I spoke about seg with mr.Korte. He says there is more to it then the newspaper alone.And you could send me the copy of the whole report.Can you do so? Your dad's phone was disconnected... :o Hope he's all right? I contacted John about it.Not an answer yet. Jessica should contact you.Hope she does this time!
Article 1. Whether it is natural for man to possess external things?
Objection 1. It would seem that it is not natural for man to possess external things. For no man should ascribe to himself that which is God's. Now the dominion over all creatures is proper to God, according to Psalm 23:1, "The earth is the Lord's," etc. Therefore it is not natural for man to possess external things.
Objection 2. Further, Basil in expounding the words of the rich man (Luke 12:18), "I will gather all things that are grown to me, and my goods," says [Hom. in Luc. xii, 18]: "Tell me: which are thine? where did you take them from and bring them into being?" Now whatever man possesses naturally, he can fittingly call his own. Therefore man does not naturally possess external things.
Objection 3. Further, according to Ambrose (De Trin. i [De Fide, ad Gratianum, i, 1) "dominion denotes power." But man has no power over external things, since he can work no change in their nature. Therefore the possession of external things is not natural to man.
On the contrary, It is written (Psalm 8:8): "Thou hast subjected all things under his feet."
I answer that, External things can be considered in two ways. First, as regards their nature, and this is not subject to the power of man, but only to the power of God Whose mere will all things obey. Secondly, as regards their use, and in this way, man has a natural dominion over external things, because, by his reason and will, he is able to use them for his own profit, as they were made on his account: for the imperfect is always for the sake of the perfect, as stated above (Question 64, Article 1). It is by this argument that the Philosopher proves (Polit. i, 3) that the possession of external things is natural to man. Moreover, this natural dominion of man over other creatures, which is competent to man in respect of his reason wherein God's image resides, is shown forth in man's creation (Genesis 1:26) by the words: "Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea," etc.
Reply to Objection 1. God has sovereign dominion over all things: and He, according to His providence, directed certain things to the sustenance of man's body. For this reason man has a natural dominion over things, as regards the power to make use of them.
Reply to Objection 2. The rich man is reproved for deeming external things to belong to him principally, as though he had not received them from another, namely from God.
Reply to Objection 3. This argument considers the dominion over external things as regards their nature. Such a dominion belongs to God alone, as stated above.
(Continued from before) I think your recommendation for law enforcement is spot-on. It does seem like we have the resources to stop these recent terrorist attacks: we just need to better understand and process the information. Perhaps better computer programs or organizing can help us make sense of the red flags that go up left and right. Plain old experience and discernment is key as well. I’ve heard a big problem in Europe is that the countries don’t have as coordinated an intelligence-gathering community as we do. I remember they were talking about that following the Brussels bombing. The recent tragedy in France is another knife in the heart. We need to pray for protection over all of us – not just the potential terrorist victims, but those who might be easily led to and manipulated by terrorist propaganda.
Finally, I have an article from Thomas Aquinas on property. As you might know, Aquinas is a famous philosopher and theologian from the Middle Ages. He was a Dominican friar living in France. In this article, Aquinas explores whether it is natural and right for a person to possess material things. His famous format is to ask a question, state a couple objections, answer to the contrary, and then respond to the objections. I hope you have fun with this! It’s good to keep the brain active. Take care now.
“Nothing but hopes and dreams, but hopes and dreams can sometimes be the most powerful forces in the world.” Amen, bro! That sounds like something from the hearts of the world’s most dynamic people.
Dix is a true role model. If I ever stop by Kent State University, I will make sure to check out the stadium. I hope it’s as prodigious in size as he is in strength. I think the comparison between your mom and Dix is a very revealing and humbling one. Thanks for opening up and sharing honestly about that. I’ve met people from the ghettos of Chicago, and they often worry about just what you were talking: people inventing excuses not to work, to remain complacent in their situation. When you live in an impoverished environment, it can be spiritually, emotionally, and even physically draining. At the end of the day, you feel like you don’t have enough energy to escape it. Other people do have that energy, but they are constantly handicapped by environmental, societal, or personal factors. For instance, you might want to go make something of yourself, but you have to expend all your energy caring for your sister’s five children. We definitely need to pray for compassion, grace, energy, and opportunity, both within and without poor communities. We’ve overcome great challenges as a nation: I know we can diminish poverty as well.
