seigneur wrote:

iwpoe wrote:

I mean left-leaning thinkers make this mistake all the time: X is opposed to capitalism so X is with us.

The apostles were clearly not a socialist collective or anything.

Did Hart really say New Testament promotes socialism or merely that it's opposed to capitalism?

New Testament most certainly opposes the capitalism as pomoted by the prosperity gospel movement. Otherwise I'd say it's economically and politically quite neutral. Not of this world etc.

I just don't think that you can be politically neutral. Even quietism has political implications. Never mind that quite obviously the mechanics of organizing around the other world has positive political implications- borne out in Rome and every other place Christianity has come to rule.

rondokeele wrote:

  وَإِذْ قَالَ رَبُّكَ لِلْمَلَائِكَةِ إِنِّي جَاعِلٌ فِي الْأَرْضِ خَلِيفَةً ۖ قَالُوا أَتَجْعَلُ فِيهَا مَن يُفْسِدُ فِيهَا وَيَسْفِكُ الدِّمَاءَ وَنَحْنُ نُسَبِّحُ بِحَمْدِكَ وَنُقَدِّسُ لَكَ ۖ
قَالَ إِنِّي أَعْلَمُ مَا لَا تَعْلَمُونَ

For full reference (as I think almost none of us can read Arabic):

Al-Baqarah (The Cow) 2:30:
Transliterated:
Wa-ith qala rabbuka lilmala-ikatiinnee jaAAilun fee al-ardi khaleefatan qalooatajAAalu feeha man yufsidu feeha wayasfiku addimaawanahnu nusabbihu bihamdika wanuqaddisu lakaqala innee aAAlamu ma la taAAlamoon

English:
And [mention, O Muhammad], when your Lord said to the angels, "Indeed, I will make upon the earth a successive authority (a khalif​)." They said, "Will You place upon it one who causes corruption therein and sheds blood, while we declare Your praise and sanctify You?" Allah said, "Indeed, I know that which you do not know."

Professor, I appreciate you for your time and detailed contribution and attention to our forum.

1. I understand that this is a very historically complicated question, but since you are a competent historian as well as a philosopher, I wanted to know:

What do you think of the position of somebody like Lloyd Gerson that Platonism and Aristotlianism are not as strictly distinct a set of positions as is sometimes pretended?

2. On what points of philosophical importance are Chatton and Ockham in major substantive agreement?

3. You've charecterised a key point of disagreement between Ockham and Chatton as one over indirect realism in the fictum theory. Many of us here have in one form or the other discussed the problems of indirect realism in early modern thought. Would it be in any respect accurate to think that the fictum theory "had legs" despite Ockham's ultimate rejection or does the indirect realism of modernity have some other traceable source in medieval thinking?

I exclude myself from Thomism *first* because I don't admit of special Revelation. I'm also skeptical of his approach to the problem of Being, but not hostile to it.

Wen Miamonades threads!?