tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2646436324392506494.post1500474213533758198..comments2022-01-28T20:11:16.954-06:00Comments on The Reluctant Traditionalist: A Bad Argument is a Bad ArgumentUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2646436324392506494.post-85468662999263732272010-02-09T03:20:23.830-06:002010-02-09T03:20:23.830-06:00But the supposed movement of the Sun around a very...But the supposed movement of the Sun around a very far off center of galaxy and around a very far off center of universe are NOT perceived as movements.<br /><br />They are deduced, by heliocentrics. Deduced, not perceived.<br /><br />The movement we perceive daily, is precisely Sun going up in East and down in West. Or hiding and reappearing behind and object other than horizon during the day.<br /><br />The movement we "perceive" yearly is not perceived but deduced, but from sensory fact that now this and now that part of Zodiak is hidden by the sun.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2646436324392506494.post-46988720357591796412010-02-08T18:00:26.728-06:002010-02-08T18:00:26.728-06:00All movements of the heavenly bodies are "app...All movements of the heavenly bodies are "apparent to the senses", else we would not perceive them as movements. St. Thomas may very well have been convinced that the movements were a certain way, but it does not detract from his argument if they are found to be different.thepalmhqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00736251596013169116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2646436324392506494.post-88268595717174878112010-02-04T05:01:07.017-06:002010-02-04T05:01:07.017-06:00well, the only one of these movements, each in its...well, the only one of these movements, each in its theory, that is <i>apparent to the senses</i> (confer the quote) is ... the daily one, the one agreeing with geocentrismHans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2646436324392506494.post-24572201628015801082010-02-03T08:09:41.773-06:002010-02-03T08:09:41.773-06:00He doesn't say one way or the other (at least ...He doesn't say one way or the other (at least on in <i>Summa Contra Gentiles</i> 13), does he ?thepalmhqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00736251596013169116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2646436324392506494.post-19986214759410364902010-01-28T11:53:40.557-06:002010-01-28T11:53:40.557-06:00The sun does move ...
... daily?
or
... unspeci...The sun does move ...<br /><br />... daily?<br /><br />or<br /><br />... unspecified time around galaxy?<br /><br />Because the former is what we see and what St Thomas Aquinas took as an argument.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2646436324392506494.post-47269992939411322982010-01-28T11:20:16.924-06:002010-01-28T11:20:16.924-06:00Hmmmm. I'm a little confused. The sun does mov...Hmmmm. I'm a little confused. The sun does move, so it was a good argument then I suppose it's a good argument now. (I didn't go out and read the whole section from St. Thomas.)thepalmhqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00736251596013169116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2646436324392506494.post-23943464353855934632010-01-23T10:20:37.598-06:002010-01-23T10:20:37.598-06:00If you study ch. 13 of Summa Contra Gentes, St THo...If you study ch. 13 of Summa Contra Gentes, St THomas uses geocentrism or, more directly, the movement of the sun, taken at face value, as one argument. Do you consider it as having become since then a bad argument when back then it was a good one?Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2646436324392506494.post-91093975313676951142009-05-15T23:34:00.000-05:002009-05-15T23:34:00.000-05:00Hi David,
Excellent piece, and big step in the di...Hi David,<br /><br />Excellent piece, and big step in the direction of damage control, given how your article has been interpreted in a twisted fashion by several critics of Catholicism, with my own name figuring prominently (and predictably) in two of the more notoriously cynical and inaccurate treatments. <br />But I was very proud to be up there in the Hall of Shame with my good friends Pat Madrid, Steve Ray, and John Martignoni. It's truly a greater honor to be smeared alongside them (for all the wrong, deluded, self-interested reasons) than it is to be praised.<br /><br />Thus, I appreciate your clarification on a personal level, but I am infinitely more concerned for the Catholic apologetics movement as a whole. I don't care all that much, ultimately, if I am personally attacked, but I care a great deal about the success of the Catholic apologetics enterprise. <br /><br />It is attacked and derided precisely because it has been rather remarkably successful in the last 15-20 years. That threatens some folks, and if they lack arguments (which they often do!), they go right to personal attack and smearing tactics. YAWN.<br /><br />I freely grant and concede your point about my use of quotation marks in my title. I didn't intend to convey an impression that I was quoting you (and technically, in grammatical terms, I don't think that this necessarily follows). I was going for the catchy, flashy title, and mildly self-deprecating humor. An unsound argument is a dumb one, in my book. And it is certainly dumb to use a dumb, fallacious, or irrelevant argument.<br /><br />To abide by your expressed wishes, however, I'll remove the quotation marks from my title.<br /><br />Kudos again for the fine job on this post. Whether it has the desired effect remains to be seen. At the very least, there should be retractions or at least editing in some quarters. I'll be pleasantly shocked if that happens, but not surprised at all if it doesn't.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2646436324392506494.post-79415241744258179272009-05-15T23:05:00.000-05:002009-05-15T23:05:00.000-05:00David –
I appreciated the original piece and your...David –<br /><br />I appreciated the original piece and your follow-up here. It seems that some of our separated brethren and brother Catholics were unfortunately unable (or unwilling) to join in and/or appreciate the spirit of what you were trying to accomplish. I’m hopeful that others will respond more humbly and charitably than the first commenter above.<br /><br />God bless.M. Forrestnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2646436324392506494.post-16976437931512030482009-05-15T22:09:00.000-05:002009-05-15T22:09:00.000-05:00Mr. Palm,
I appreciate your concerns about my "sp...Mr. Palm,<br /><br />I appreciate your concerns about my "spin," but I assure you that it comes from years of witness of, and occasional engagement with, Catholic apologists. I have little respect for the dominant ethos and methods of the bulk of these men.<br /><br />I've decided that I have to stick with actual scholarship, whether Protestant or Catholic, instead of wasting my time and intellectual energies on pop apologetics. With that, I will continue to love and appreciate Newman and von Balthasar, Calvin and Barth, Paul and Irenaeus,...and all the unsung historians and exegetes that check and balance our claims.<br /><br />I've come to realize that Catholic apologists and I live in different worlds, with different means and methods for judgment. The Greek of "until" is only an issue because the Catholic Church decided upon Mary's ever-virginity. Whether "you are the rock" is in reference to Peter is obvious, but whether it is in reference to Peter's person as a type and successor of future bishops of Rome -- this is only an issue because the (Roman) Catholic Church decided upon this interpretation. I don't doubt that the apologist can make scripture congenial to Roman Catholic claims. Of course he can. But the more fundamental issue is why the Church developed as she has. What philosophical and theological issues, and what historical pressures, resulted in Mary's "privileges" or the pope's universal jurisdiction and infallibility. I'll get a far better answer from Catholic scholars and secular historians than I will from epologists.Kevin Davishttp://dogmatics.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.com