Your question about Stephen Hawking is a fantastic one. Sometimes towering intellectuals are very intimidating, even if they are not trying to be so. The complexity and creativity of their ideas can seem to make them immune to common sense critique. Still, if an idea seems somehow flawed, one should press further: nail down the critique in precise language, or with a helpful example. Consider what Mr. Hawking might say in response, and try to amend the objection so as to anticipate his response. After forging such a critique, crafting and tweaking it, one should present it to him in a respectable manner, in which one is more concerned with figuring out the problem than proving someone wrong. I think these things – effort, counter-consideration, respect, and humility – are the right methods for critiquing someone’s theory. Otherwise, one can put off the person they’re critiquing, and rightly so: who wants to respond to the critique of a bitter, disrespectful skeptic? In my personal experience, I’ve found that many bright intellectuals are acutely aware of the possible objections and flaws with their theories. They try to respond as best they can to their skeptics, and (hopefully) have respect for their questioners. Perhaps their responses are convincing to you, perhaps not. It might be that the prominent intellectual and skeptic operate according to different background assumptions. By the way, I would love to hear what you have to say about Hawking’s presentation. I don’t know too much about his theories, but it would still be interesting to hear what you think. (Continued onto next page)
Thank you for this thought provoking piece. I wonder if the Bible quote should be than: judge wisely... etc. Who knows what got lost in translation. But I guess I get your point. I do not judge has a layer of I do not relate, an absence of relationship. Take Care, Ju
You have said some pretty distasteful things in your blogs but to state that because he was "trained by his country to be a killer" we shouldn't be surprised that he murdered someone has got to be as low as you can get.
This is deeply disrespectful to the many, many thousands who have since served and were also "trained by their country to be killers" but have not subsequently slaughtered anyone.
Eight months ago I was Director of Security and my demise was imminent when you presented all your carefully collated evidence. What happened to that? Didn't go so well, huh.
Now I'm a lowly subcontracted employee that you're fixating on. Maybe you're getting bad information. I have told you repeatedly that I am not now, never have been and never will be employed in the Massachusetts Department of Correction.
RSS
I spoke about seg with mr.Korte. He says there is more to it then the newspaper alone.And you could send me the copy of the whole report.Can you do so?
Your dad's phone was disconnected... :o
Hope he's all right? I contacted John about it.Not an answer yet. Jessica should contact you.Hope she does this time!
xxx from Rita
Objection 1. It would seem that it is not natural for man to possess external things. For no man should ascribe to himself that which is God's. Now the dominion over all creatures is proper to God, according to Psalm 23:1, "The earth is the Lord's," etc. Therefore it is not natural for man to possess external things.
Objection 2. Further, Basil in expounding the words of the rich man (Luke 12:18), "I will gather all things that are grown to me, and my goods," says [Hom. in Luc. xii, 18]: "Tell me: which are thine? where did you take them from and bring them into being?" Now whatever man possesses naturally, he can fittingly call his own. Therefore man does not naturally possess external things.
Objection 3. Further, according to Ambrose (De Trin. i [De Fide, ad Gratianum, i, 1) "dominion denotes power." But man has no power over external things, since he can work no change in their nature. Therefore the possession of external things is not natural to man.
On the contrary, It is written (Psalm 8:8): "Thou hast subjected all things under his feet."
I answer that, External things can be considered in two ways. First, as regards their nature, and this is not subject to the power of man, but only to the power of God Whose mere will all things obey. Secondly, as regards their use, and in this way, man has a natural dominion over external things, because, by his reason and will, he is able to use them for his own profit, as they were made on his account: for the imperfect is always for the sake of the perfect, as stated above (Question 64, Article 1). It is by this argument that the Philosopher proves (Polit. i, 3) that the possession of external things is natural to man. Moreover, this natural dominion of man over other creatures, which is competent to man in respect of his reason wherein God's image resides, is shown forth in man's creation (Genesis 1:26) by the words: "Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea," etc.
Reply to Objection 1. God has sovereign dominion over all things: and He, according to His providence, directed certain things to the sustenance of man's body. For this reason man has a natural dominion over things, as regards the power to make use of them.
