Umm Christianbros...
I thought you guys were against this...
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Umm Christianbros... I thought you guys were against this...
Umm Christianbros...
I thought you guys were against this...
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Aquinas was just a philosopher, not a prophet, your whole religion is based on a pedo prophet
I thought he was pretty popular among christians though?
No, he's notable amongst christian raised philosophers but average christians dont even know who he is. All they know is Jesus God.
Descartes demonstrated that the path to knowledge begins by ignoring him and his work.
Descartes knew that Saint Augustine's works mogged Thomas' work all the way
>si fallor, sum
He also damaged philosophy by switching the point of historical development from the cosmos to the individual. Good thing Giambattista Vico course corrected him, even if his attempt was unsuccessful.
He is famous because during XIX century there was a revival of thomism but there were a lot of scholastic writers during Middle-Ages and Renaissance that were not considered by pope Leo XIII. Gundisalvus, Albertus Magnus, William of Ockham, Francesco Silvestri, Thomas Cajetan, Francisco Suarez, Durand of Saint-Pourçain, Pierre de La Ramée, Rodrigo Arriaga, etc., etc., etc.
Scholasticism is by far the most unknown school of tought.
I always get a kick out of how sarcastic and dry Aisha is. She's like the Muslim Daria.
>Saint Thomas Aquinas
By the way, the Catholic Church's canon law sets the marriageable age at 13 or whatever
Aquinas is a pseud but you didn’t actually read that.
First consider the bride's race, THEN age.
What's the matter Ahmed? It's 14 yo boy pairing with 12 yo girls
That's different from your 50 yo prophet marrying an 8yo girl
Aisha was 6 when she married Muhammad
>It's 14 yo boy pairing with 12 yo girls
I'm not that mohammedan, but that's not what it says.
not that poster but in the text it says:
>now for the most part this age is the 14 year in males and the 12 years in women
so the text says, 14 year old boys should be together with 12 year old girls.
>now for the most part this age is the 14 year in males and the 12 years in women
That's setting the age of discretion aka basically what we call age of consent in currentyear. What you're saying is like claiming that 18yos can only frick other 18yos because the age of consent is 18yo.
It says earlier than that. He talks about the age of discretion which is 14 for boys and 12 for girls.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/age%20of%20discretion
>the age at which a person is considered by law to have sufficient knowledge to be held responsible for certain acts or competent to exercise certain powers
He says that if intercourse happened BEFORE that time for either of the parties is permissible as long as the person reaches "required perfection"(childbearing/making apparatus) and the marriage is indissoluble.
Learn to read moron. It's condoning peds
You're the one who should learn to read. My point is that it isn't about pairing 14yo boys with 12yo girls, but rather about pairing 14yo boys and 12yo girls with members of opposite sex who have also reached the age of deliberation, regardless of if they're 14 or 50.
>"required perfection"(childbearing/making apparatus)
he clearly defines required perfection in the passage to mean capacity to consent. He's talking about ratification, which is a legal concept that exists to this day.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ratify#:~:text=In%20the%20context%20of%20contract,rendering%20the%20contract%20legally%20enforceable.
Interestingly, Mozlem apologists often claim that despite her age, Aisha was both physically and mentally so well developed that it was fine that Momo wed her at 6yo and fricked her at 9yo.
I don't care. I don't believe in any abrahamic religion.
I'm just pointing out the fact that you're clearly misinterpreting what aquinas is saying. Whether that's out of carelessness or malice, I don't know, and I don't really care either.
Sorry, I should've mentioned that I'm not the guy you replied to. I'm just a guy who thinks it's funny that Aquinas' message lines up so well with tiktok dawahbros.
Learn to read. He talks about age of discretion, which as I showed you talks about the age at which people are held responsible. It's not about consent, it is about capacity. Hence being capable of reproduction.
>mutual fulfillment of the mariage debt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_debt
RE
PRO
DUC
TION
>marriage may not be contracted before the age of discretion when each party is capable of SUFFICIENT DELIBERATION about marriage
>if anyone reach the required perfection before the aforesaid age, so that nature and REASON are sufficiently developed to supply the lack of age
he is very obviously talking about the capacity to consent, you are just being deliberately obtuse because you clearly have an axe to grind with christians.
