Not quite, but there are signs that the mainstream media is starting to cover the Paul campaign for president seriously. NRO is reporting that Zogby thinks he might pull a surprise in New Hampshire.
On the Sean Hannity radio program, pollster John Zogby said that Texas Congressman Ron Paul could end up surprising the field - and “embarass a lot of the frontrunners” by wildly exceeding expectations taking 15 to 18 percent in the New Hampshire primary.
That would indeed embarrass the frontrunners and Giuliani shill Hannity.
And while the NY Times, Washington Post and major broadcast and cable news are still hesitant to report anything but extraordinary items about Dr. Paul, the Chicago Tribune ran a very positive article about him.
No more Department of Education. No more Federal Reserve Bank. No more Medicare or Medicaid. No more membership in the United Nations or NATO. No more federal drug laws. And, no more U.S. troops in Iraq — or anywhere else on foreign soil.
The Internal Revenue Service would be history in the first week that Ron Paul sits behind the desk in the Oval Office. And the dismantling of the above-mentioned entities and relationships — plus a long list of others — soon would commence.
Last I looked, the office of the president wasn’t a dictatorship, so those things wouldn’t happen, but you get the point - the government would be smaller under Ron Paul’s leadership. That isn’t necessarily a bad thing, with the caveat that his foreign policy goals frighten me.
The money that would be saved from the elimination of many federal programs, not to mention the Iraq war, he contends, would more than provide a state-based safety net for those Americans who can’t help themselves and for those depending on Social Security, which eventually he would phase out. States, not the federal government, should deal with issues such as abortion and the nature of marriage, he says. And, though he dreams of a day America returns to a gold standard, he would be happy just to see the country stop taking on huge foreign debt and running up deficits by printing money for which it has no solid backing.
No question, we have to do something about our debt load.
Although Paul steadfastly opposes farm subsidies, greater support for NASA and funding for FEMA in a famously hurricane-prone district, he continues to be re-elected comfortably. “It’s not that kind of relationship,” said the University of Texas’ Buchanan. “It’s more on the order of ‘This is a man we trust,’ as opposed to ‘What’s in it for us?’”
The question is, do you trust him to do what is right for the country as a whole? That’s what bothers me - I don’t want to see the U.S. put out the flame of hope that we bring to the rest of the world, which is what I think his foreign policy will do.
He’s got a great story, much like Fred Thompson, working his way though college and, in his case, medical school.
Paul worked his way through Gettysburg College, initially planning to follow two of his brothers into the ministry. But an interest in biology led him instead to the Duke University School of Medicine. He and Carol married in his last semester at Gettysburg, and she worked to put him through medical school.
Paul was a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force and Air National Guard from 1963 to 1968; he was not assigned to serve in Vietnam. In 40 years as an OB-GYN in the Lake Jackson area, he estimates, he has delivered more than 4,000 babies.It pains Carol Paul to hear her husband booed or criticized by rivals during debates, but she takes pride in his attitude. “He has no animosity to these people,” she said. “He forgives. But I don’t know if he can ever forgive about the war, the boys we’ve lost and the fact we went in for lies.”
They say character matters and he is one of the few guys running that is still married to his college sweetheart, who even supports his contention that the Bush administration lied to go to war. That has to say something, doesn’t it?
No matter how things turn out in 2008, Paul believes he will have made an impact, or at least a dent, in the political landscape. “They can’t silence us,” he said. “The message is out of the bag, so to speak. The message is out there. I have no idea what’s going to happen to the campaign. I’m doing so much better than I ever dreamed.”
As he recently said on The Tonight Show, “There’s probably a risk I could win.”
I suppose some would call it a risk, especially our allies. Ultimately, that is for the American people to decide. Although I will not be voting for him in a primary, I think it is right and proper for the mainstream press to begin to take notice of his candidacy. The Revolution.
Filed Under Uncategorized · · · · 
Print This Post
··
Comments
111 Responses to “Is the Ron Paul Revolution Catching On With the MSM?”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...
Your a going to give Edd and Pat apoplexy. Oh oh, Pat’s already there.
Morning one and all. Thus starteth a Paul Bearer marathon thread. Tally ho.
Big Jolly,
You’ve sold me. I’m fer him!
