Tuesday, 29 September 2015

Will Probably NOT read Matthew Vines' God and the Gay Christian

The review I read of it is enough. Here is the link, I will give the most salient quotes from it and some answers.

Third Way : Review: God and the Gay Christian

Vines reminds us that a literal reading of the Bible made many Christians oppose Galileo’s argument that the Earth circles the Sun and that the Earth is not the centre of the universe.

As far as I can see rightly so. I feel a bit stumped about delay for radio signals between earth and Voyager 1 changing time span not just for growing distance of Voyager 1 (which is still closer than a light day away, so sphere of fixed stars could be that far off or that close, since that is still five six light hours outside and above Voyager 1), but also with the supposed orbit of Earth around sun. How I as a Geocentric explain this change in delay is a bit of a conundrum, if true. Sungenis might have a tip.

Today everyone realises that Galileo was right.

EVERYONE? No, a brave village of irreductible Geocentrics ...*

Galileo’s observation ran contrary to the received interpretation of the Bible.

Which is why it is wrong.

Vines points out that most Christians have not changed their minds because they lost respect for their forebears in the faith or for the Bible but because they examined evidence not previously considered. They didn’t reject the Bible but clarified their interpretation of its meaning.

While "phenomenal language" might do for "the Sun stood still", it won't do for Joshua's ordering sun and moon to stand still. He was an inspired miracle worker in that order.

Vines asks if the modern understanding of the nature of homosexuality warrants a similar revision of interpretation. The rest of the book seeks to answer this question affirmatively.

That is what comes of Modernism, and that is why I hate it.

Celibacy is the lot – according to the traditional Christian interpretation of Scripture – of all Christians before marriage. If gay Christians are not permitted any possibility of same-sex marriage they must then, Vines argues, be celibate for life. That changes the nature of celibacy as it is traditionally a spiritual gift and calling, not a life sentence.


As already said, and several times over by me, being gay is not a life sentence. And what is more, if Josh Weed is correct in describing himself as still gay, it is not even an obstacle for overcoming undesired celibacy in the NORMAL way.**

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
St Michael's Mass

* See Contemporary Proponents of Geocentrism on my Geocentric Wikia

** Thinking otherwise is one bad effect of believing Modernist bad science. In this case the ultra bad pseudo science of psychology.

An Ukrainean Nationalist, Pavlo Khomenko, Speaks Up (links)

Third Way : The Ukrainian Conflict: A Ukrainian Nationalist View, Part 1

Third Way : The Ukrainian Conflict: A Ukrainian Nationalist View, Part 2: The Maidan and Yanukovych

[part 3, upcoming?]

A Megalomaniac Philosophy - with a Touch of Childishness

If a man believes he is a giant, he may feel he looks on other people like ants.

In the physical realm, when it comes to size, it is rare, unless the man really is a giant. And it would take a bigger giant than Goliath to consider normal men as small as ants.

But in the mental realm, some do have this Megalomaniac Attitude. I am not saying that John G. Messerly is necessarily a megalomaniac in the ordinary sense of a man who thinks he is Napoleon (when he isn't). I am however saying he has a philosophy which tends that way. If he means what he says, continues to do so and is not yet a Megalomaniac, he risks becoming one.

Here are two excerpts of his writings. One is from Salon.Com, where he is just contributing. One is from his own blog, linked to from there.

Salon : Religion’s smart-people problem: The shaky intellectual foundations of absolute faith
Why is all this important? Because human beings need their childhood to end; they need to face life with all its bleakness and beauty, its lust and its love, its war and its peace. They need to make the world better. No one else will.

[Sunday, Dec 21, 2014 05:30 PM +0100]

The Meaning of Life : Cosmic Evolution, Transhumanism, and the Meaning of Life
The possibility of infinitely long, good, and meaningful lives brings the purpose of our lives into focus. The purpose of life is to diminish and, if possible, abolish all constraints on our being—intellectual, psychological, physical, and moral—and remake the external world in ways conducive to the emergence of meaning. This implies embracing our role as protagonists of the cosmic evolutionary epic, working to increase the quantity and quality of knowledge, love, joy, pleasure, beauty, goodness and meaning in the world, while diminishing their opposites. This is the purpose of our lives.


Meaning then, like the consciousness and freedom from which it derives, is an emergent property of cosmic evolution—and we find our purpose by playing our small part in aiding its emergence. If we are successful our efforts will culminate in the overcoming of human limitations, and our (post-human) descendents will live fully meaningful lives. If we do achieve our purpose in the far distant future, if a fully meaningful reality comes to fruition, and if somehow we are a part of that meaningful reality, then we could say that our life and all life was, and is, deeply meaningful. In the interim we can find inspiration in the hope that we can succeed.

[September 16, 2015]

In other words, the childhood of mankind he thinks needs to end, is in fact remaining human.

The making "the world a better place" is in fact creating a new, post-human, immortal race.

Otherwise, the day to day atheist reading the article in Salon is just concluding John G. Messerly is agreeing with and endorsing his idea that Christians are people who have not really grown up.

But when you read John G. Messerly's own blog, you find out that according to him mankind itself is an animal that hasn't grown up. He wants us to outgrow mortality. He wants us to outgrow other limitations too.

The only limitation he would like to remain or perhaps even rather augment is limited opportunities for Christians - necessarily opposed to his Transhumanist Project - in remaining Christians and remaining free members, considered as legal and mental adults in society. He wants a state of affairs in which Christianity is compared to "believing in the toothfairy".

In fact, if he hates the present condition of mankind, as a mortal species, he hates its maker, he hates God, for having punished us with mortality for the sin of Adam. And he is promoting the sin of Nimrod. Or one presumed version of what it was, since the Bible is not perfectly clear about exact nature. But it involved overstepping limits.

He is not an Atheist in the Classical sense, one who believes there is no God and never will be. He is a Mellontolater, an idolater of Future Gods, yet to emerge from us. He only denies God has existed from eternity so he can hope his grandchild or sth like that becomes the first God there ever was.

Now, that attitude is kind of Megalomaniac.

I never believed the Super Humans of D. C. Comics or Marvel Comics were strictly Gods as in Immortals. But I have outgrown believing in the possibility of men achieving such powers in their own being (though demons might, if God permit it, similate these about them), simply by genetic change. The man who considers Christians as not having grown out of believing the tooth fairy is a man who is still a devout believer in D. C. Comics and Marvel Comics. If you feel this touch of childishness is "touching", go for it.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
St Michael's Mass

For those who think Putin is Conservative ...

It is not more than that. He is not restoring Christian public morality.

In the U.S., Putin points out, some states still have laws on the books against same-sex relations. (This is partly true; all such laws were invalidated in 2003 by the Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas.)

In Russia, Putin adds, "We have no persecution at all. People of non-traditional sexual orientation work, they live in peace, they get promoted, they get state awards for their achievements in science and arts or other areas. I personally have awarded them medals."

So, up to 2003, some US States were better than Russia. And Putin disliked that!

CBS News : Putin talks gay rights on 60 Minutes
2015 Sep 27

Russia needs the consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God. As she requested in Fatima.

Bergoglio met Putin, and both betrayed Russia on that account. Bergoglio by saying "let's not talk about Fatima", Putin by NOT saying sth like "if YOU think that, who's the real Pope?". Putin recently also said, the important thing is not what he is called, but what he can do for Russia. That day he was NOT doing good for Russia. Nor is what he said the day before yesterday a very good thing for Russia either.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Michael's Mass

Friday, 25 September 2015

Apparent Only Options - illustrated by a sudoku row ...

... or what remained of it when previous boxes were already filled in, five boxes left.

Bold style, small numerals = options, as had.

Normal style, normal size = solutions, alternative or consecutively consequent.

The options given as had depend in part not just on the row previous to it, but also on what square and what column they are in. I here ignore that option 2 for second box was already off, as I already had that one in the square while examinating this row.

 28 7
 4 7 
94 7 
 7 4 
97 4 
 82 7
So, first box needs to be a nine ? What about possibilities 4 and 7 ?
4  7 
4 28728
4 ?28728
7  4 
7 28428
7 ?28428
Actually, there is another reason why first needs to be a nine, which I had overlooked. No other box is open to a nine, so it is the only place one can put it.

The lesson of this is that a "why can't" doesn't always work.

My adversaries would apply this to my question "why can't angels be dancing the so called parallax with the stars". I would apply it to their "all parallax observations are dependent on Earth moving around the Sun each year". Except that, when it comes to negative parallax - my reason - and this observed by the Tycho experiment, they would make exceptions. Obviously a parallactic movement of a star has to be opposite rotation to that of Earth, it cannot be "negative", i e cannot be same apparent rotation as Earths real rotation. Their solution : some of the observations are not accurate. My solution : Earth is not moving. It is angels dancing with the stars. Well, their "some observations are not accurate" is defeating their position. If so many observations are inaccurate, how could we know any are accurate?*

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bibliothèque Audoux
St Cléophas of Emmaus

* A bit like the 4 or 7 options leading to a question mark too.

Thursday, 24 September 2015

One Bad Idea of AA - Applied to Homosexuality, a Chaste SSA Man is Here Quoted:

Here is the quote:

When I talked about obsessing over sexual temptation, I was thinking particularly of something that bothered me during the years I was involved in a Church-sponsored support group for same-sex attracted men (an experience I wrote about a couple of years ago). When I first joined the group in my twenties, I had zero experience with the gay “hook up” culture; even if I had wanted to have casual or anonymous sexual encounters, I wouldn’t have had a clear idea of how to go about it. In the group, however, at the beginning of each meeting, members went around the table confessing their struggles with chastity over the past week. Within a few weeks of joining the group, I had learned of about half a dozen specific locations in the Seattle area where I could have anonymous sex, and also learned a little bit about how to recognize who was looking for sex. No one in the group was trying to offer a how-to guide, of course. Over the course of many confessions, however, specific locations were named, and from discussion of how the person confessing tried to resist or gave in, I learned quite a bit about the dynamics of identifying and seducing possible hook-ups in these locations.

