You replied: No more odd than using the Catholic Encyclopedia - wouldn't you say?
Much more odd. The Catholic Encyclopedia articles at least had normal editorial evaluation and assessment. It's Catholic perspective is clear. The Wikipedia consists of stuff anybody and his uncle wish to put into it and anybody and his parakeet can edit. You have no idea how credible a particular article is.
I wrote: What bothers me about your effort to use the Galileo affair as an effort to beat us Catholics over the head with is that your underlying animosity toward Catholicism leads to be naive and uncritical You replied: I haven't beaten anyone over the head. We are having a discussion about authority - i.e. Tradition vrs Scripture. I am using the Galileo case to make the point that Tradition is not inerrant - unlike the Scripture.
Aquinas, and the RCC in following him was wrong on this issue - agreed?
Who is "him"? Galileo? Aquinas came 350 years before Galileon so he couldn't have followed Galileo. Aquinas and the Church following Aristotle? Shows how little you know about Aquinas--he used Aristotle critically; where Aristotle contradicted revelation (in Scripture and Tradition), Aquinas was not slow to jettison Aristotle.
I wrote: It pitted evil Catholicism against virtuous, bold new science.
Your replied: Nope. Not my contention.
"It" in my post referred to the textbook Galileo myth which your Wikipedia entry reflects. If you were not endorsing the the Wikipedia interpretation, then you needed to make that clear and one could then ask why you posted it.
I wrote: Your visceral animosity toward us Catholics leads you to make common cause with the worst of the anti-Christian adherents of scientism.
You replied; Wrong again. I appreciate whatever truth I see in Catholicism. One of the most inspiring and spiritually deep people I have ever read about (outside the Bible) is Br. Lawrence the Carmelite http://www.ccel.org/ccel/lawrence/practice.i.html
I'm glad you like Br. Lawrence. I don't recall that he sets forth any of the specific Catholic positions that have been debated here. And yes, you have manifested a visceral animosity toward a variety of specifically Catholic beliefs. That you can't admit it only underscores how much of a bubble you live in.
You wrote: I think there are many catholics here who, even though they know I disagree with them, nevertheless understand that I desire to be their friend.
A friend truly listens to what the other person says and does not impose his meaning onto what the other person says. How many times have you told us Catholics that we mean something other than what we say we mean? The most annoying person is the one who cannot let the other person have his own voice but has to impose his voice over the other person's voice.
*** Who is "him"? Galileo? Aquinas came 350 years before Galileon so he couldn't have followed Galileo.***
The "him" is Aquinas - the man who cosmology the RCC embraced. As in "Aquinas, and the RCC in following [Aquinas], was wrong on this issue - agreed?"
***Aquinas and the Church following Aristotle?***
Did or did not the RCC accept and build on Aquinas's geocentric cosmology?
*** "It" in my post referred to the textbook Galileo myth***
Have you in fact shown what was posted to be a "myth"?
***And yes, you have manifested a visceral animosity toward a variety of specifically Catholic beliefs.***
Now it's "Catholic beliefs" rather that "Catholics". Well I'm glad you corrected yourself.
***That you can't admit it only underscores how much of a bubble you live in***
It is clear from many of your posts that you have adopted an odd form of insult-apologetics. Do you find it effective?