I admire the man but have to disagree with his stand on issues such as social security, Medicare, others. I think the reason he has momentum is his unabashed desire to get us out of Iraq. It just proves what an unpopular war this is.
izie, So the only candidate campaigning on an anti war policy is polling at somewhere under 20%. Seems to me that means the idea of immediate pull out is not as popular as some would think.
Will Ron Paul be someone’s VP?
Or will there be a:
Paul / Bloomberg
3rd. Party ticket?
I have noticed many articles lately on Bloomberg, he may be a strong VP choice for someone.
Glad I could influence you, little one.
#4 duhmoose
I would agree with you if 20% of the electorate were against the war. According to zogby, Dr Paul may pull close to 20% of the Republican vote in New Hampshire. Probably 90% of the Dems and Indy’s agree with Dr Paul on the Iraq issue. That’s more than 50% of the total electorate if New Hampshire is any indication of a national trend. Right?
izie, What are you using to base the 90% number on? If that were the case, why are all the top tier Dem candidates pulling away from the immediate withdraw policy?
As long as Paul has a following of 9/11 Truthers and Neo-Nazi groups, I don’t see him gaining much ground with sane people.
BJ, Thanks for yet another objective and informative article.
I understand and respect your decision not to vote for Dr. Paul in the primary. But I’d still ask you to consider sending the dude a buck or two on December 16th. We’re shooting for 10 million this time.
There is lots of these he can do - he can veto, hold for conference, return bills (not been done since Taft) withhold the budget, cross items wholesale out of the budget etc
He can be quite a handfull
bob42,
I’ll send him a couple of bucks if you move it to Dec. 18th. That’s my anniversary.
9 duhmoose
All the top tier Dem candidates are for withdrawl. Immediate? You mean by this weekend? I think you are reaching to find support if you think the Dems aren’t for pulling out. Ron Paul’s Iraq policy is millimeters from any other Dem candidate, top tier or otherwise. It’s at least a full kilometer from any other Repub. No?
Ron Paul would be a good thing for the home front; the people of this nation could take a big sigh of relief knowing that Washington would be inert for four years.
Paul’s foreign policy views are admittedly the biggest area of disagreement for me. One thing to consider though is that US policy at home and abroad is not determined by the president alone. His most immediate action may indeed be a troop scaleback in places like Iraq, but the U.S. isn’t going to completely withdraw from the world on a moment’s notice - Congress also has a say in this and it is doubtful they would ever let him.
In the end, it is very feasible that a fairly decent foreign policy compromise could come out of the competition between Paul and Congress. Many conservatives would find several elements of it acceptable. The good:
1. We’d probably end up scaling back (though not eliminating) some of the more wasteful foreign aid disbursements as Congress tries to dampen the veto pen effect. I think this is a good thing.
2. Paul would immediately pull U.S. troops out of non-priority region with little opposition (the opposition being focused on Iraq). We’d no longer be the “peacekeepers” in places like Bosnia, and we’d no longer need to maintain as many military bases in countries we conquered during World War II. This too is a good thing.
3. Paul would shun the UN, refuse to play games with its security council resolutions, and probably move to cut off its funding. This is indisputably a good thing.
4. Paul would aggressively pursue free trade agreements that focus on trade alone and leave out unrelated provisions on the environment, immigration etc. This is good.
The bad:
1. Paul would be reluctant to engage in rapid deployment of troops abroad. Congress can rectify this some by using its war powers to commit troops to specified conflicts.
2. Paul pulls out of Iraq completely and immediately. This will not solve the problem there, though it’s not as bad as you may think either. On the plus side, Paul would be less inclined that we are now to tie the hands of allies like Turkey and Israel in dealing with the jihadis. There’s little doubt in my mind right now that the only reason Turkey hasn’t plowed into northern Iraq and mowed down the PKK insurgency is the U.S. telling them not to. Paul would be more inclined to say to Turkey “It’s your country and you have a right to defend yourself, so we aren’t going to stop you.” Same with Israel re. Syria.
izie, Have you been watching the debates? Reading the press statements and interviews? Most of the top tier candidates on the Dem side are waffling on the troop pullout. Is Iraq unpopular? Sure. Do the American people want to cut and run from Iraq? I don’t think so, and I have seen nothing to support that claim.
