Dear Thomas Aquinas,
Thank you for Summa Theologica. Thank you for being a really loud ox. Thank you for not being the head of that abbey in spite of your brothers' odd love. You're awesome. That being said, I was really disappointed you didn't finish Summa. I mean come on here, sure you saw an incredible vision that helped you realize your work is worth poop, but come on, a two year old could of told you that. Really disappointed that you didn't finish it. What am I supposed to do now? Start using the Summas a toilet paper? (note to modern readers: straw was used to gather up horse dung in those days.)
Okay, so we need to talk about Aristotle. Yeah I know all truth is God's truth. Yes Aristotle was really smart, and he has some really good ideas. Of course reason is really important and under your definition it is compatible and interlinked with faith. But really, did you have to go as far as quoting him as "the philosopher?" That's really extreme. I mean, even Calvinists don't quote John Calvin without questioning what he says, sometimes. They certainly don't call him "the theologian." Yes, I know he was the thing back then. I know he attempted to improve Plato and so you tried to improve Augustine. But really, the philosopher?
So we do need to talk about those five ways, but before I get to there, I'm not too happy you don't like Anselm's ontological argument, cuze that is one sweet proof. Even you said it was pretty cool. But anyway, your waves were cool too. Causation is crazy stuff, if it exists. Did you talk about that at all, if causation exists? There was a barbarian from Scotland who said something about causation being a figment of our imagination. He and I have the same first name. We like taking out big bad people who appear unstoppable. (aka Goliath and Descartes!)
So let's talk about happiness. That was awesome, by the way. Your virtue theory totally rocks my world, and I know you got a lot of from Aristotle. I didn't say I didn't like him or anything. So yeah, happiness pretty sweet there. What's up with the whole thing about transubstantiation and mariology? Yeah I understand that one cannot understand Mary without Christ, and you didn't even talk about Mariology as a separate topic in your summary. Yet I don't know about the whole transubstantiation thing. You said it comes just down to faith and not experience on that one, did you happen to study the bread and wine before you took it once? Tough one to swallow there.
Sorry about getting into that non-philosophical issue. I ought to explain to you, as I did to our good friend Augustine that we now live in a day where they make a distinction between philosophy and theology. Didn't think that was conceivable? I know it's not. People just try to act like their is a distinction.
Allrighty, hope you're enjoying your beatific vision!
In His Name,
p.s. You're an numbskull for thinking that you were simply writing a "summary" of theology as an "introduction" to students. What were you trying to do, kill all the undergrads?