I never fell for that temptation. But it was certainly no aid to chastity to learn exactly where I could go to have sex and how to pick out and seduce potential partners if I went there. And hearing about others’ sins week in and week out tended to desensitize me to the seriousness of sexual sin. “Hooking up” began to seem like something that some people did on Tuesday, confessed on Friday, and moved on.

Here is the link:

Deacon Jim Russell and the Hermeneutic of Suspicion
Posted by Ron Belgau on Spiritual Friendship

Here is one Biblical, and as far as I know Traditionally Catholic (not meaning typical of today's movement so called), recipe for dealing with it:

Corinthians 7:9 But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt.

Challoner Comment: If they do not contain: This is spoken of such as are free, and not of such as, by vow, have given their first faith to God; to whom if they will use proper means to obtain it, God will never refuse the gift of continency. Some translators have corrupted this text, by rendering it, if they cannot contain.

Note that Bishop Challoner:

  • a) is not making any explicit exception for Same Sex Attracted people as if they were unable to marry properly;
  • b) is actually opposing the idea that some "cannot" be chaste, whether as in his case it means "chaste" as a celibate, or in the case I talk of means "chaste" as in normally married. They differ as 100-fold and 30-fold fruit spoken of as given by the good soil.

Here is a man who was in the particular situation of Ron Belgau, and who followed the advice here given:

Josh Weed : Club Unicorn: In which I come out of the closet on our ten year anniversary


Josh Weed : Thank You Club Unicorn

And my simple question here is, why was the diocese of Ron Belgau not promoting Club Unicorn instead of the Support Group above mentioned, which seems to function on an AA like basis?

Perhaps because it is not fully Catholic?

Let's look at another man.

Les amis de Calvin lui reprochaient son célibat. Alors, pour bien montrer qu'il approuvait le mariage plus que le célibat, il avait demandé à ses amis de l'aider à trouver une épouse qui fût « modeste, serviable, nullement arrogante, nullement extravagante, patiente et soucieuse de ma santé. » Étrangement, d'abord personne ne remarqua que la calme et modeste Idelette possédait justement ces qualités.

The friends of Calvin reproached him his celibacy. Then, to show well that he approved marriage more than celibacy ... I interrupt the translation to remark, unlike St Paul ... he had asked his friends to help him find a spouse who was to be "modest, servicable, not at all arrogant, not at all extravagant, patient and sollicitous for my health". Strangely enough, at first no one remarked that the calm and modest Idelette ... new interruption: born de Bure and previously married and widowed Storder ... possessed precisely these qualities.

Some have said that Calvin, before joining the reformation, was branded with a lily. Because of sodomy with extenuating circumstances (without these, it would have been death, and death penalty for sodomy was still carried out as late as 1750 in France, which was the latest case). If this is true, Calvin, the diabolic apostle of double predestination, by his life has shown that he was not predestined to a choice of either celibacy or sodomy.

Lengthy digression on whether this be true or not:

And also that the grave and learned Dr. Stapleton*, 12 (adds the same writer in the same place), who had every opportunity of gaining information on this subject, having spent his life in the neighbourhood of Noyon, speaks of this adventure of Calvin's in terms of one who was certain of the fact. The quotation is in Latin...[and] I shall translate it. "The public monuments and records," said he, "of the town of Noyon in Picardy, are to be seen even to this day: in them it is related, that John Calvin, convicted of sodomy, and branded on the back only with a mark of infamy, through the indulgence of the bishop and magistrate, fled from the town; nor could the most respecteble men of his family, hitherto obtain that the registration of this act, which throws a heavy slur upon the whole family, be removed from these public monuments and records.

So, Thomas Stapledon, a Catholic controversialist who by converting had had to flee from Protestant England either saw evidence or faked evidence in the public records of Noyon. I do not think he was a liar.

In Calvin's own lifetime, a Bolsec charged him with this.

Second, and more significantly, the author relies upon a most jaundiced and historically discredited sixteenth-century source, Jerome Bolsec (d. 1584). Bolsec** was a former Carmelite monk turned physician, who had vacillated between the Reformation and Rome. He attacked Calvin’s doctrine of predestination during a meeting of the congregation. Bolsec, “a poor theologian technically” and “particularly weak on the history doctrines” (T. H. L. Parker) charged Calvin with making God the author of sin. Absent for the first part of Bolsec’s complaint, Calvin arrived unseen and stood to reply ex tempore for one hour. He replied to Bolsec in print in 1552 with De aeterna dei praedestinatione. Thus, Bolsec is hardly an unbiased witness. His account of Calvin’s life (see below) is notorious for its falsehoods.

The earlier site I looked at is discussing Bolsec before turning to Stapledon.

Calvin-admirers* have said that neither Berthelier nor Bolsec were worthy of being credited because, if true, then `why did the Roman Catholics not expose their arch-enemy Calvin with the same evidence?'

The answer could be, that clemency included secrecy. Or indeed, that Calvin's identity in 1534 was disputed. Noyon in 1534 may not have known how in 1533 elsewhere Calvin had supported the already condemned Nicolas Cop.

If this is true, Calvin has shown that he was not predestined for the evil of not being capable of a real marriage, despite having a sodomitic affair. Something which of course the blog Heidelblog is disputing.

Now, as to Bolsec, a comment under Heidelblog entry has this:

From Roman Catholic Apologist Art Sippo:

06/11/2008 : 12:25:50 PM Show Profile Email Poster Reply with Quote
I decided to deal with this issue in its own topic since it is not germain to the justification thread.

The charge of Sodomy was made about Calvin during his career as a religious despot in Geneva, Switzerland. It came from his earlier life in France in what was at that time a PROTESTANT area. It was popularized by Jerome Bolsec, a former Carmelite Monk who had joined the so-called ‘reform’ and gone to live in Geneva. While there Bolsec disagreed with Calvin publicly on a technical issue relating to predestination. Calvin had Bolsec arrested and held in abysmal condition while seeking to have him executed for heresy.

Whereon Scott Clark, author of Heidelblog, answered:


I take it that you’re posting this as more evidence that Romanist apologists continue to repeat myths?

Whereupon Algo answered:

Bolsec was intelligent and articulate. He won the sympathy of the ecclesiastical ‘court’ that Calvin convened. While they did not all agree with his position, they did not think that he was a danger to the faith in Geneva. Calvin demanded Bolsec’s death. The Court would not agree. Then Calvin took a poll of the other Protestant pastors in Switzerland. They refused to exact the death penalty either. In fact, Calvin lost some of his closest friends because of his murderous attitude towards Bolsec. After suffering horrible physical and mental abuse, Bolsec was banished from Geneva and advised to leave Switzerland for his own safety.

“He later came to his senses and returned to the Catholic Faith. He then wrote a book on the life of Calvin which frankly repeated every negative comment or charge ever made against the man. The sodomy charge was one of them.

Calvin always harbored murderous intent against those who had the temerity to disagree with him. He had many such people executed with little problem. The most notorious case was that of Michael Servetus. Calvin had him killed to satisfy his own ego and lust for power. Attempts had been made to verify the sodomy charges against Calvin, but since the events allegedly happened in a Protestant area, there have been charges of cover up and collusion to protect Calvin’s ‘good name.’

Nevertheless there are numerous facts about he man which IMHO make the charges credible.

Calvin started out his career to be a priest with an eye to a bishopric. When his father fell afoul of the Bishop of Noyon and was excommunicated, Calvin knew he could not advance into higher ecclesiastical office and changed his studies to law. AT NO TIME WAS CALVIN INVOLVED WITH OR INTERESTED IN WOMEN OR MARRIAGE.


Which is of course very atypical of a Reformer.

That is up to this episode when his friends urge him to marry and he then asks them for advice, leading to his marriage with Idelette de Bure. Their urging is missing from the English wiki version of Idelette:

Calvin was so caught up in his labors that he did not seem to consider marriage until age 30 or so. He asked friends to help him find a woman who was "chaste, obliging, not fastidious, economical, patient, and careful for (his) health". His fellow laborer Martin Bucer had known Idelette and recommended her to Calvin in confidence that she would fit the bill. They married in August 1540.

All there - except the fact that his friends had to push him into considering marriage.

If you want to discredit Bolsec, you should of course also discredit his story about having been prisoner under Calvin and badly treated. Which in principle is a bit like the crime in France called negationism.

Scott Clark now pretends that (yes, Scott Clark on Heidelblog) that Catholics had discredited this "myth" since 16th C. Jean Papire Masson, a Catholic and ex-Jesuit, writing in year ?? is cited by Irena Dorota Backus (2008) as having this quality:

The Latin life of John Calvin attributed to Masson had a reputation in its time as fair-minded. (P. 220).

It is missing in the French wikiversion of Jean Papire Masson. Which gives a bibliography. Another Catholic cited here is Le Vasseur. He has no article, but is cited here:

Jacques Le Vasseur, chanoine de Noyon, lui a dédié en 1633 son Histoire des évêques de Noyon.

This man is then Henri de Baradat.

I note that Jean Papire Masson is an ex-Jesuit, and perhaps as much of a controversialist as Stapledon and Bolsec.

Ad Franc. Hotomani Franco-galliam Antonii Matharelli...responsio. Lutetiae: Ex off. Fédéric Morel, 1575. Controverse à la suite de la publication du traité Francogallia de François Hotman. Quelques autorités déclarent que Masson pourrait avoir écrit celui-ci sous le pseudonyme d’Antoine Matharel, autres disent que Matharel (1537–1586) était l’auteur seul, et encore autres disent que le travail était une collaboration entre Masson et Matharel.

So, we do not know if Papire Masson was a completely non-controversial author, and we also - at least those who like me are restricted to the wikipedian article - do not know he wrote the reputedly fair-minded Latin biography on Calvin.