With Paul in the race, the Crats will have a real choice between Her Highness and a proved Whacko leaving smooth sailing for the Pubby.
This is great.
Ron Paul, Freedom Fighter
Another freedom fighter video.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=_IMvxpsUj4E
#17 duhmoose
Cut and run? What a clever term. Think that one up all by yourself did ya. Ditto that. Let me ask you a question. Why are we in Iraq? Why does Dr Paul say we’re in Iraq. How long should we stay? Until all the towns in Iraq and sections of Baghdad are either completly Sunni or Shiite or Kurdish. Is Iraq better off now than 5 years ago? Didn’t we have Saddam right where we wanted him? Oops, I better not go there ….
Izie, maybe we should take this to the OC thread.
One has to start wondering if this is the liberal media trying to dictate the flow?? They wouldn’t want to manipulate our opinions, would they?? They wouldn’t want to screw up the Republican primary, would they?? They wouldn’t be trying to deflect from some of the bad press that HELLary is getting, would they?? NO!!!! not the liberal media, those trust worthy, objective reporters!!
Well RP does sound better than Giuliani.
But he doesn’t look nearly as good in drag.
Hey look ma
here comes the elephant boy
bundled all up in his corduroy
headed down south towards Illinois
from the jungles of East St. Paul.
Doubtful. It’s simply the latest iteration of the old adage that money talks in politics. Ron Paul has money now, so the media starts paying attention.
You’ll notice a corrollary to this principle: having money also makes others percieve you as a threat. For months the Hannity types were completely dismissive of Ron Paul but they’ve changed strategies in the last week or so. Now they’re treating him to political hit pieces that (1) downplay his fundraising ability (see this week’s Weekly Standard), (2) dismiss his donors as one-time kooks (Weekly Standard, NRO), and (3) - I kid you not - liken his $4 million haul to terrorism.
Glen Beck did #3 on his CNN show the other day. He literally argued that since Ron Paul’s “money bomb” was based on a Guy Fawkes Day theme it was akin to taking money from terrorists (since Guy Fawkes was a “terrorist” of course). Beck even had some British guy on the show to “explain” that the Gunpowder Plot was a secret plan personally hatched by the Pope to overthrow the British government (an anti-catholic slander used by Puritans at the time. The pope actually condemned the plot and pleaded with James I not to retaliate against non-conspirator Catholics living in England).
When you have money the attacks become increasingly shrill and absurd. They don’t signify an impending Ron Paul victory, but they do signify that he is credibly viewed as a disrupting factor in the GOP primary. So the strategy of his enemies moves away from ignoring him and toward discrediting him.
It’s interesting how RP comes off as decidedly less kooky than many of his supporters.
In January 2009 RP will be about as relevant as John Anderson was in January 1981. In a couple of years people will say, “Oh yeah, he was the guy with all the goony acolytes.”
29 - interesting, but I think it’s also true of politics in general. The people who go die-hard all out for just about any candidate are a tad bit removed from normalcy.
Think about the RNC conventions. They’re a massive sea of people decked out in sequin flag vests, rhinestones, uncle sam costumes, and blinking buzzing political buttons that play “It’s a Grand Old Flag” when you shake them. Those people are every bit as kooky as the guy who stands on the freeway overpass with a Ron Paul sign. Yet they’re part of the political mainstream.
Seriously - I know dozens of people who personally “pray” for George W. Bush on a daily basis. They also genuinely believe that doing so will cause a divine intervention that helps Bush “see the light” on immigration. They are often the same people who send out emails to their friends asking for prayers to help their cat “Mr. Fluffles” overcome his indigestion problems after getting into the salmon cassarole at dinner last night.
I don’t question their motives, but as theology that type of stuff is hopelessly naive and a little more than kooky.
30 - Anderson blew his relevance by making a goofy independent run afterwards.
Ron Paul is probably more analagous to the GOP’s version of Eugene McCarthy. He’s running against what he percieves as a problem in his party, and he won’t win the nomination. But by running he gives voice and attention to that problem, eventually causing some elements of the party to reevaluate where we’re heading.
Phil_M, are you saying that praying for our leaders is kooky? Man, I must go to a church full of crazies and have a family that deserves to be in an asylum.
