me, came back to your own lack of familiarity with the topic. I tried to help you with that, I even provided you with people arguing from the “against” position, simply for the sake of transparency. To make it clear I wasn’t hiding anything of the argument.

You ignored all of it.


And that means what?


Aquinas isn’t God, and isn’t the end-all, be-all authority on God. The Bible goes back a lot further than Aquinas, and God supercedes the Bible. He is not “self-generating.” He is. He has no origin. He is the origin of everything.


That I didn’t make this up, and that I’m not double talking.

He’s using his own lack of familiarity as a grounds to make accusations of me.

I’m saying, he can’t do that if he’s engaging me honestly

I gave him every opportunity to check the debate for himself, I even gave him sources for the opposite side of it; basically giving him resources to argue against me.

If he’s still claiming “you’re double talking”, then he isn’t paying attention.

This is how the debate manifested. I chose neither the words, nor the framework for how the matter is debated. I used what already existed.


I’m not quoting him as an authority, but as Social proof that this is how the debate has been discussed.

Aquinas used the same terminology I’am. And Aquinas was borrowing from Aristotle.

You cannot accuse me of “double talking” when generations of philosophers, even the ones who disagreed, discussed the issue with the same language.

The point is, the accusation was wrong.


Uh, Aristotle lived 3 CENTURIES before Christ, so what HE has to say about God and His existence is immaterial.


Moses lived far before that. So did many Jewish philosophers/prophets. Further, Aristotle wasn’t talking about a man-embodied messianic figure, but the greater existence of the creator, or the “Good” as explored by Plato.

Both Aquinas, and St. Augustine, took that work and expanded on it in a way that reconciled it with Christian perceptions on God.

A great deal of Christian epistemology of metaphysics, comes from Classical Greek culture. “It’s baked into our cake” as it were. All of the Greek-speaking fathers of Church contributed to that outcome, to include Paul.


Yet, it’s CHRIST who confirmed the reality of God’s existence to us…not Aristotle’s OPINION. We have no evidence that Aristotle ever even HEARD of Moses.


No… we knew God existed. He’d only been speaking to us for around 3,000 years by that point.
(Ark of the Covenant?) Plus, the entire point of both the Greek philosophers and Aquinas, is that God’s existence is made evident by concepts that can be observed in nature, or by its forms.

So you’re not approaching this right. This isn’t simply theology, but philosophy that was developing over time.

The culture that intitally produced Christianity wasn’t very intricate; while the Greeks had a very well developed culture, with its own technical language for exploring metaphysics.

Thus, if you’re an early Christian philosopher, interested in exploring those same metaphysics, whose work do you go on?

The Levantine culture whose work on this was either non-existent or was destroyed long ago, or the Greeks, whose language you likely speak & read in anyway?

Paul did it, and because Paul did it, St. Augustine did it more, and then after coming back from the fall of the Roman Empire, St. Aquinas and his mentor (Saint Albert the Great) re-discovered their work & expanded even more on it.


Which doesn’t mean that Aristotle said ANYTHING of relevance to Christianity on which Aquinas could hang his hat.


Not Christianity; God. A creator. Plenty of disciplines have dialectics on God.

To include philosophy. Which Aquinas delved quite deeply in, using the language the Greeks first explored.

This isn’t simply a matter concerning theology. It’s incorrect to boil down the issue to that, as it ignores what Aquinas and Augustine were doing. Using evidence from reality, to substantiate what theology says of reality.

External verification of Christianity’s veracity in how it approached the world.


Yet Aristotle believed in Zeus, Hera, Aphrodite, etc.


No, Aristotle called his God “The Prime Mover”.

He was a pagan, but that doesn’t matter here. His point was that a Creator can be discerned through extrapolations of metaphysics & nature.

Christian Theologians & philosophers have every reason to agree with that assumption, hence why they appropriated the dialectic Aristotle and Plato started for their own purposes.


Finding historical figures who embraced blasphemy is not hard, they have existed for all of human history.

They have also frequently risen to prominence in religious faiths that they rejected in their views.