I'm telling you as a neutral third party that it is apparent on its face that aquinas is not just saying to slam a baby into every little girl once she hits puberty.
>so that nature and REASON
>nature
Saint Thomas had an aristotlian view of Women, he considered them as less intelligent "failed Man". Consent is the matter of the Father. The "allfather" gives his consent through "natural law" ie menstruation/puberty.
Put things back in their context. Consent and age of consent are post modernist concepts.
>Consent and age of consent are post modernist concepts.
Exactly and because of that now you can go to prison for simply looking at a cute woman.
>The "allfather" gives his consent through "natural law" ie menstruation/puberty.
except aquinas explicitly says that marriage is the product of positive law, rather than natural law, as he associates marriage with a contract, and a cornerstone of contract law is requisite capacity.
You don't know what you are talking about. It hurts me to reply so I'll just send memes from now on.
>natural law trumps positive law IF THEY CONFLICT
but there's no conflict here. Positive law in this sense is affording additional protections on top of natural law.
It's like the US constitution and federalism. The federal constitution provides a baseline of rights. States can add even more rights in their state constitutions if they want, but they can never go below the baseline.
Conflict is part of the relationship if the criterias as per nature are not met. Once again, menstruation and puberty in that nature passed his judgement before man could intervene(age of discretion).
Anon, use that brain.
may not be contracted before the age of discretion when each party is capable of SUFFICIENT DELIBERATION about marriage
>>if anyone reach the required perfection before the aforesaid age, so that nature and REASON are sufficiently developed to supply the lack of age
So I want to know then how you reconcile these quotes with your understanding of aquinas as asserting that women can't ever consent to anything, and that their consent does not matter.
He clearly says that EACH PARTY must be able to deliberate with respect to marriage, not that the "allfather" must be able to consent.
Each party is the groom and the bride's father/tutor.
>as an individual, the woman is a puny and defective being
>Each party is the groom and the bride's father/tutor.
that sounds like an incredibly tortured reading of the quote
Everyone understands "parties" under a contract to be the two people who entered into the agreement with one another. Someone who acts in a representative capacity for another is not a "party." They are the guardian of a party.
Even more so that the father/tutor, it was the matter of the family head, as we can easily see in noble families since it was extensively written about.
>the woman is an casual and accidental(fortuitous) being
https://essentiels.bnf.fr/fr/image/5ff7b0ea-5b95-4c9b-9841-0608be2d4bfa-mariage-la-ville-contrat-mariage
>Dans un intérieur austère et conventionnel, les quatre parents des futurs époux sont réunis avec le notaire qui écrit le contrat. “Le mariage, à cette époque, ne se traite pas à la légère : c’est une affaire d’intérêt entre deux familles plutôt qu’une affaire de cour entre deux jeunes gens... De part et d’autre, l’autorité paternelle toute puissante... agit sans consulter les intéressés”
In an austere and conventional interior, the four parents of the future spouses are gathered with the notary who draws up the contract. "Marriage, at that time, was not to be treated lightly: it was a matter of interest between two families rather than a matter of court between two young people... On both sides, the all-powerful paternal authority... acts without consulting those concerned”
I was wrong. The groom has no say either. For that I was misled.
Context. Didn't change in France until the revolution of 1789 and the Code Civil.
In saying that marriage is a contract based on positive law, aquinas is essentially saying that individual marriages do not contemplate any moral considerations, like the wellbeing of children, and instead only reflect material reality.
He is correct, strictly speaking, from a legal perspective. It's why common law courts have taken for themselves the ability to annul contracts that they think are against public policy or unconscionable. People could conceivably contract for anything, and barring a completely arbitrary and discretionary power to void these contracts, people could get away with some nasty stuff with the protection of the government, like marrying kids.
Frick, I'm a pagan, and even I'm offended at how dishonest this is.
Islam has no moral highground when the founder of their religion is recorded to be a complete scum and degenerate.
Seriously, every evil thing their desert warlord did is written down clearly in their holy book yet they still come up with hilarious excuses
Does someone actually want to explain to me how this is bad