Phil_M,
I’m one of those “kooks” that prays for our leaders, specifically George Bush, daily.
You may call me naive or kooky as you please. Carry on.
But I don’t have a cat named Mr. Fluffles.
#33 - I am saying that expecting a divine intervention to suddenly change the heart of a person who has taken a position for fundamentally corrupt reasons is extremely naive. I am also saying that doing so on full public display with the expectation that it will bring about said change is a little more than kooky.
It is kooky to the point that it denies the possibility of self-determination in that leader’s own actions. It is kooky to the point that we, as sinners, mistakenly believe that we have embarked to create the impossible: the city of God on earth. It is kooky to the point that we believe that our collaborative organization as a government will aggregate to something more than its composition of sinners, thus entirely escaping the corruption of this world. It is kooky to the point that it fosters a false perception of government as innately “good,” divinely guided, and always in the right with God.
It is one thing to say a prayer for a leader in solemn privacy and to ask for his health, safety, and guidance from temptation just as one would ask the same for any other person or himself. It is a very different thing to send out a daily “pray for George W. Bush” email asking that he be divinely guided to sign HR 12345 into law.
I predict RP will make a goofy independent run as well. The money bombs will demand it.
13. Congrats to you and Mrs. Jolly!
I don’t think I could convince the rest of the heard of cats to change the date, but in recognition of your special occasion, I’d be pleased to match your contribution to RonPaul2008.com (up to $100.)
34 - As I said above, it all depends on what you pray for. If you pray for Bush to be guided from temptation and to be preserved in mind and body as you would pray for any family member or even yourself, I have no issue with it. That is entirely normal and entirely reasonable.
I’m talking about the people who pray for God to convince Rick Perry to personally enact the minutae of the Republican Party Platform and genuinely expect that it will happen. I’m also talking about the people who pray for God to “smite” their political enemies, to ensure a GOP victory in the animal hide inspector’s race, and to divinely inspire a global American empire. It is hopelessly naive to believe we can create the City of God in this world, and a little more than kooky to try.
Is glenn beck actually relevant to anything anymore?
“That’s what bothers me - I don’t want to see the U.S. put out the flame of hope that we bring to the rest of the world, which is what I think his foreign policy will do.”
Only somebody how never lived abroad can believe that U.S. is the flame for hope. It’s not. It hasn’t been for a long time. I used to be a foreign national and, though US indeed was seen as a beacon of hope a long time ago, today it is despised and resented. Part of it has to do with recent developments in foreign policy and part with the fact that people around the world are much better informed about US foreign policy than they used to be. If the world could vote they would embrace Ron Paul’s philosophy immediately. The idea that the US is saving the world is sounds ludicrous everywhere except in the US.
As Christians, aren’t we compelled to try?
gaddy,
Is anything relevant to you?
student,
I didn’t say that the US was out saving the world. What I said was what I meant, that we are a beacon of hope in this world. For you to deny that only proves that you live in an isolated cocoon. Cheers.
Jesus said otherwise.
“My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.”
But the US is not a beacon of hope - it is a country that many people fear, few respect and nobody likes. If you traveled or read foreign papers you would immediately see that.
#42 That is a negative. Ours is to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace. The City of God is a city not built with human hands.
With regards to surveys, SurveyUSA reports a poll in South Carolina where Hunter and Paul were left out.
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=16534545-fed1-44c2-a2b2-900fe56895df
It is my opinion, not only based on polls excluding Paul, that Paul will do so much better than the polls show, even that Paul may win the nomination.
41. Spot on, Student…
I read many comments on blogs and youtubes supporting Ron Paul that were made by people in Canada and overseas. There are several Ron Paul meetup groups in Europe.
This is a better than average youtube video from Belgium.
#39 Phil_M
Who are you to determine what a man prays for?
Who are you to determine what a man believes in?
Phil_M - determiner of all truth.
/I still don’t have a cat named Mr. Fluffles.
#46 student
Nonsense. You are applying your own little US hating worldview to the rest of humanity. Tell the billions of people around the world that look to the US for guidance we aren’t a beacon of hope. Such foolishness.
bob42,
You know full well that there is a difference between hatred of Bush and the worlds view of America’s humanity.