I then note that Jacques Le Vasseur who gives another date than 1534 for when a Iean Chauvin was branded, is writing later than Stapledon, and that archives in Noyon could have been fiddled with during the Guerres de Religion or at behest of ex-Calvinist King Henri IV.

So, no, we cannot definitely say that this story is a myth.

And this means Calvin could be, along Josh Weed, a document of the fact that SSA people are not excluded from the recipe or ordination given by St Paul in Corinthians 7:9. If a Catholic, or so called such, was to deny this, he would be out-Calvining Calvin in the evil doctrine of Predestinationism.

I will not hide from you certain misgivings, cited by Catholic Apologist Art Sippo and quoted in comment section under Heidelblog, Algo is commenting again:

more ridiculous ranting of Dr. Art Sippo on this topic:

“Calvin was in Geneva for several years when some of his fellow ‘reformed pastors’ WHO HAD ALL MARRIED came to him and showed concern for the fact that he hadn’t. They arranged a marriage for him to the widow of another pastor who was older than Calvin. This was a marriage of convenience for both parties.

They had only one son at which point most of Calvin’s biographers agree that he had very little to do with his wife. Calvin took no interest in his son who recedes into historical obscurity and is never heard from again. The relationship between Calvin and his wife was described as more like that that of a priest with his housekeeper or of an UNMARRIED MAN LIVING WITH HIS MOTHER.”

This Rabid Anti-Protestant has been posting on Patrick Madrid’s various discussion boards for years giving us all a lesson in Bombastic Behavior.

And Heidelblogger Scott:

Thanks Algo,

It’s hard to tell whether you are quoting Sippo at each point.

At which Algo replies:

Sorry Dr. Clark.

I interacted with Dr. Sippo for over a year and saved most of what he posted.

The ridiculous claims he made were almost unbelievable.

The Moderator had to edit about 80% of his posts because he was so insulting.

Some people take offense easily and oversolicit the moderators, I would say. Debate becomes impossible.

Back to subject:

My own misgiving about Josh Weed is that he seemed to have only three daughters after ten years' or even eleven years' marriage. But they are alive, he is cherishing them and he is cherishing his wife.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Our Lady of Mercy

* Quoted from:

standfordrives : Calvin's Crime of 1534

** Quoted from:

Heidelblog : Was Calvin A Homosexual Convict?

Not cited:

Catholic Encyclopedia : Thomas Stapleton

Wednesday, 23 September 2015

Dwight has some good ideas about politics!

Page one of his article spells out why he is not a fan of either Republicans or Democrats. But it is on page two where it starts to get interesting. TCP stands for Truly Catholic Party.

The TCP would be pro life and pro family. Economic, educational and social policies would be formulated to support children and the traditional family because that is the best environment in which children can flourish. The TCP would always be in favor of small government, local solutions and small property holders.

The TCP would support the poor and the workers against big business, big banks and big government, but the TCP would also support the small business owner and entrepreneur from the tyranny of big unions.

The TCP would support a living wage rather than a minimum wage. Banks and credit card companies would be limited in the amount they can loan to families. For low earners the living wage would be subsidized by a heavier tax on those in very high income brackets.

Married couples would receive more tax deductions. Abortion would be outlawed.

Now, Francisco Franco was not for small government, as compared to how liberals think government should keep out of the press and out of associations. But he was for small-ER government than the guys he beat in 36-39. And in 1960's, Franco was somewhat too much for big business.

But these are the exact criticisms made against Franco after the war, by his former allies in it, the Carlists.

That means, Carlism (opposed to Azaña so as to fight along Franco, but after the war also opposed to Franco) is in these things a TCP, according to Dwight's definition.

A living wage rather than a minimum wage?

Sorry, but the two go together. A minimum wage where a full time worker cannot stay alive and keep his wife home with at least some children is not a living wage, and therefore not a minimum wage Worth having (I am sorry that some supporters of minimum wage are satisfied with wages where each man and woman is individually kep alive by wage, while children get subsidies to keep them alive too). And a living wage which does not set itself as a minimum is not efficient. Therefore both Mussolini and Franco supported minimum wages - to achieve living wages.

Oh, wait ...

Banks and credit card companies would be limited in the amount they can loan to families.

Wouldn't it be better to limit the interest rates they can charge and the kind of oppressive measures they can take if not paid back?

For low earners the living wage would be subsidized by a heavier tax on those in very high income brackets.

Why is that TC as in Truly Catholic? It's against subsidiarity. Dwight is saying a low wage earner should live off his wage plus his subsidy.

Also, same percentage of tax means that taxes are heavier in amount for those having very high income brackets.

Wouldn't it be better to outlaw and outtax certain kinds of high income generators? Like outtaxing or out-custom-dutying the decision to move factories to lower wage countries, especially since workers were left with no durable compensation, just the one years wage or sth while they were looking for new jobs.

Back to the good stuff.

Carlists are now for re-outlawing abortion, and abortion was outlawed under Franco.

The TCP would support subsidies for large families and a wage for mothers who stay at home to raise children. This would be paid for by a “population tax” on manufacturers of contraceptive products.

Would it not be better to outlaw contraceptive products? Denatality is making old an economic burden for young, but also in common social everyday speech and manners, old people are getting top heavy.

A parish in Paris has had me shunned from its young (where I could find a wife and where I could find people interested in supporting my writings and composition by starting to make it their printing and their performances), because a few old ladies in it were too powerful, as far as I can see.

This is what comes from too few young along too many old, which in turn comes from these older ones not having made enough babies when it was their turn.

Taxing contraceptive products makes their production a regular income for the fisc, for the budget. Sooner or later a politician is corrupt enough then not to close them down when they could, just in order to keep the budget afloat.

Subsidies are not bad if they are the only solution, but government could (and under parts of Franco and Mussolini eras did) tell paymasters what to pay their workers, i. e. not too little for decent family life.

The TCP would support universal, locally funded government health care ...

Health care free for the poor is actually enough, but universal government health care was implemented under Franco and Mussolini. It was also abused under Hitler.

... just as it would support local school districts, local town councils and local governments providing essential services.

Sounds like Carlist proposals.

Health care would be funded from local taxation which provides a local health insurance program–getting rid of the corruption of big insurance in league with big hospitals and health care monopolies.

In fact, much of government universal health care functions as a monopoly.

The TCP would encourage locally based self help programs for those on the margins of society. Every effort would be made to empower the powerless rather than building a dependency culture through endless handouts.

Self help programs tend to take advantage in terms of cheap labour of people "on the margins of society". Writing as one of those, I would neither want to depend on government handouts with typically certain conditions attached, nor on "self help programs" which are not at all programmed by myself. I am a beggar and a writer. When my writing will be printed, it will have helped me economically. With more than 3600 articles (including music compositions) online, I have already built the base for that. A self help program would force me to abandon my line of business, my work, and take up work in dependency, for rewards lower than minimal wages, by people usually either not interested in my work or interested in suppressing it.

ALMS are the Catholic solution to poverty. For some it does become "endless handouts", for some it ends very quickly in their getting a good position. In the former case, for some it is and for some it is not their own fault.

But giving someone lots of sweets and no money as alms, to force him out of it, is not a good deed. If X doesn't think I can rest sober or honest with money, let Y give me what I need.

Both handouts and self help programs are disempowering in the immediate to those getting them. At least as far as independence is concerned.

The TCP would support all that is local in its foreign policy and defense policy. National borders would be defended. Genuine immigrants would be welcomed and integrated into local communities. Foreign policy would support local governments and local solutions abroad while not interfering militarily.

Are you against the interference of 45 too?

Apart from that, it sounds like what French Nationalists propose.

The TCP would support regulation of a free enterprise economy only to limit monopolies, administer common sense safety and environmental controls, encourage competition and support the small entrepreneur against the Goliaths of industry.

Fair enough. But that may take more than an "only".

The TCP would use local and state taxation to provide free education and training so that all young people are ready and trained for the workplace without incurring vast debt.

How about replacing the schools and universities with apprenticeship and journeymanship for more business lines, earlier on?

Abolish school compulsion. A building master has time to instruct children running errands in reading and writing, catechism and arithmetic, during the doldrums of a work day.

These details should show where I stand politically. Especially if I add I am basically a Carlist.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Espace Delacroix
St Linus of Rome, Pope and Martyr

I see I forgot to link from text, here is link:

Standing on my Head : What Would A Truly Catholic Political Party Look Like?

Notice sur le Déluge, Mont Everest et l'Arche

Il y a des Chrétiens progressistes ou conservateurs à moitié qui ne pensent pas que le Déluge ait eu lieu.

Parmi eux, des Canadiens Protestants sur Reasons to Believe.

Dr. Jeff Zweerink vient de dire ceci:

According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the volume of all the water on Earth, including salt and fresh water, icecaps, groundwater, and atmospheric water, amounts to 332,500,000 cubic miles.

Soit 1 385 920 456,959 km cubiques. Le volume de tout l'eau sur terre. Dont le volume atmosphérique est négligeable.

Or suppose Earth’s surface was completely smooth and all of Earth’s water was in a spherical shell covering the planet's surface. That shell would be approximately 1.7 miles thick.

Soit 2 km 736 m. La hauteur de l'eau si la terre était toute lisse et l'eau montait dessus.

Mount Everest, the highest mountain on Earth, is 29,029 feet (or about 5.5 miles) above sea level. ... Therefore, the volume of water currently on Earth is only about 24 percent of the volume needed to cover Mount Everest.

Soit 8 km 851 m ou 8 km 848 m. La hauteur de Mont Everest.

Et effectivement, les 2,7 km ne couvrant pas les 8,8 ou 8,9 km qu'à moins de la moitié.

