3 ms·

I understand why he comes across that way, but as a Catholic myself, he's correct in his assertion that the church still holds the doctrine 'extra Ecclesiam nul

I understand why he comes across that way, but as a Catholic myself, he's correct in his assertion that the church still holds the doctrine 'extra Ecclesiam nulla salus' (Outside the church there is no salvation) and that most Catholics of Aquinas's time would have believed an even strong version. This is not flame-baiting. It's a statement of Catholic doctrine that's been written on extensively for many years. IMO, he's just providing a factual background for Aquinas' worldview that anyone -- Catholic or otherwise -- can use to interpret his philosophy however they want. I don't think this is flamebaiting personally, but maybe I have thick skin. The only thing he's 'wrong' about is that not every non-Catholic is considered a pagan. Some are schismatics or heretics. Again, that's not my opinion or his/her opinion. That's just a statement of what the church publicly proclaims to believe about non-catholics.

52-6F-62 5y ago
Thank you. You read me correctly. To be fair to dang, my original comment had my personal opinion on dogma laced into it. I removed that portion. I hadn't felt I was launching into any arguments even with my opinion laced in, but it may also be that I don't tend to be patient with my wording. So what seems only matter-of-fact to me may come across more cold-hearted to others than I intended. Either way, I appreciate your insightful additions. You'll probably be more helpful on this subject already than I've been.
dang 5y ago
There's no reason why a correct statement can't be flamebait. Frequently they are. The problem here isn't that the GP posted opinion rather than fact, or something like that; it's that the comment was a dramatic swerve into generic flamewar territory. More explanation if it helps: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20infinitely%20many%20facts&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu....

52-6F-62 5y ago

Thank you. You read me correctly. To be fair to dang, my original comment had my personal opinion on dogma laced into it. I removed that portion. I hadn't felt I was launching into any arguments even with my opinion laced in, but it may also be that I don't tend to be patient with my wording. So what seems only matter-of-fact to me may come across more cold-hearted to others than I intended. Either way, I appreciate your insightful additions. You'll probably be more helpful on this subject already than I've been.

dang 5y ago

There's no reason why a correct statement can't be flamebait. Frequently they are. The problem here isn't that the GP posted opinion rather than fact, or something like that; it's that the comment was a dramatic swerve into generic flamewar territory. More explanation if it helps: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20infinitely%20many%20facts&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu....