The Nature of Grace

[Thomas]

& Thomas , i wish u would have some respect for the scope of my endeavor by trying to rephrase the whole of my argument (as Aquinas would have done) rather than tear-into-these-arguments cold , cold & piecemeal

I do respect your argument, but I also see where it is flawed. I point out the flaws, but rather than correct me, you move on to another argument, so I assume the flaws are being ignored?

If the building blocks of your argument are false, what can I do?

i am making the case that
1. the "secular" is real (& is relatively definable , but only as truth)
2. the "religious" is real (& is relatively definable , but only as meaning)

I don' think you can make that distinction as narrowly as you do.
Secularism is real because it has truth and meaning (you can't have one without the other);
Religion is real for the same reason;
The only difference is the axioms on which the idea is founded.

truth is relative

I agree that relative truth is relative, but ...

... How can one say 'truth is relative' without an absolute understanding of the truth? One can't. So the statement 'truth is relative' is itself relative, and therefore conditional.

You and others here seem to assume the philosophers of antiquity are all now defunct. I suggest the more accurate reading is that the philosophers of antiquity laid out the foundations of the philosophy today. I think they're very relevant, and have some surprisingly prescient things to say.

You seem to think I'm founded entirely in the past. I do read Lonergan, Murleau-Ponty, Ricoeur, Lacan, Derida, Ecco ... I suppose I am a follower of the European Philosophicl tradition, you seem to be of the Anglo-American school.

God bless

Thomas