Reply to Objection 2. The rich man is reproved for deeming external things to belong to him principally, as though he had not received them from another, namely from God.
Reply to Objection 3. This argument considers the dominion over external things as regards their nature. Such a dominion belongs to God alone, as stated above.
I think your recommendation for law enforcement is spot-on. It does seem like we have the resources to stop these recent terrorist attacks: we just need to better understand and process the information. Perhaps better computer programs or organizing can help us make sense of the red flags that go up left and right. Plain old experience and discernment is key as well. I’ve heard a big problem in Europe is that the countries don’t have as coordinated an intelligence-gathering community as we do. I remember they were talking about that following the Brussels bombing. The recent tragedy in France is another knife in the heart. We need to pray for protection over all of us – not just the potential terrorist victims, but those who might be easily led to and manipulated by terrorist propaganda.
Finally, I have an article from Thomas Aquinas on property. As you might know, Aquinas is a famous philosopher and theologian from the Middle Ages. He was a Dominican friar living in France. In this article, Aquinas explores whether it is natural and right for a person to possess material things. His famous format is to ask a question, state a couple objections, answer to the contrary, and then respond to the objections. I hope you have fun with this! It’s good to keep the brain active. Take care now.
--Calhoun25
“Nothing but hopes and dreams, but hopes and dreams can sometimes be the most powerful forces in the world.” Amen, bro! That sounds like something from the hearts of the world’s most dynamic people.
Dix is a true role model. If I ever stop by Kent State University, I will make sure to check out the stadium. I hope it’s as prodigious in size as he is in strength. I think the comparison between your mom and Dix is a very revealing and humbling one. Thanks for opening up and sharing honestly about that. I’ve met people from the ghettos of Chicago, and they often worry about just what you were talking: people inventing excuses not to work, to remain complacent in their situation. When you live in an impoverished environment, it can be spiritually, emotionally, and even physically draining. At the end of the day, you feel like you don’t have enough energy to escape it. Other people do have that energy, but they are constantly handicapped by environmental, societal, or personal factors. For instance, you might want to go make something of yourself, but you have to expend all your energy caring for your sister’s five children. We definitely need to pray for compassion, grace, energy, and opportunity, both within and without poor communities. We’ve overcome great challenges as a nation: I know we can diminish poverty as well.
Your question about Stephen Hawking is a fantastic one. Sometimes towering intellectuals are very intimidating, even if they are not trying to be so. The complexity and creativity of their ideas can seem to make them immune to common sense critique. Still, if an idea seems somehow flawed, one should press further: nail down the critique in precise language, or with a helpful example. Consider what Mr. Hawking might say in response, and try to amend the objection so as to anticipate his response. After forging such a critique, crafting and tweaking it, one should present it to him in a respectable manner, in which one is more concerned with figuring out the problem than proving someone wrong. I think these things – effort, counter-consideration, respect, and humility – are the right methods for critiquing someone’s theory. Otherwise, one can put off the person they’re critiquing, and rightly so: who wants to respond to the critique of a bitter, disrespectful skeptic? In my personal experience, I’ve found that many bright intellectuals are acutely aware of the possible objections and flaws with their theories. They try to respond as best they can to their skeptics, and (hopefully) have respect for their questioners. Perhaps their responses are convincing to you, perhaps not. It might be that the prominent intellectual and skeptic operate according to different background assumptions. By the way, I would love to hear what you have to say about Hawking’s presentation. I don’t know too much about his theories, but it would still be interesting to hear what you think.
(Continued onto next page)
I do not judge has a layer of I do not relate, an absence of relationship.
Take Care, Ju
This is deeply disrespectful to the many, many thousands who have since served and were also "trained by their country to be killers" but have not subsequently slaughtered anyone.
Paul
You've demoted me without even an interview.
Eight months ago I was Director of Security and my demise was imminent when you presented all your carefully collated evidence. What happened to that? Didn't go so well, huh.
Now I'm a lowly subcontracted employee that you're fixating on. Maybe you're getting bad information. I have told you repeatedly that I am not now, never have been and never will be employed in the Massachusetts Department of Correction.
Paul
Paul