“Nonsense. You are applying your own little US hating worldview to the rest of humanity.”
I ****LOVE**** the US. But I am aware that others don’t like us. It has nothing to do with what I think about the US or what I would like to be true. The fact is the world doesn’t like the US - a fact you can check if you travel and read papers (there is even research on that - the US is not a popular country).
The US foreign policy is basically a mix of altruism and imperialism. Most people abroad don’t even see the altruistic element - for them it is 100% imperialism. It is an unfair assessment since of all powers in the history the US has been most reluctant to use its power to the fullest. It is the most benevolent empire in history. Nevertheless, others don’t see that and hate us.
Again, the rest of the world would elect Ron Paul immediately. I am not even saying that we should elect him because the world says so. I am just saying that it is ridiculous not to elect him under assumption that world wouldn’t like it. The world would be absolutely thrilled.
Actually, Phil_M/Jaime,
It is certainly our mandate to try. A single phrase taken out of context of the body of Christ’s words does not a point make.
I don’t want to start quoting scripture - just read the Bible as a whole.
student,
Start by asking our allies if they would like it. Get back to me on that, okay?
what allies?
That would be part of your research. See, every once in a while, you have to step out of your anti-US cocoon and look around. At the truth.
#53 - It’s far from out of context. That passage is pretty much the starting point behind Augustine’s “City of God” - probably the single most important defining work of both Catholic and Protestant theology after the bible itself.
The point is we are to emulate the City of God on earth and strive for a good life. We are not to create it here though, and in fact it is blasphemous to believe that we as mere humans could even do so.
I was sarcastic. The number of US allies is dwindling rapidly. Something that alleged patriot should take notice of. Good bye!
I’m not. You are free to pray as you choose. I am simply stating that how a person prays and what he prays for says a lot about the sanity of his theology. People who obsess in prayer over trivialities while missing the bigger picture of prayer’s purpose are on very questionable theological grounds. Prayer is a good thing, but not all prayers are equal.
52 student
This, alone, should make anyone think long and hard before voting for the Dishonorable Dokter Paul. If the rest of the world would elect him, we clearly need to look elsewhere.
Phil_M, we aren’t supposed to bring Heaven to Earth, but we are supposed to show the world a glimpse of Heaven through our actions, our prayers an our lives. Praying for dynamic change is a Christian ideal, or have you forgotten about Paul?
52 student
By the way, I think you are right. Much of the world would love to see the DDRP as president. Then, all petty tyrants, Islamofascists and other assorted madmen would feel free to oppress, brutalize and slaughter with impunity - while Herr Doktor, with his 18th century foreign policy, hid under a table.
Student,
Why does everyone want in to the country that is so dispised by the rest of the world?
61
Don’t confuse him with the facts. Or maybe he thinks Paul was faking it.
How is US foreign policy imperialism? Can anyone show me the last time we fought a war to gain land?
The imperialists are the islamics trying to take over the world.
emulate - to try to equal or excel; imitate with effort to equal or surpass: to emulate one’s father as a concert violinist.
We’re saying the same thing. You’re just being disagreeable for the sake of arguing now.
And that is to be done on a personal level. It’s also a very different thing than trying to forcefully reshape worldly society into a Kingdom of God on earth - a beacon on the hill for humanity. That was the entire point of Augustine - we cannot establish a City of God on earth because earthly nature is corrupted by sin. On earth we have the City of Man, and on earth our goal is to strive for the City of God through our personal actions knowing that we may one day enter it - not that we may attempt to replicate it here on earth. And I think Paul would entirely agree with that, hence his proselytization by word absent forceful reconstruction of society.
#67 - Nonesense. To try to equal, as in to strive for in one’s personal actions, is very different from proclaiming oneself a “beacon on the hill” and actually attempting to to create a City of God on earth. Go read Augustine. He makes this distinction very clearly. The difference is nothing short of that between reverence and blasphemy.
So, when I say that we, as a people, are a beacon of light to the world, it offends you because you think that I’m referring to our military (which it doesn’t) or that I think we are trying to be heaven on earth. Correct?
To put it another way, we know the City of God exists and that it exists as an example for us as humans to follow - never to exceed because exceeding it is impossible, and never to replicate because it is perfect by definition and we are not.
