I'll clarify the Aquinas point.
Aquinas basically says this:
From nature and reason you can deduce things like: God is one, God is infinite, God is almighty, etc.
From nature and reason you can't deduce things like: God is three persons in one essence, God became incarnate in Palestine from a virgin, He was crucified and resurrected three days later, etc.
This has nothing to do with anything we're talking about. I find this especially odd and telling of what the error is
Aquinas is saying you couldn't prove the incarnation through Tolkien, that's it.
I'm not trying to mischaracterize your argument believe me but you seem to be making the point that since Tolkien is a human author writing a human book he can't make analogies, metaphors and allegories touching and giving a certain insight on supernatural topics? That's not what Aquinas says at all. Under that logic the Voyage of the Pax or any similar book would also be solely natural and not extend to the supernatural order.
Or for that matter he's also saying you couldn't prove the Trinity from the Meeting of Abraham and the Three Angels, but once you know about the Trinity you can see it symbolized. Medievals also did this to secular history and the natural world. They obviously knew you couldn't be a pagan and deduce the betrayal of the God incarnate or his Resurrection from Julius Caesar or the Phoenix, but once a pagan knew about these things from a priest he could very easily see it.
But anyway that's it I think you just misunderstood what that whole article of the Summa was about.
Also for the record I don't like you, you've insulted me, snarkily condemned me to hell, tried to psychoanalize me, and talked in an affected and condescending way. we wouldn't get along in real life most likely and I think you should think about the way you conduct yourself online.
But of course I return your last message's sentiment, idk it was sarcasm or in earnest, but at the end of the day this is just an internet forum we're both just random people talking about stuff. I pray that you have a holy and happy life and God blesses you and keeps you <3
I was in earnest. I am full of BS, just like you and everyone else is full of BS. And my prayer for you was sincere.
I've got one other observation.
Your entire product on this thread - which includes your posts under the avatar, "Light of Bethlehem," which first alerted me to there being something off about you (it sounds like the name of a local lodge) - is a grand example of the logical fallacy of conflation/false equivalence.
There are two distinct practices which you conflate and try to make identical with each other. One is the practice of studying, enjoying, and contemplating the natural world, to augment prayer, meditation, and devotion. The other is consulting unauthorized sources of exposition on the spiritual meaning and interpretation of various natural beings and their operations, in order to derive spiritual knowledge or benefit from them.
The first practice is wholesome and holy and much to be encouraged. The second practice is - depending upon the intentions and dispositions of he who consults such sources - foolish, dangerous, or insidious.
I do not make any kind of guess about your intentions or dispositions. My "psychanalysis" of you was well within what is permissble to surmise; and your answers were very helpful. Your interior is not for me to judge.
Your logical fallacies, however, are quite another matter altogether. They are eminently eligible for judgment. Having conflated utterly distinct and opposite practices, you accuse your critics of putting down something perfectly good to do, and never address the real concern, which is the practice of consulting, and in your case encouraging, unauthorized sources to augment "spiritual" knowledge.
You have accused me of being a bitter and pious fraud who tries to impose her devotional preferences on those joyful and enlightened Christians who love to contemplate God in His Creature. That accusation is the fulcrum of false equivalence. Or put another way, it is pure poppycock and balderdash. And we may even put it a third way: Pure BS.
P.S. Terms matter. I have consistently criticized your patterns of speech, and now your original avatar name. Why do I do this? Is it because I am an unlikeable and despicable old harpy? Or is it because the use of loose, imprecise, and even vulgar (vernacular as opposed to technical) terminology combined with the encouragement to use unauthorized sources for meditation, is something that should be vigorously checked?
You say that you are using AI to translate a medieval docuмent, and you are adding your own tweaks to the translation as you see fit. Are you kidding me? Am I supposed to consult AI and some shaky thinker posting on a forum for spiritual benefit?
It just so happens that I saw something a few days ago on the novusordowatch site. They have a twitter feed that they link. One of the retweets was a post by Fr. Gabriel Lavery. He did a survey of AI Latin translations, and found them to be abysmal. They are JUST PLAIN WRONG. If you are on twitter, check out Fr. Lavery's feed to read his post yourself. He went into detail on the problems.
You are in way over your head, and I sincerely caution you. Keep in mind that if you cause a "lurker" to consult unauthorized sources, and that "lurker" gets confused and wanders into dangerous swampland, you will answer for it.
Topic: Occult Subversion of Traditional Catholicism (Read 9576 times)