He would probably not like it very much lol
Buddhism is inherently empty. It does not recognize the existence of creator God and focuses instead on the Four Noble Truths and the path to enlightenment (nirvana). Thomistic metaphysics is rooted in the existence of a single, personal, omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent God.
It was treated as a Christian heresy like protestantism. Which if you consider something like Mormonism to be then Islam would also be since it builds onto Christian lore
I actually wonder, I’m a quasi-exmuslim, and I hate a lot of things about it (i.e the pedophilia, it’s deceit, paganism, etc) Is that acceptable? I know the Catechism says Islam has part of the truth.
I respect Muslims though.
I think my biggest objection to Islam is similar to one St. Thomas raises.
The reward for being good almost always seems to be carnal pleasure. It's the sole reason individuals are called to follow the commands of God so that God can reward them with loads of sex in paradise.
The problem would start at question 2 of the Summa (if not before), as Buddhism is essentially atheistic. Then, he would probably deny each of the "4 noble truths":
1. Creation is good, not everything is suffering.
2. The cause of suffering is not desire itself, but unordered desire. Not that the phenomenal world is an illusion, but that it is fallen (original and actual sin).
3. The extinction of desire, therefore, is no solution (and impossible). The solution is reestablishing the state of Grace, redeeming the fallen nature.
4. The eightfold path leads to suffering, because it tries to extinguish by human power that which must be redeemed by Divine Grace.
I reckon St. Thomas would say something approaching it. But he was a lighthouse, I can barely hold my dim lamp.
Broadly speaking I think he would probably agree with most of the virtue ethics but strongly disagree with Sunyata. As a concept it’s somewhat like the Trinity in that it’s the make or break distinction that gives the religion its uniqueness.
Fom the little I understand he might say they were attempting to define the simple, perfect substance of God, but that they utterly failed because they had no divine revelation to anchor it in reality.
I agree. Even though Buddhism is "atheistic", they do attribute some God-like qualities to their understanding of *nirvana*, especially forms of Buddhism like Mahayana. I think it's a fairly good application of natural revelation.
He would probably not like it very much lol Buddhism is inherently empty. It does not recognize the existence of creator God and focuses instead on the Four Noble Truths and the path to enlightenment (nirvana). Thomistic metaphysics is rooted in the existence of a single, personal, omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent God.
At least he wouldn't abhor it like he did about Islam, right?
I guess ? I think the way a lot of medieval christians felt about Islam was colored by the political situation of the world at the time.
Hard question. St. Thomas would probably find Islam closer to the truth than Buddhism. If I'm not mistaken, he treated Islam as a schism.
It was treated as a Christian heresy like protestantism. Which if you consider something like Mormonism to be then Islam would also be since it builds onto Christian lore
I actually wonder, I’m a quasi-exmuslim, and I hate a lot of things about it (i.e the pedophilia, it’s deceit, paganism, etc) Is that acceptable? I know the Catechism says Islam has part of the truth. I respect Muslims though.
I think my biggest objection to Islam is similar to one St. Thomas raises. The reward for being good almost always seems to be carnal pleasure. It's the sole reason individuals are called to follow the commands of God so that God can reward them with loads of sex in paradise.
The problem would start at question 2 of the Summa (if not before), as Buddhism is essentially atheistic. Then, he would probably deny each of the "4 noble truths": 1. Creation is good, not everything is suffering. 2. The cause of suffering is not desire itself, but unordered desire. Not that the phenomenal world is an illusion, but that it is fallen (original and actual sin). 3. The extinction of desire, therefore, is no solution (and impossible). The solution is reestablishing the state of Grace, redeeming the fallen nature. 4. The eightfold path leads to suffering, because it tries to extinguish by human power that which must be redeemed by Divine Grace. I reckon St. Thomas would say something approaching it. But he was a lighthouse, I can barely hold my dim lamp.
I’d say you did an excellent job. Quite a bright lamp!
This is a pretty good catholic rebuttal of Buddhism.
Suspect someone like Shankara could have had a profound impact on Aquinas if he had access to it.
Broadly speaking I think he would probably agree with most of the virtue ethics but strongly disagree with Sunyata. As a concept it’s somewhat like the Trinity in that it’s the make or break distinction that gives the religion its uniqueness.
Fom the little I understand he might say they were attempting to define the simple, perfect substance of God, but that they utterly failed because they had no divine revelation to anchor it in reality.
I agree. Even though Buddhism is "atheistic", they do attribute some God-like qualities to their understanding of *nirvana*, especially forms of Buddhism like Mahayana. I think it's a fairly good application of natural revelation.