We are not to try to establish it here though and make ourselves the example, supplanting the true City of God, which is “not of this world” as Jesus plainly told us.
We do not create the example for others in our own City of God on earth that is supposed to mirror that in heaven. We convince others to join us in striving for the example provided by the City of God that we may attain it in the next life.
70 - It all depends on the context of what you mean by a beacon. If you mean it in the John Winthrop puritan sense, e.g. that Boston is the city on the hill - the city of god on earth for the world to follow - then yes, it offends me because it is patently blasphemous.
If you mean it only that the U.S. example is worthy of following in the worldly sense, then that is something entirely different.
#69 What the heck did I say in #42? If your going to insist on arguing at least have the courtesy to read my comments.
In 42 you said we are “compelled to try” to create the City of God on earth.
And I am saying here that that is a very different thing from following the example that the City of God creates for us.
I should have caught your capitalizing City of God but in a thread on Ron Paul, Augustine was the furthest thing from my mind. It must be frustrating for people in academia to have to deal with mere mortals.
Obviously, I mean that the US is worthy of being an example to the world.
I’m not trying to create heaven on earth.
/and I still don’t have a cat named Mr. Fluffles.
It’s the caps, hamous. The caps. The caps. The caps.
# 57
“We are not to create it here though, and in fact it is blasphemous to believe that we as mere humans could even do so.”
I agree. To do so would be kinda like those dudes in the Middle East that want to establish their own version of the “City of Allah” on earth.
ROTFLMAO as I look down upon the peons from my ivory tower perch
#76 Oh! How did I miss that??? I’m so stupid. I should have known better than to attempt to have a meaningful conversation with an intellectual theologian wise beyond his years. I’ll go back to being my normal sarcastic self after being told what I really meant.
77 - exactly. That’s the difference I’m trying to stress. It’s the “City of Allah” in the sense of a global sharia-run Dar-al-Islam waiting for the magic mahdi that’s the problem.
#79 - City of God isn’t exactly an obscure book, hamous, particularly given that I mentioned Augustine by name no less than three times.
BigJolly, to his credit, figured it out.
Blessed be bigjolly for he shall inherit the Sword of Self-Righteousness.
Phil_M,
Since you are a disciple of Augustine, I take it that you do not believe in evolution. Correct?
83 - I’m more of a post-Thomist scholastic on the evolution question. Some degree of evolution necessarily occured simply because man was created at a fixed and discernable point in history (this is proven through Olber’s Paradox). We can determine this point in history as the work of God the creator by way of Thomas Aquinas’ application of the unmoved mover principle. It is from that point that human beings “evolved,” if it can be called that.
Oh, and Phil, you didn’t mention Augustine until #57. My comment was made in #42. 57 comes after 42.
I love it!! A Ron Paul thread that turns into an argument about Christianity and counting!!!
But that is squarely against Augustine in the “City of God”. He says God created everything in a single instant, not even bothering with six days. And an entire chapter on the earth being less than 6,000 years old.
85 - And you didn’t realize I was talking about Augustine until BigJolly told you in 76. By that point I had mentioned him by name no less than three times.
87 - Strictly speaking, everything was “created” in a single instant of creation - the moment of causality initiated by the unmoved mover, which is God. That single instance is the divergence of essence and existence at God’s will, God’s essence being existence in and of itself. All that follows from it occurs causally because it already exists.
To put it another way, the instance of creation is distinct from the evolution of creation in the same way that your existence as a creation of God is distinct from your existence as a creation of your parents when they conceived you. Both are “creations” so to speak, but the former is a creation of existence ex nihilo whereas your parents “created” you in the physical sense by a causal chain of events.
I get a kick out of a person divining my thoughts, then arguing with me over his misinterpretation of what I meant.
No one was talking in terms of Augustine until you decided to insert him into the conversation. It was irrelevant, and still is.
Ah, but “strictly speaking”, Augustine said that the earth was less than 6,000 years old. Which, strictly speaking, negates any possibility of the current theory of evolution happening.
91 - Augustine also lacked the tools of modern science to make that calculation. I suspect if he was alive today that, being a scientific mind in his own right, he would make a better calculation based on a broader volume of evidence.