La réponse étant bien sûr, de toute la communauté jeune-terriste, que Mount Everest est un produit du Déluge et des mouvements tectoniques qui ont permi le séchage de l'eau qui reste:

Genèse 8.1 Dieu se souvint de Noé, de toutes les bêtes et de tous les animaux domestiques qui étaient avec lui dans l'arche, et Dieu fit passer un vent sur la terre, et les eaux baissèrent ;
8.2 les sources de l'abîme et les écluses du ciel se fermèrent, et la pluie cessa de tomber du ciel.
8.3 Les eaux se retirèrent de dessus la terre, allant et revenant, et elles s'abaissèrent au bout de cent cinquante jours.
8.4 Au septième mois, le dix-septième jour du mois, l'arche s'arrêta sur les montagnes d'Ararat.
8.5 Les eaux allèrent se retirant jusqu'au dixième mois ; et, au dixième mois, le premier jour du mois, apparurent les sommets des montagnes.
8.6 Au bout de quarante jours, Noé ouvrit la fenêtre qu'il avait faite à l'arche,
8.13 L'an six cent un, au premier mois, le premier jour du mois, les eaux avaient séché sur la terre. Noé ôta la couverture de l'arche et regarda, et voici, la surface du sol avait séché.
8.14 Au second mois, le vingt-septième jour du mois, la terre fut sèche.
8.15 Alors Dieu parla à Noé, en disant :
8.16 " Sors de l'arche, toi et ta femme, tes fils et les femmes de tes fils avec toi.
8.17 Toutes les bêtes de toute chair, qui sont avec toi, oiseaux, animaux domestiques, et tous les reptiles qui rampent sur la terre, fais-les sortir avec toi ; qu'ils se répandent sur la terre, qu'ils soient féconds et multiplient sur la terre. "

Ce que ce texte ne dit pas, mais ne contredit pas non plus, est que la terre a pu changer forme, devenir moins lisse et plus rugueuse pendant le temps que Noé était arrêté au-dessus des "montagnes d'Ararat" (possiblement égales à Ararat en Anatolie, où la tradition locale affirme que l'arche était venue).

Et Jeff Zweerink n'ignore pas que la réponse comporte ce moment.

Il donne deux exemples des jeune-terristes qui disent que le Déluge aurait déclenché les forces tectoniques qui ont levé Mount Everest, par lien, dont ceci par Morris:

At the end of the Flood, after thick sequences of sediments had accumulated, the Indian subcontinent evidently collided with Asia, crumpling the sediments into mountains. Today they stand as giants—folded and fractured layers of ocean-bottom sediments at high elevations. No, Noah's Flood didn't cover the Himalayas, it formed them!

Jeff Zweerink répond:

First, the tectonic forces required to cause such massive mountain- and ocean-building events in a single year would have been so violent and caused such turbulence in the waters that the ark would likely have been torn apart or capsized. Instead, Genesis 7:17–20 speaks of the waters increasing and rising greatly but makes no mention of violent or turbulent motions in the seas. Similarly, Genesis 8:1–5 tells us the waters receded, once again without mention of violence or turbulence. The 17 most violent earthquakes in the world since 1900 caused massive tidal waves, huge numbers of deaths, and almost incalculable property damage, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. Yet the net effect on the world’s topography was negligible.

Les forces tectoniques requises pour former les très hautes montagnes et les bassins océaniques très profonds auraient impliqué tellement de turbulence que l'arche serait échouée.

Car les 17 tremblements de terre les plus violents depuis l'an 1900 n'ont en rien changé les topographies de la terre en large, mais ont fait tellement de morts.

La réponse ici est bien sûr que les tremblements de terre sont plus rapides. Ils ne durent pas pendants des mois et des mois comme les changements tectoniques invoqués par Morris. Bien sûr, le choc initial à une collision a certes pu donner un tremblement de terre beaucoup plus violent, mais à ce moment l'arche était sur les flots. Et, qu'on se souvienne, sur les flots de la haute mer, pas à une côte confronté avec un tsunami qui se brise contre la terre et les gens et maisons tombent dessous, avec la terre qui les empêche d'aller avec les flots. Ce qui avait déjà été le cas au début du déluge selon les jeune-terristes (basé sur les fossiles enterrées sous les volumes de boue à ce moment) - et l'arche avait été dirigé par Dieu là où il était suffisemment calme pour qu'elle ne se brise pas contre les vagues. Donc, aux moments les plus violents, géologiquement, l'arche est soit à l'abri des vagues tsunamiques, soit monté sur les vagues très grandes mais aussi très élongés et plats, comme les rescapés par l'océan en 2004:

RTL : Tsunami de 2004 : "Je flottais sur l'océan, j'ai tenu comme ça pendant 21 jours", raconte un rescapé

Les rescapés ne peuvent pas oublier ces heures de cauchemar, comme Martunis, qui avait tout juste 7 ans quand une vague de 12 mètres l'a frappé. Il y a 10 ans, il a fait le tour des télévisions du monde entier. 3 semaines après le tsunami, il est retrouvé sain et sauf sur un radeau en pleine mer. "Je suis resté accroché sur un lit, je flottais sur l'océan. De temps en temps, je réussissais à attraper des bouteilles d'eau emportées par le courant, mais aussi des pâtes, des biscuits... J'ai tenu comme ça pendant 21 jours et puis des pêcheurs m'ont retrouvé et m'ont ramené sur la terre ferme", se souvient-il.

Bien, puisque c'était sur l'océan qu'il était, et non sur une partie côtière avec la terre juste en dessous les eaux qui les aurait fait briser comme au surf, il n'a pas été noyé, son "radeau" - un lit en bois - n'a pas été brisé. Et les eaux n'ont pas été si violents qu'il ait dû s'accrocher très fort tout le temps pour ne pas tomber. Il a pu se nourrir, il a pu faire ses besoins, il a probablement même pu dormir. Et l'arche était aussi pas sur des vagues qui se brisaient, mais sur des vagues beaucoup plus vastes au dessus des profondeurs, quand les vagues étaient grands.

En plus, il semble du texte qu'il y a eu de l'action tectonique après le Déluge. Verse trois: Les eaux se retirèrent de dessus la terre, allant et revenant, et elles s'abaissèrent au bout de cent cinquante jours. Donc, dans l'arche ils ont parfois pu sentir les vagues. Ceci était avant que l'arche s'arrête au-dessus des montagnes d'Ararat. Ensuite ils restent au dessus de ces montagnes - qui semblent donc avoir été à l'abri des actions tectoniques, ou des vagues tsunamis, et ensuite les sommets des montagnes (de toutes les montagnes ou de celles d'Ararat?) commencent à apparaître. On avait avant vu ces mêmes sommets en dessous de l'eau. Et "apparurent" veut probablement dire en dehors de l'eau.

Donc, l'argument de Jeff Zweerink ne tient pas, à chaque moment l'arche a pu être stable - et ses formes ont été vérifiées en modèle, capables de se relever même après d'avoir tourné à un angle très dangereux, si ça avait été le cas.

Il avait un second argument contre l'universalité géographique du déluge. Celui-ci est simplement dû à un fatigue ou un manque d'empathie et de vérification. À moins qu'il soit malhonnête. Le voici:

Second, if a global flood occurred within the last 10,000 years, it would have left substantial geologic evidence. The U.S. Geological Survey lists the world’s largest floods during the last 15,000 years or so, and the evidence indicates that none were global in scope.

Nous les jeune-terristes, on est bien sûr d'accord que le Déluge a laissé des traces géologiques très importantes. Nous ne sommes pas d'accord que le site de U.S. Geological Survey liste correctement les déluges des derniers 15 000 ans - les évidences de ce site sont probablement des inondations beaucoup plus récents que ça, et les traces qui sont vraiment du déluge 2957 avant Jésus-Christ, selon le Martyrologe Romain, sont par les géologues vieille-terristes (Reasons to Believe, évolutionnistes "chrétiens", ou athées/agnostiques) attribuées à des entités chronologiquement fantaisistes, ces vues d'esprit que sont le Permien, le Crétacée, le Paléocène et quoi encore. Zweerink n'aura pas réfuté notre position sur l'universalité du Déluge, tant qu'il n'aura pas tenu compte de notre opinion sur les "informations" chronologiques fournies par les géologues vieille-terristes. Ce qu'un manque de sommeil ou de caféine ou des deux a pu le faire oublier.

Ou aura-t-il parlé au dessus de notre tête, de nous, pour être "édifiant" sans être trop "compliqué" envers son publique, qui ne sont pas nous?

Quant à nous, parfois deux problèmes égalent une solution.

"Si le Déluge a eu lieu, ou sont les fossiles?"

"Si l'âge des dinosaures n'a pas eu lieu, il y a 65 millions d'années et davantage, d'où viennent les fossiles?"

Les fossiles du Déluge, y compris celles des dinosaures, sont précisément celles que la conventionalité des scientifique attribue mal à un âge trop révolu qui n'a pas existé. Et le temps d'où viennent les fossiles des dinosaures, est précisément celui du Déluge. Comme pour la majorité des autres fossiles. La plupart, et ça vastement, est de crustacées ayant fait du calcaire. Et puisque ici on tombe sur un autre problème posé à nous qui croyons le Déluge tel quel décrit, avec peut-être plus mais pas moins que donné dans le texte, la réaction quand des crustacées font du calcaire a dû être chimiquement très violente pendant le déluge. D'où l'intérêt de savoir ceci, que Mont Ararat n'est pas du calcaire:

Le mont Ararat est un stratovolcan situé à proximité des frontières entre trois plaques tectoniques : la plaque arabique, la plaque eurasienne et la plaque anatolienne. Il se trouve au sein d'une ceinture volcanique de 900 kilomètres de long orientée sud-ouest/nord-est, en Anatolie orientale. Sa formation remonte à 1,5 ± 0,2 million d'années BP, au Plio-villafranchien, c'est-à-dire à la limite entre les ères tertiaire et quaternaire. Elle accompagne la fin de la fermeture de la Téthys et la mise en place d'une zone de subduction. La nature alcaline et la cristallisation des roches montrent une formation en milieu hydraté et en profondeur.