Both the old and new testaments record the condemnation of such individuals when they exist within the Church, those not part of the Church are ignored because they obviously will be steeped in error.

The Bible is the source of wisdom regarding who and what God is, any view that must ignore scripture in favor of the babblings of men is self evidently worthless; whether that voice is within the church or not.

The Living God is a person and a being regardless of how limited we are in understanding His power and methods of using those powers to advance His agenda.

There is nothing in Scripture that says all “beings” are limited, there is only the revelation that all things which are created are inferior to their Creator.

Man was created in God’s image.
Christ was the exact representation of God.
God’s Creation was intentional, planned and executed in every way via God’s personal involvement.

Those who attempted to redefine God as a “force”, an “uninvolved creator” or a “non physical entity” were condemned in scripture.

All error has existed for as long as truth has existed, neither time nor notoriety can change heresy into truth.


? Blasphemy? It’s closer to orthodoxy. St. Augustine lived in the time of the Church that compiled the Bible.
A church that spoke Koine Greek and Aramaic, and likely had the original manuscripts of the New Testament.

Not only did this Church not condemn Augustine for saying this, they embraced the idea (an idea Augustine didn’t originate, it predates even him).

The Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, and the Protestant branches that maintained philosophical traditions, all of them continued this view on God. It’s why you see the Pope speaking it today.

Feel free to adopt a different position, but this is the one the early Church stood behind, and passed on to those who value tradition.

It is scriptural. We already went over that.

Be certain you’re referring to the same understanding of “Being”. Here is St. Aquinas’ definition once more.

Again, I think a misunderstanding occurred, where some thought this meant denying God had thoughts or personality or desires. This isn’t the case. Nor is this a promotion of Deism. St. Aquinas and the others most certainly weren’t advocating that.


The current Pope is a perfect example of a man who disregards Scripture rising to a place of great prominence in a religious organization, Christianity does not get rewritten every time some smoke puffs out of the Vatican chimney.

Citing men in place of Scripture is the equivalent of admitting that Scripture says the opposite of your position.

The Scripture defines its own term and supplies its own context, it also is pretty clear about what will happen to those who add or subtract from Scripture in order to push different doctrines.


Pope Benedict XVI spoke on it too. Same to John Paul II.

No RET, this is not something new or unique to Pope Francis; it’s been part of the Christian dialectic on God for over 1800 years, if not more.

Catholicism stakes itself on Thomism, and Thomism posits this view on God. It’s baked into the cake. Thomism in turn takes it queues from earlier Doctors of the Church; Benedict, Jerome, Ambrose, Gregory, etc.

But in case you try to label it as just being some “Catholic thing”, go look at Paul Tillich.

Scripture was cited. Quit the nonsense.

This is not always true, for instance, Biblical Angelic canon is incomplete, because it took it from another source. Something you can find in more complete form by reading the Kabbalah.

The Jews complimented the Bible with both Oral & written traditions, and the Bible itself advocates doing this.

“Bible alone” is not the faith of the Jews or the early Christians. There was always something else they were using to compliment it.

Susanna said before that there are truths the Bible doesn’t explore; and that’s precisely what philosophy is good for, along with exploring implications the Bible only hints at. Hence why so many successive generations of Christian theologians have taken an interest in it.


I specifically said in no uncertain terms or possible to miss context that error was just as old as truth, the repeated attempt to claim that I am calling your error “something new” is just an attempt to shift the discussion away from the Scripture and toward something that you think you can defend.

Which means you cannot defend your position using Scripture, as a Christian why would I care what any other source thinks on matters relating to the nature of my God?


It’s hard for you to call it error, when the people who compiled the Bible, spoke its language, and had the original manuscripts, agreed with this conception.

They were more likely than any of us to know what is correct here. But the disagreement may just be superficial, as again, did you read the definition? I’m not certain you know what the claim here is.

What you said here:

Those who attempted to redefine God as a “force”, an “uninvolved creator” or a “non physical entity” were condemned in scripture.

Is not what they’re saying, by calling God “Being itself”. It does not deny personal involvement by God.

So did you read the definition? I can’t even be sure that the disagreement is on the same thing.