Monday, 11 May 2015

Is David Palm Preaching to Me, by Any Chance?

I came across this on Catholic Cosmology and Geocentrism (yes, we DO look at what opponents say, and I look at it very carefully to find logical flaws, unless it is too specialised). I found this one:

The “Simple” and “Scary” Mindset of Robert Sungenis
Posted on May 4, 2015 by David Palm

I will quote the last bit first:

As remarkable as that is [the incompetence in physics he thinks he demonstrated in Sungenis], it’s even more remarkable that some people see all of this incompetence and paranoia repeatedly demonstrated in front of their eyes, yet they still conclude, “Yes, these geocentrists are honest, competent, trustworthy experts and I should trust them instead of virtually the entire world of astrophysics.”

While the new geocentrists decry the fact that some scientists have crossed the line into philosophy and even quasi-religion at times, they seem completely oblivious to the blind faith required to follow them in their quixotic quest to prove geocentrism.

I very much wonder if "some people" specifically means myself.

I feel "alluded to but not rightly so", as Marine LePen said "je me sens visée, pas coupable".

I can assure you, David Palm, everyone else whom it may concern, including all the readers (I mean, they would of course like to know if the author they follow is somewhat showing good judgement, wouldn't they?) and all whom it may not concern too, but who are reading this anyway, since some creeps are mainly reading my blogs for evidence about my "feeble state of mind", that I am NOT following Sungenis in blind faith. Nor Kent Hovind.

But it seems some persons who have a very weird combination of liking for my person as in me rather than someone else, have a similarily great dislike for all I actually believe. It is as perverted a love hate as one can find in accomplished shrinks.

So, if I am a geocentric, I must be exonerated by "blindly believing Sungenis". If I am a young earth geologist, I must be exonerated by "blindly believing Kent Hovind". If I am a Catholic, I once had to be exoerated by "blindly believing John Paul II". If I am an Orthopapist Conclavist Catholic, I must be exonerated by "blindly believing David Bawden". And if I was a Palmarian, I had to be exonerated by "blindly believing Gregorio XVII".

There is not much of blind and unexamined beliefs in my life.

If I commend having faith as a coal burner (the famed coal burner whom Luther met and whose faith he disparaged, "foi du charbonnier" and "kolartro" in French and Swedish), I only have the part which is compulsory for all Catholics to have : to believe all that the Church teaches. The other half, which is not compulsory, i e not knowing what that is, not only do I not have, but I have on the contrary a very good knowledge of not only what the Church teaches, but also why She teaches it. And what are the criteria for saying it is the Church as such and not just an individual Churchman teaching it.

And the same goes for things I believe on less than supernatural grounds, things I believe but which are not taught by the Church, which I believe on natural, logical, grounds.

If David Palm is trying to save me from "blindly believing in Sungenis", he is seriously wasting his time, as far as I am concerned. Debunk SUNGENIS all you want, you have still not proven the Heliocentric consensus or close to such among natural scientists (as opposed to other men living now) and among such of them who live today (as opposed to for instance Astronomers like Tycho Brahe and Riccioli) is worthy of the kind of blind belief you want me to waste on them while pretending I waste it on Sungenis.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Sts Philip and Jacob

No comments:

Post a Comment