Donc, le volcan fait éruption au début du déluge, les couches de lave se solidifient dans l'eau ("milieu hydraté en profondeur") et la montagne est déjà là, peut-être encore un peu plus enfoncé dans la terre que maintenant, quand l'arche arrive au dessus. Et la datation à "1,5 ± 0,2 million d'années BP" est fausse. Après, pas juste que la montagne monte, mais l'eau s'enfonce davantage dans les bassins océaniques. Mais l'arche reste au dessus (bien entendu si l'identification est correcte). Le problème, s'il y en aura encore, de part des évolutionnistes, n'est pas dans la formation chimiquement violente du calcaire.

Pas non plus que dans le problème de la hauteur des eaux par rapport à la hauteur de Mont Everest.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Espace Delacroix
Pape St Lin

Tuesday, 22 September 2015

Security ... sigh (link)

The Blaze : See How Security Responds When Blaze Reporter Tries to Ask Chelsea Clinton Question at Book Signing
Sep. 15, 2015 11:57pm Oliver Darcy

Si Rigel était une journée-lumière distante de nous?

Il semble que les "environ 80 fois plus grande que le Soleil" lus en Science et Vie Junior Hors Série [SVJHS] fassent référence au diamètre, et non pas au volume.

La wikipédie nous dit:

Rigel se situe à une distance de 790 à 950 années-lumière de la Terre, trop loin pour être connue avec précision par la mesure de sa parallaxe, même si la meilleure estimation du satellite Hipparcos donne 863 années-lumière.


Elle est de type spectral B8Ia, une supergéante bleue, 55 000 fois plus lumineuse que le Soleil. Avec un diamètre de près de 116 000 000 km, 84 fois celui du Soleil[réf. nécessaire], Rigel s'étendrait jusqu'à l'orbite de Mercure dans le système solaire.

Donc, 800 années-lumière selon SVJHS est moins que les 863 années-lumière de Hipparcos (selon la wikipédie), et 80 fois le diamètre du Soleil est moins que les 84 fois de la wikipédie, sans précision de source. J'avais calculé depuis les données de SVJHS et je n'était pas sûr s'il s'agissait de diamètre ou volume en "plus grand(e)". J'ai donc calculé les deux.

Une année-lumière est environ 365 journées-lumière. Et les différences de distance impliquent "800" années-lumière, donc il faut multiplier 365*800 pour trouver le quotient avec lequel il faut diviser et la distance, et donc aussi proportionnellement chaque diamètre de l'astre, pour avoir la taille qu'il a, avec la même magnitude apparente mais distant d'une journée-lumière de nous.

800 * 365 = 292.000

En revanche, on multiplie diamètre du soleil avec "80" avant de diviser par ce quotient, donc en finale on aura une fraction avec laquelle on multiplie la grandeur du Soleil.

Pour le volume, il faut encore compter de faire le cube de cette fraction.

80 : 292.000 = 0,000,273,95+ soit 0,000,274

1 392 684 km * 0,000,274 = 381 km 595 m

0,000,2743 = 0,000,000,000,020,570,824

Volume du Soleil = 1,412×1018 km3

Volume du Rigel si elle est distante d'une journée-lumière de nous:

1,412×1018 km3 * 0,000,000,000,020,570,824
= 29 046 003 km3

Ou davantage, je n'ai pas calculé d'après une valeur unique du Soleil, mais d'après deux renseignements qui peuvent être légèrement décalés.

La racine cubique de 29 046 003 km3 est 307 km, nettement moins que les 381,6 auxquels j'étais arrivé avec le renseignement pour diamètre.

Mais, ça veut dire que si Rigel est distante d'une seule journée-lumière (créée en Jour 4, visible pour les oiseaux le soir du Jour 5, pour les animaux et surtout pour Adam et Ève le soir du Jour 6), elle est nettement plus petite que le Terre. Car 391 km* ne sont que trois pourcent du diamètre de la Terre.

Vous pourriez m'objecter deux choses.

Sur le plan simple, vous pourriez me dire à peu près:

"Mais nous savons que Rigel est beaucoup plus loin de nous, donc ce calcul, pour exacte qu'il soit mathématiquement ne peut pas être de la mathématique bien appliquée à la réalité. Nous savons, car les astronomes nous le disent, que la réalité est autre."

Et les astronomes, il savent ces 863 années-lumières de nous comment? En faisant des calculs sur "un mouvement apparent de l'étoile appelé parallaxe" par la trigonométrie.

Je ne doute pas que leur trigonométrie soit mathématiquement exacte, la question est juste s'ils appliquent bien la mathématique. En occurrence, le mouvement est-il vraiment apparent, causé par un mouvement annuel de la Terre? Ou la Terre est-elle fixe, et la si-dite parallaxe est-elle un mouvement propre, causé par un ange qui meut Rigel?

Dans le second cas, la trigonométrie qui donne 863 années-lumière de nous peut-être très précise, mais autant mal appliqué que vous pensiez que le serait mon exercice de trouver le volume et le diamètre de Rigel dans l'hypothèse qu'elle se trouve une seule journée-lumière de nous.

Sur le plan du spécialiste, vous pourriez me dire autre chose, sur l'astrophysique comment Rigel pourrait exister avec un volume de seulement 29 046 003 km3 ou peu davantage. Qu'il suffise pour l'instant de dire que Dieu était libre de créer les étoiles absolument comme Il voulait, et donc qu'Il a bien pu les créer autrement que selon les modèles courants de l'astrophysique.

Restons un peu sur ce numéro de SVJHS, c'était d'août en cette année de 2015, n°113.

Dedans on peut lire un remarque pour une utopie de futur dans lequel on aurait surmonté les problèmes de voyage interstellaire. Et c'est quasi magique, les "nouvelles technologies" non-existants mais envisagées pour ce futur.

P. 33, je cite:

Vraiment, la nouvelle technologie [de communication] intergalactique est efficace: malgré l'éloignement - Rigel est distante d'environ 800 années-lumière - on perçoit à peine le décalage de la réponse.

Avec les technologies courantes, les ondes électromagnétiques se déplaçant à la vitesse de la lumière, on aurait posé une question sur Terre, on l'aurait entendu sur un planète proche de Rigel 800 ans plus tard, et leur réponse serait venue à la Terre encore 800 ans plus tard que ça. 1600 ans, ce n'est pas un décalage à peine aperceptible, c'est un décalage très notable.

À supposer même que la diffusion serait détectable à la distance de 800 années-lumière. Rigel est censée avoir une luminosité 55 000 fois plus grande que celle du Soleil, et ceci est donc une petite tâche de lumière sur le Ciel. Le pouvoir d'un émetteur à ondes électromagnétiques est certes beaucoup moins qu'une "luminosité" 55 000 MOINS plus grande que celle du Soleil, ça ne serait pas captable à cette distance.

Autant d'invoquer une "nouvelle technologie", ils auraient pu faire appel à l'armoire magique et à la corne de reine Susan qui sommait les quatre enfants de notre monde en Narnia dans un seul instant.

Tout ça, bien sûr, à supposer que les données des astronomes soient correctes.

Si en revanche Rigel est d'une journée-lumière de nous, le décalage de communication ne serait que de deux jours, mais en revanche une planète orbitant autour de Rigel, s'il y a même (comme envisagé par SVJHS n°113) ne nous donnerait pas beaucoup de place supplémentaire, ni beaucoup de protection si le Soleil s'étendra englobant les planètes, comme envisagé dans ce numéro. En revanche, si nous sommes créés il y a 7200 ans, nous n'aurons pas des millions d'années à vivre sur la Terre avant une telle catastrophe, ni n'aurons-nous à la craindre, le monde finira alors plus tôt que ça.

En fin, pourquoi juste "une journée-lumière" de nous? Ni plus, ni moins?

Je n'ai pas de preuve de nature mathématique ou scientifique qui pousse à poser cette distance, mon argument est théologique: Adam et Ève doivent avoir pu voir les étoiles le premier soir, et ceci n'a pas besoin d'une poussée extra-vite de la lumière vers la Terre, ni de rayons de lumière créées entières entre étoiles et nous au moment de la création des étoiles.

Donc, une ou deux journées-lumière de nous convient. À moins de dire que le premier mois ils ont vue Soleil, Lune et Planètes, mais pas encore les Étoiles, et ensuite Dieu les aurait surpris d'un feu d'artifice. Ou plutôt, moins d'un mois. Si Ève n'avait pas péché, (que ce soit une heure ou 39 jours après qu'Adam pèche aussi, ce qui entraine notre chute), sa première ovulation aurait probablement donné occasion à un enfant engendré au Paradis - ce que Caïn n'était pas. Et c'est sûr qu'Adam et Ève doivent avoir vu les étoiles déjà dans le Paradis, là où Dieu les comblait avec ses bienfaits et les preuves de son pouvoir sur la création et son amour paternel pour eux.

Donc, 1 ou 2 journées-lumière, et je dirais au maximum un mois-lumière de nous, mais ceci est moins probable. 1 journée-lumière est aussi théologiquement convenable pour une autre raison. Avec un rayon de 1 journée-lumière de nous, chaque étoile parcourt chaque jour un périmètre de 2 journées-lumière * π, soit environ 6,28 journées-lumière. La semaine se résume dans le jour de la création de la lumière, et elle comprend 6 journées de travail de création et une journée de repos. D'où le convenable si chaque étoile parcourt en plein 6 journées-lumière par jour (quitte à la théorie de relativité d'avoir tort) mais ne fait pas une pleine septième journée-lumière.

Que les étoiles fixes sont 1 journée-lumière de nous n'est pas prouvable scientifiquement, mais théologiquement probable. Parce que convenable pour les arguments précisés.

Hans Georg Lundahl
St Emméram de Bavière**
et anniversaire
de Bilbon et Frodon Sacquet**

* Voulais dire 381, bsr!