A similar situation happened once upon a time with the whole “earth is the center of the universe” thing. When Aquinas wrote, scientific knowledge of astronomy was based around the Ptolemaic calculations of star movements - suggesting a fixed earth at the center of a moving body of space. Aquinas’ scientific writings reflect this view, but in one of his essays he held out the possibility that it may be rendered obsolete some years from then when a fuller understanding of the universe emerged.
90 - I made the first reference to the City of God by name in 39, Hamous. You did not even respond to that portion of the discussion until 42. Thus my introduction of Augustine predates your own participation in the discussion of his principles.
ROFL! Now he knows what St. Augustine really meant. Maybe you should rewrite Aquinas’ Summa, Phil.
I doubt it. Look what he said about the technology of his day, in City of God:
In other words, he relied upon scripture over science.
Phil_M,
I know that you are a Reagan guy.
Was Ronald Reagan “patently blasphemous”?
Although I used Augustine’s title to his book I did not mean to use Augustine as THE argument.
The whole of the Bible, not just allegedly taken out of context, is about us being “pilgrims” in the “valley under the shadow of death” looking for a city “not built with human hands.”
From Abraham to Revelation. That is not a small context.
“And I saw the New Jerusalem com down from heaven ..”
We are to live as sojourners, in this world but of it, looking forward to the fullness of redemption, even the final and actual doing away of death itself.
We are to follow Christ and be His light in this dark world. We are not to pull the weeds seeded by the enemy. We are to work in the Master’s field until the day that He sends His angels to harvest the wheat. The tares and the weeds will then be burned and cast away.
I’ve never liked that speach from Reagan. In all probability, he was simply using a rhetorical flourish to make a political point. It is equally likely that the city on the hill stuff made it into that speech from the pen of a speechwriter who did not understand St. Augustine or the underlying theology he/she was invoking.
If blasphemous, it was likely so only by ignorance rather than by a willful afront to God. The puritan theologians who professed it on the other hand did so willfully, and thus committed a far greater act of blasphemy.
Thus spoke Philathustra.
95 - Look at the context of that chapter. He was attempting to determine the validity of competing ancient sources on the age of the world. He was writing about the inconsistencies in cosmological dating systems used by the Greeks, Egyptians, and Assyrians which variously dated the world’s age between about 2 and 10 thousand years.
At that point in human history it was not even thought of that the world could be much older than even the longest estimate from the ancient cosmologies. Given what he had to work with Augustine was trying to figure out which source was the most credible.
It is also of note that when Augustine refers to the “sacred text” calculation, he is not producing his own number from the bible but rather referring to the calculations made by Eusebius of Caesarea in an earlier study of the bible.
Put differently, Augustine had 5 or 6 estimations of the world’s age from various ancient civilizations plus the bible. He set out to compare them all together and make a judgement based on that knowledge on which was most likely to be accurate. Within the strict confines of that knowledge, he made a logically deduced conclusion. It is not a valid argument though to say that he would have reached the same conclusion had human knowledge of the universe been more extensive at the time he wrote.
How thoroughly unsurprising. Void of logical commentary and substance, hamous has reverted to the inferior substitute of snarkiness.
Does Ron Paul believe in evolution?
Thus is my lot in life Phil. When a stupid redneck such as myself is confronted with the superior intellect of a philosopher of your caliber we always revert to the inferior substitute of snarkiness in the absence of logical commentary. Probably all that inbreeding. Or maybe it was the lead paint…
I don’t think so. It’s not in the Constitution.
But 3/5ths of a person is.
I must admit it is unusual for me to be called a blasphemer and a cat lover in one day.
Put differently, Augustine had the BEST scientific explanations of his day. And he rejected them in favor of scripture. True enough, in his body of work, he did use secular resources to influence his thought, but not about the age of the earth or creation. Nothing suggests that he would do differently today.
Wow - when I posted 29, little did I know it would lead to all of this!
Btw Phil, Bigjolly knocked your “logical commentary” out of the park but arrogance prohibits you from acknowledging you were bested.
But how ’bout this? An RP thread with very little discussion about RP! Has to be a first for LST.
109.
But it still hit triple digits.
#110 - Whooda thunk pontification would drive up comment counts?