** Je ne les mets pas sur le même plan, mais je n'oublie pas non plus. J'étais fan de Tolkien avant d'être Catholique ou même avant d'être baptisé dans "l'église de Suède"./HGL

Saturday, 19 September 2015

Science and Religion - Citing Two of my Opponents

1) Science and Religion - Citing Two of my Opponents, 2) Blogosphere in the Feast of Sts Simon and Jude 2015, 3) Homeschooling is Usually Not University Level AND Graphic Porn Does More than Expose to Ideas

I am directly citing the Atheist blog "Why Evolution is True". The blogger in his turn is citing an Old Earth Creationist who is a Protestant. And commenting on him. I'll comment on both.

WEiT : Was Christianity crucial for the rise of science? A Baptist accommodationist says “yes.”

Kenneth Keathley as per JAC
He rejects the “warfare” hypothesis of the relationship between science and religion, originally promulgated by John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White (see the first chapter of FvF), saying that those authors had an “agenda”.

Jerry A. Coyne
Well, White (the founder of Cornell Unversity) surely didn’t: he was a believer and discovered through extensive reading that some (but not all) elements of Christianity had opposed scientific advances. His aim was actually to make religion stronger by purging it of its anti-science “dogmatism.”

Own comment
That kind of religion is also an agenda, and it is of course an "anti-dogmatism" agenda. Not anti the dogmatism of evolution belief, not anti the dogmatism of heliocentric belief, but anti certain dogmatisms and ultimately anti the dogmatism of Christian belief. Calling that "not an agenda" is false.

Jerry A. Coyne
But these scholars have their own agenda: they are determined to show that science and religion can live in harmony. That’s why they try so hard to pretend that the Galileo affair didn’t really have much to do with religion—an argument that is palpable nonsense.

Own comment
Agreed. Back in Copernicus' day, it was a question of Geometry of the Heavens, and Bible references and scholastic references had been left out.

The conflict began with Bruno attacking certain scholastic concepts like "creatio ex nihilo" and that in time, special creation of each human soul, a world soul if not for all universe (as we use the word) at least for each solar system (also as we use the word), and so on. Things a Christian simply cannot accept and remain Christian.

Then Galileo tried to explain Joshua X wrong - after a Dominican close by had come to comment on fact that his astroomy turned the miracle upside down and negated at least its wording. That Dominican was at the Church San Marco, wher ethey have this ultra famous painting of St Dominic, the one you always see in connexion with him on internet when a picture is shown, or nearly always.

So, yes, it had and has to do with religion.

Therefore I cannot debunk all of the conflict hypothesis. If there is indeed no conflict between Catholic Religion and Good Science, there is between Catholic Religion and Bad Science, like Evolution Theory and Heliocentrism.

Jerry A. Coyne
What these scholars seemingly don’t understand is that while some church authorities promoted science, many others opposed the progress of science (e.g., anesthesia, vaccination, and even lightning rods!).

Own comment
Anesthesia is for one thing sth akin to getting drunk, and for another, in its early versions, there was (actually still is, though reduced) a risk of dying under it.

Vaccination is now partly developed by fetal tissue, at least in US, and in its beginnings it involved making oneself sick with cow pox in order to stay free from small pox. It is at least a dubious procedure.

Lightning rods, I can imagine there is some connexion to lightnings usually being guided by spirits, often bad ones, and therefore lightning rods being a kind of "summoning" - to which one could of course answer, that the lightning rod adds a physical cause beyond spirits for where the lightning goes and is therefore not connected to them.

I would btw like references.

In all of these cases, we are also dealing with applied science, and even Jerry A. Coyne would probably (I hope) shrink back from some applications which some scientists consider desirable. I hope at least.

Making bombs to put under House of Représentatives would, I hope, be an application he's not keen of. Even Democrats might be better off under arrest and waiting for judgement and execution, than simply bombed out of this life. Plus the insecurity of what régime would take their place.

Applied science is something different from scientific knowledge. Knowing how to make a bomb, an anasthesia, a vaccination or a lightning rod is science. Making these things in practise is applied science - where morals come into the question.

Obviously the morality of applying science is not one to be entrusted to the sole décisions of scientists.

Jerry A. Coyne
More important, the method of ascertaining truth through science is completely inimical to the method of ascertaining religious “truths” (i.e., stuff that is made up).

Own comment
Here he is arguing from his own prejudice about how religious truths are ascertained.

Religious either truths or falsehoods are not simply made up things like Lord of the Rings (though the work contains religious truths, at worst also religious falsehoods that Tolkien got elsewhere than in his work).

There is natural reason and revelation.

And scholasticism was cultivating natural reason under the revealed truths of Christianity - not only in a way reminiscent of science, but in a truly scientific way. Optics and zoology and geology made progress during the scholastic era.

Jerry A. Coyne
And one has to consider this, too: the Church held sway over Europe during the Middle Ages—for ten centuries beginning about 500 A.D. Western science as we know it is a fifteenth-century production. Why the big delay if Christianity was so important in promoting science?

Own comment
St Albert the Great promoting zoology and geology was 13th C. And ... wiki to the rescue:

The use of a convex lens to form an enlarged/magnified image is discussed in Alhazen's Book of Optics (1021). Its translation into Latin from Arabic in the 12th century was instrumental to the invention of eyeglasses in 13th century Italy.

Englishman Robert Grosseteste's treatise De iride ("On the Rainbow"), written between 1220 and 1235, mentions using optics to "read the smallest letters at incredible distances". A few years later in 1262, Roger Bacon is also known to have written on the magnifying properties of lenses.


The first eyeglasses were made in Italy in about 1286, but it is not clear who the inventor was. In a sermon delivered on February 23, 1306, the Dominican friar Giordano da Pisa (ca. 1255–1311) wrote "It is not yet twenty years since there was found the art of making eyeglasses, which make for good vision... And it is so short a time that this new art, never before extant, was discovered. ... I saw the one who first discovered and practiced it, and I talked to him.".

References, for first paragraph: Kriss, Timothy C; Kriss, Vesna Martich (April 1998). "History of the Operating Microscope: From Magnifying Glass to Microneurosurgery". Neurosurgery 42 (4): 899–907. Link A, to access reserved article, link B, to open summary.

For second paragraph: "...Optics Highlights: II. Spectacles". University of Maryland, Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering. Retrieved 2007-09-01. Link.

And for third: Ilardi, Vincent (2007), Renaissance Vision from Spectacles to Telescopes, Philadelphia, PA: American Philosophical Society. Link A, to work, link B to page 5, with quote.

The answer is, there was no big delay once the society the Church held sway over had peace and plenty. Back in 800, conditions were a bit harsher in most of Europe, and much of Italy was under the Arabs.

Jerry A. Coyne
And didn’t the ancient Greeks (and early Muslims) also begin doing science, but science not promoted by religion? Thales, Pythagoras, Aristotle, Archimedes—did they do their work because they wanted to emulate the Mind of Zeus, the Great Lawgiver? I think not: it was simple human curiosity.

Own comment
The Greek religion was NOT one in which Zeus was a "great lawgiver", unlike the OT Hebrew and Scholastic Catholic ones. As ruler of the world, the times he was believed in in the mythological sense, he was peevish. That is the precise point about Greek society being inimical to science.

Whom are you putting up as an AD successor to Aristotle? Hypatia of Alexandria is a nono. Greek Science was, as far as original and mind boggling research based on empirical evidence to practical purposes dead in Greek society duyring late Paganism.

If Middle Ages inherited Pliny's description of a unicorn, this comes from Pliny. Whose description was not really the best and foremost piece of zoology you have seen. Not if he was describing a rhinoceros, and not if he was describing a late surviving Ceratopsian either. And Pliny is what Greek Science had to offer in his days.

The point of the non-conflict thesis is that Greek and Muslim science ventures were ultimately "stillborn", only Western Science became "fullgrown".

The historical point, that is.

Whether you consider Evolution and Heliocentrism as part of "fullgrown" or as "part of decay", is another question.

Of course, none of these are living bodies, none of these went through a pregnancy, none was stillborn and had to be buried, none was fullgrown and got muscles, none is a smelling corpse - in the literal sense of the words.

If Evolution and Heliocentrism were literally smelling, it would be much easier to assign them either status as "vital" or as "decaying". As it is, we have to reason out if they are true or not or likely to be true or not likely to be true.

But in the West, science has been cumulating as well as changing, while the institution has grown in importance. In the East - either Greek or Muslim - it has become fixed in a kind of orthodox approach and transmitted as folklore, in Greece up to Christianity and among Muslims to the very recent times of the Western colonies among them. There were scientists, but little of an institution, especially in Greece. Among Muslims the falsafa (including real scientists like Avicenna, often cited by St Thomas Aquinas) became less important. Became an ex-institution.

Jerry A. Coyne
And that curiosity would certainly have resided in the early European scientists as well. Yes, they were virtually all Christians, but everyone was a Christian then. If you give credit to Christianity for science, then you must do so for nearly everything that arose in post-medieval Europe, including the printing press.

Own comment
Printing press like eyeglasses with convex lenses both arose during Middle Ages. I give Christianity credit for both.

Arabs had studied convex lenses, but not cared enough to help old people with - is it myopia? - and movable letter types imitate the beads of the rosary and continue the wood cut prints that were there for devotional comic books. Or leaflets. Like the shortest Chick Tracts, except they were Catholic.

Jerry A. Coyne
In the end, we simply can’t make a convincing argument that without Christianity, science would have started later, or would have been slowed in its progress. We have no control group—no ability to rerun the course of history to see whether, in a heathen Europe, science would have started up later. We just don’t know.

Own comment
The control groups would be exactly the other stars of science. Greek, Arabic, Chinese - all dwindled (also a bodily metaphor) into very hide bound superstition. Egyptian and Mesopotamian? That is where superstition comes from. Pythagoras? A good theorician about arithmetic and music scales, a bad one about geometry, and clearly superstitious in the Chinese Yin and Yang way and Feng Shui way.

Jerry A. Coyne
But what we do know is that, at present, religion is not a force for scientific progress. It is only an impediment. I can’t think of a single bit of progress in understanding the world over the last 200 years, for instance, that was promoted by religion.

Own comment
Mendel's peas were promoted by his life as a Benedictine Monk. Therefore also Mendel's Laws.

Jerry A. Coyne
(I’m sure readers can name one or two bits, but ALL scientific progress has come from rejecting the supernatural.) We have left our childish superstitions behind, and, as Laplace said, “we don’t need that hypothesis.”

And if Keathley is so sure that science and theology aren’t enemies, is he willing to give up his antiscientific old-earth creationism?

Own comment
It is rather the Atheistic Methodology we do not need. It is rather Laplace's hypothesis about Celestial Mechanics that broke down a few years ago, with a video by Don Petit:

[ISS] Don Petit, Science Off The Sphere - Water Droplets Orbiting Charged Knitting Needle

Unlike the string in the stone on a string experiment, and like static electricity, gravity is not a solid object capable of holding sth at a fixed distance, with centrifugal force as impetus for keeping it out. It is a force balancing the centrifugal force, and in Don Petit's experiment it takes ten to twenty turns around the knitting needle before the two forces are out of balance.

As well as other people have shown even earlier how proofs and hypothèses in Evolution and Old Earth break down.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Médiathèque Germaine-Tillion
St Januar of Bénévent and companions*

* Puteolis, in Campania, sanctorum Martyrum Januarii, Beneventanae civitatis Episcopi, ejusque Diaconi Festi, et Desiderii Lectoris, Sosii, Diaconi Ecclesiae Misenatis, Proculi, Diaconi Puteolani; Eutychii et Acutii. Hi omnes, post vincula et carceres, capite caesi sunt, sub Diocletiano Principe. Corpus sancti Januarii delatum fuit Neapolim, atque honorifice in Ecclesia tumulatum; ubi etiam beatissimi Martyris sanguis in ampulla vitrea adhuc servatur, qui, in conspectu capitis illius positus, velut recens liquescere et ebullire conspicitur.

Religious truth is in this case verified by record and eyewitness accounts - as good an empirical method as any.

Friday, 18 September 2015

Kids or Immigrants?

Mark Shea lauds "Pope Francis" for saying, as he put it in his snappy title: "refuse to have kids?" - "then make room for immigrants".

I was wondering if Bergoglio was going to say sth sensible, entirely. That would be the day!

What Shea makes of it is that childless people, in fact any people, should get involved in receiving refugees, like he has been receiving Roumanian refugees from Communism (good for him), (ok, good for him if they were from Communism, but I think that is the case, and not bad for him if they were just poor either), Vietnamese refugees (certainly from Communism, since still so), and Poles, these also pretty certainly fleeing from Communism.

Hmmm, if Mark Shea receives Christian refugees, I am not worried, but when it comes to Muslim ones (which hitherto hasn't been the case if his list was exhaustive) - I am less reassured.

Abbey Roads has however suggested Muslims who came as economic migrants should take refugees who are Muslims. Might be an idea.

As it is they are more into claiming the traditionally Christian State (a fact they tend to ignore) or Presently Socialist State (a fact which they from time to time support) should tax its citizens (including themselves, but most of them Christians or post-Christians) in order for the state to organise reception of Muslim and for that matter also perhaps Christian refugees.

Of course, the Muslims who are already here have their own kids to take care of.

But not each and all of them and not all are so poor taking an extra refugee is impossible.

However, a blogger from Philippines made an objection:

About two years ago, when I was discussing unemployment figures in the UK and France with some of my European trainees, I couldn't help but noticing that most of the unemployed youth were second-generation immigrants. Not just Muslims or just Asians, either, but (at least in the UK) also Poles. And I mused that those "better opportunities" their parents migrated to get for them proved to be an empty dream: now they are in the same boat their parents were in.

Mentioning boats is not unsensitive, and in France and Sweden Poles are better off, unless recently arriving, than in UK.

Now, let us look at what the supposed "Holy Father" actually did say.

Mark Shea linked.

“The migrant phenomenon is a reality…when there is an empty space, people look to fill it. If a country doesn't have children, migrants come to occupy that place,” the Pope said in a recent interview with Portugal-based Radio Renascença (Renaissance).

True enough.

One reason people should try to get more children.

But what does Bergoglio make of it?

“So, if there are no children, there are open spaces,” he said. For him personally, the societal refusal to have children is part of a “culture of ‘well-being,’” in which the assurance that one’s personal needs and wants will be taken care of is emphasized to an exaggerated degree.

He doesn't mention that the assurance is already proving deceptive. In 2003, the last summer I spent in Sweden, old age pensions were privatised. Not so that people already getting them need to get private assurances, but so that people not yet retired needed to start chosing private insurance companies. That way it won't be the government's but that company's fault when people can't get old age pensions, because collectively they made too few children.

He doesn't mention that taking in strangers instead might not be an ideal way to provide for the old age of one's own. They might enjoy the system as long as it profits them, but refuse to back it up when it goes so bankrupt that a country has changed the national make up of its population. I mean when the majority from more traditional times has become a minority, if it should so happen, and which childlessness and immigration make for.

So, what more does he say?

In the interview, Francis lamented how countries would allow the Rohingya to land, give them food and water, and then send them back out to sea. “They don’t welcome them,” he said, adding that today “humanity lacks the ability to welcome.”

That is not the same as oppressing them once they are in.

But despite our concerns, Francis said that refugees still have to be welcomed because it’s commanded in the Bible, and turned to Moses' commission to his people not to “mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt.”

Let us recall exactly how Israelites were oppressed by Amalekites. Was it a question of giving them food and water and then sending them back off into the desert?

Some Israelites had disobeyed Moses. They left the camp. And here is what happened to those who had left it:

[44] But they being blinded went up to the top of the mountain. But the ark of the testament of the Lord and Moses departed not from the camp. [45] And the Amalecite came down, and the Chanaanite that dwelt in the mountain: and smiting and slaying them pursued them as far as Horma. Numbers 14.

Wait a little, the enmity was already on. Here is what happened earlier:

[1] Then all the multitude of the children of Israel setting forward from the desert of Sin, by their mansions, according to the word of the Lord, encamped in Raphidim, where there was no water for the people to drink. ... [8] And Amalec came, and fought against Israel in Raphidim. Exodus 17.

OK, the Amalecites had started bad relations, not by giving a short welcome and sending them to further adventures in the desert, not by even refusing them welcome, but by actually trying to kill them at first sight.

This is a far cry from what Indonesia has done for the Rohingya.

However, if Rohingya are not Muslim, Indonesia's cutting short of the welcome by sending them back to sea is explicable as a way of keeping Muslims Muslim in Indonesia.

What exactly do the passages in OT say about receiving strangers?

Exodus 22:21 Thou shalt not molest a stranger, nor afflict him: for yourselves also were strangers in the land of Egypt.

Exodus 23:9 Thou shalt not molest a stranger, for you know the hearts of strangers: for you also were strangers in the land of Egypt.

One has a special application for Holy Land, since Jordan is Edom, Moab and Ammon:

Deuteronomy 23:[7] Thou shalt not abhor the Edomite, because he is thy brother: nor the Egyptian, because thou wast a stranger in his land.

Now back to strangers in general:

Deuteronomy 24:[17] Thou shalt not pervert the judgment of the stranger nor of the fatherless, neither shalt thou take away the widow' s raiment for a pledge. [18] Remember that thou wast a slave in Egypt, and the Lord thy God delivered thee from thence. Therefore I command thee to do this thing. [19] When thou hast reaped the corn in thy field, and hast forgot and left a sheaf, thou shalt not return to take it away: but thou shalt suffer the stranger, and the fatherless and the widow to take it away: that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all the works of thy hands. [20] If thou have gathered the fruit of thy olive trees, thou shalt not return to gather whatsoever remaineth on the trees: but shalt leave it for the stranger, for the fatherless, and the widow.

[21] If thou make the vintage of thy vineyard, thou shalt not gather the clusters that remain, but they shall be for the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow. [22] Remember that thou also wast a bondman in Egypt, and therefore I command thee to do this thing.

There is a positive demand to aid them, or let them aid themselves, while they are there. There is a negative demand not to molest them or pervert judgement in their disfavour. There is not a positive demand to actually allow them to stay, especially not unconditionally.

If France wants to evict me (I am begging in the street, some consider that a nuisance, and some consider my blogging a nuisance) and sees such ans such criteria for eviction fulfilled, or if France goes back on Schengen, which is the agreement allowing me to stay here, France can. At least they should not send me back to Sweden.

But what the West has been doing for long is:

  • receiving Muslims;
  • molesting them in the name of integration (at least where they are obliged to communal schools not Islamic);
  • resenting when they take revenge for molestations (by molesting quite a few indigenous and non-Muslim strangers);
  • resenting simple fact of non-integration and molesting them more;
  • and having more and more of them in trouble's way.

It would have been better not to receive them in the first place. That does not necessarily qualify as either molesting or perverting judgement for them. "Pope Francis" is not exactly asking for the right thing.

Wait? I reread these lines and found that Rohingya are actually a Muslim minority, which has not been welcomed by Muslim countries.

As to his experience of his own family, well the Italians who came were Catholics and the Argentinians who received were Catholics too.

Look at this advice:

Pope Francis clarified that when he asked for a family to be welcomed, he’s not necessarily asking that they be welcomed into the parish or community house, but that the parish or community finds “a place, a corner of a school to make a ‘small apartment.”

“Or, in the worst case, rent a modest apartment for the family, but that they have a ceiling, to be welcomed, and that they are integrated into the community.”

Good advice enough - if the refugees are Catholic. Or at least Christian.

And if their attackers cannot be beaten.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Médiathèque Germaine Tillion
St Joseph de Cupertino

Chers lecteurs (hormis psychologues), est-ce qu'on vous dit ce genre de calomnies sur moi?

Car, ci-dessus vous trouvez des insultes envers moi, et ma réponse enlevée:

TolkienFrance > Sagas islandaises

Les amis... vous continuez de donner de la confiture à un cochon...

Isengar, tu as évidemment raison.

Dieu - qui est une vue de l'esprit - seul sait où "Jean-Georges" veut en venir... et tout ceci est d'un profond ennui. Cet version évhémériste de la vie d'Odin tourne en boucle sans sortir de sa paranoïa militante.

Ce garçon est resté bloqué à un stade de narcissisme primaire, laissant sa vie être guidée par ds préjugés et des superstitions enfantines, même si plus aucun enfant ne résonne de cette façon en 2015... Rien de brillant à tirer d'une conversation structurée avec lui.

Sans compter l'obstacle de la langue.

Oups, j'ai fait du "ad hominem" ? Ah oui.

Qu'est-ce que ça mérite d'autre ?

PS : Isengar, tu regarderas tes MP ?

Ma propre réponse et celle de Druss
sont supprimées, car ...

Tar Aldarion
J'ai exclu hansgeorg du forum pour 7 jours et supprimé son message insultant ainsi que ceux qui suivaient en réponse, en espérant que cette mesure le ramène à un peu plus de raison.

Il n'aurait pas pu exclure "Eruantalon" (Jean), en permanence, vu qu'il est soit une merde de psychologue, soit un homme ayant trop de faiblesse pour la terminologie de ces bizuteurs, insulteurs, calomniateurs et harceleurs professionnels?


Athéisme militant:
Dieu - qui est une vue de l'esprit

Prétence d'incompréhension
... seul sait où "Jean-Georges" veut en venir

Déshumanisation parce que je reprends le débat interrompu par ses décourtoisies:
tourne en boucle

Jargon psychiatrique 1:
sans sortir de sa paranoïa militante

Infantilisation de l'adversaire:
Ce garçon

Jargon psychiatrique 2:
est resté bloqué ...

Jargon psychiatrique 3:
... à un stade de ...

Jargon psychiatrique 4, en plus déshumanisant:
[de] ... narcissisme primaire

Alarmisme psychiatrique:
laissant sa vie être guidée par ds préjugés et des superstitions enfantines

Appel à un snobisme de contemporanéité:
même si plus aucun enfant ne résonne de cette façon en 2015

Incompétence en lecteur:
Sans compter l'obstacle de la langue.

Dieu existe, Eruantalon seul ne sait pas (près lecture, et avec ses homologues tristes) où je veux en venir avec mon propos que les païens de Suède étaient un peu trop intelligents pour se tromper eux-mêmes et juste suffisamment bêtes pour se faire tromper par un hypnotiste, ou même mage. Je veux en venir que les traditions historiques à propos ce qui s'est passé sur terre sont en général fiables.

Si sa discourtoisie m'oblige à recommencer, je recommence, ce qu'il appelle "tourner en boucle".

Paranoïa est très évidemment un mot en élastique, que chaque psychologue et psychiatre utilise pour renforcer ses propres préjugés contre des patients qui en ont d'autres.

Militant, il me le taxe parce que je refuse de lâcher prise.

Je suis 47 ans, et je n'ai pas besoin de tolérer qu'on me taxe de garçon, juste parce qu'on a des préjugés sur ce que devrait être un homme mûr, auxquels je ne correspond pas. Je n'ai pas envie de correspondre à la définition qu'a Eruantalon de la maturité, pas celle qu'il applique contre moi.

Le jargon psychologique ou psychiatrique est insultant, pseudo-technique, et dépend en son application à moi uniquement des préjugés on ne peut plus biaisées, communistes, athées, méprisant un esprit de bon enfant.

Je préfère de très loin avoir ma vie guidée par mes préjugés ou superstitions, pour enfantines qu'elles semblent à lui, que par les siens, pour mûres qu'elles semblent à lui-même.

S'il compte sérieusement ma langue comme une obstacle à sa compréhension, alors il admet de ne pas très bien me comprendre, ce qui rend caduc ce qu'il prétend avoir compris sur moi.

Son appel à le comment les enfants raisonnent en 2015 est logiquement très problématique.

Veut-il prétendre que la logique change chaque année?

Il a quand même utilisé le mot "raisonne de cette façon". Ce qui en prenant ses mots à la rigueur veut dire que la logique change. Une logique qui change chaque année n'en est pas une logique. La logique est éternelle.

Ou veut-il simplement avoir utilisé cette phrase de manière approximative (ce pour quoi en raisonne et le comment on raisonne étant distincts en réalité, mais il peut avoir négligé ça), pour dire "même si plus aucun enfant pense ce genre de choses en 2015"?

Mais l'année qui est en cours n'est pas un magistère infaillible!

Et s'il ne croit pas en Dieu, il ne devrait pas non plus croire en un magistère infaillible. Seul Dieu étant infaillible en Lui-Même peut garantir l'infaillibilité d'un magistère. S'il y a actuellement un pape ou pas, si ce magistère infaillible est en exercice ou pas, (je suis sûr que Bergoglio n'est pas pape), la papauté dépend de Dieu, et non pas de l'année où on est. Elle dépend d'une révélation déjà faite, pas d'une révélation à refaire chaque an avec des nouveaux donnés.

Tout dans son raisonnement crie "faux" à une oreille qui sait écouter - et pourtant tout ce qu'il dit est fortement capable d'être accepté comme "vrai" ou même "scientifique" par une certaine communauté. Les psychologues. Les psychiatres. Leurs admirateurs.

Et le modérateur du forum a été parmi ces derniers, à en juger d'après son comportement liberticide et biaisé.

Car, chers lecteurs (hormis psychologues), si on vous a dit ce genre de balivernes sur moi, ALORS, et si vous avez fait confiance à la personne qui l'a dit, ALORS je comprends si vous avez hésité avant de consulter mon lien. Si vous y êtes quand même, bonne lecture!

Hans Georg Lundahl
Médiathèque Germaine-Tillion
St Joseph de Cupertino

J'ai corrigé depuis la signature un "peux" en "peut" après "on".

PS, à propos de "La logique est éternelle," je viens de déjà dire ça en anglais sur un blog antérieur à celui-ci, et qui, heureusement est toujours lu chaque jour.

Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : What is "Modern Reason"?

Thursday, 17 September 2015

What Should Rev. John T. McDonough do in Fountain Hills?


As I read in CMI today, eight "churches" (CMI's word) are teaming up to oppose the "progressive Christian" or "liberal theologian" David M. Felten, the pastor of a United Methodist Church named The Fountains.

He rejects vital Christian doctrines like the Virgin Birth and supports LGBT 'rights'. He is teaching what he, and many other church leaders, labels ‘Progressive Christianity’.

My research or some part of it:

I googled locality name and 8 churches and came to David Fenton's own comment about the 8 churches. He is a bit dismal about what they are up to:

As many of you know, ominous black banners went up at multiple churches in Fountains Hills this week asking: “Progressive” Christianity: Fact or Fiction?



Well, at any rate, he gave a newspaper clip which enumerated the "8 churches". All of them were Protestant, and thus not really churches. There is a Catholic Church, and its curate Rev. John T. McDonough was not enumerated among these.

Now, I am not a priest, but if I were, and were stationed in Fountain Hills, Church of the Ascension, I would start a sermon with support to the 8, not generally, but in their opposition to David Fenton.

I would perhaps entitle the sermon "Protestant Christianity" - fact or fiction?

With some respect for the 8, for not agreeing with Fenton, I would nevertheless point out that Reformation paved the way for that rot.

As CSL pointed out, I think in "Reflexions on the Psalms", Calvin considered that Book of Jonas could be a religious novel without any fact base. Tell that to Christians in Mossul - or formerly in Mossul, now protected by Mar Matta monastery or by the Peshargas - who date their conversions from paganism to Jonah as well as to Sts Thomas, Addai and Mari.

Calvin attacked Holy Mass, free will, especially sinners having freely chosen the sins they are damned for, celibate clergy and monks, and quite a few other central Christian concepts. Luther also had atatcked some of these.

David Fenten takes the denialism a bit further in rejecting the Virgin Birth. That is also a central Christian concept.

So, Rev. John T. McDonough could offer the noble 8 some catechism in integral Christianity, a k a Catholicism.

At least he seems not to be siding with David Fenton, according to the words of this character:

As Pastor David has written a best-selling book on the “Wisdom of Progressive Christianity” and The Fountains is the only openly “Progressive” Christian Church in town, (welcoming of LGBTQ folks, embracing of science, in dialog with other religions, etc.), it’s clear who the series is aimed at.

Well, if The Fountains is the only openly Progressive Christian Church in town, that means the Church of Ascension is not Progressive Christian. At least not openly so. And it is probably not into things like gay marriage or denying Virgin Birth either.

But the problem is, some Catholics are into some of these progressive things. Like replacing in Christmas proclamation "year 5199 after the Beginning when God created Heaven and Earth" with "unknown ages". That even was with the blessing of the Vatican, it would seem. But by then, I had already left Novus Ordo, and it has stayed that way most of the time.

And though Genesis chronology can look like a minor point (until you make the due reflections over Mark 10:6), unorthodoxy on this "minor point" (though in fact closely attached to a major one, Divinity of Christ) may well put off sympathies from conservative protestants, such as these 8.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Stigmata of St Francis

PS, going through their blog, I see a reference to the "bishop of Woolwich, John A.T. Robinson" and his "Honest to God". "So why haven’t you heard of this book?" - I have. C. S. Lewis commented on the "bishop" (whom, as an Anglican, he recognised as such) and mentioned that ordinary folks, if they believed what Robinson believed, would prefer calling themselves atheist over calling themselves Christian, and thought this kind of thing dishonest. As for himself, he preferred being honest to being "honest to God"./HGL