Link to CMI, Perception of the World of the Unborn

Unborn babies perceive the world consciously
What does this mean for abortion?
by Jonathan Sarfati
https://creation.com/unborn-babies-perceive-world-consciously

To some Africans it is so obvious I am no intellectual.

A school teacher with a salary is an intellectual. A writer with a publisher is an intellectual. I would even be intellectual in their eyes if I already had a publisher for what I write on my blogs - and since this is the case, and they are sure I am no intellectual (for previous reasons), they are NOT fans of the idea of my getting a publisher.

And most certainly not an upstart amateur publisher, who, not having already been established as intellectual (i e capable of generating money on intellectual types of products and services) is not a real judge of whether I am intellectual or not.

And if I try to make people concerned that the school teachers are misleading the youth (misleading themselves, if they are young, misleading junior family members if they are not), it is so obvious to these Africans that I am jealous. After all, the school teacher is an intellectual (earns money from an intellectual service), while I am not in their eyes (since not earning money from my services or derivable products of intellectual type). To such an African it is obvious I am jealous.

In an African climate, therefore, certain things cannot be discussed. If teachers (around them) are united in saying "millions of years occurred, evolution from microbe to man occurred" and I write "this is not so", the Africans won't be weighing my arguments against the arguments of the teachers, they will be weighing status of my person (known as beggar in the streets, often reputed as mad or alcoholic, suspected of being jealous) against the status of the teachers, and therefore will conclude that it is not worth bothering about my actual arguments.

Similarily, if their pastors say that moyboy and evolution are biblically OK, they will take my opposition to them as jealousy if not demonic possession (unless I could possibly be past that hurdle).

And if their pastors tell them that I am right in being against evolution, they will take that from their masters, sorry, pastors, and keep paying them for telling them what to think, and keep not paying me for writing down arguments, and actually not bother very much about an argument of mine, unless a pastor of theirs had become interested.

My problem is not necessarily with these Africans.

My problem is with Westerners who are not using their liberties, my liberties, our liberties, to make a mediatic and commercial success of certain of my Young Earth Creationist, or even Geocentric, pieces of argumentation.

And obviously, much less with those who don’t do so because they believe Big Bang, Stellar and Planetary Formation, Abiogenesis, Evolution, Gradual Humanisation and duly call themselves atheist. Their only motive for publishing me on paper, as I already published myself on internet, that I can conceive, is either personal pity, or arranging a collection of debate articles, between myself and an opponent. But they seem very unwilling to stand up as opponents too.

No, my problem is instead much more with Westerners calling themselves Christian who do not print my things, because this, that or other African minded collective has managed to intimidate them.

Some of these know I am often reading the work of CMI (despite them being Protestant and sometimes alas even showing so), and Robert B from US who wrote to CMI and was answered by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati could theoretically have been such a one.

He could have (in a very African way) imagined me as dupe of CMI. Now, Jonathan Sarfati, PhD, is a Protestant and on occasion shows it alas, but today was not that day. Today was a day when he showed some brilliant and compared to my rant charitable answering to the guys who want to stamp Creationists as « uneducated cavemen » or whatever.

Here is a little link :

Damaging Christianity by ignoring science?
Published: 21 October 2017 (GMT+10)
https://creation.com/damaging-christianity-by-ignoring-science

Robert B was, however interesting in a cultural sense not limited to Africa :

« Consider—the percentage of scientists who believe the Earth is young is smaller than the percentage of people who would be clinically insane in the same population. ALERT!! »

This is interesting, because while Africans are sometimes too keen on psychiatry (especially in the West, where they lack other means of African tribalism), they are not its most formative instigators. One could even argue, they have in some places a sore history of being its victims*. I’d say, Robert B is here exposing a tribal viewpoint which is NEITHER Western NOR African. Perhaps, in order not to sully all Jews, Talmudic ? Perhaps, in order not to sully just Jews, Judeo-Protestant ?

The remark shows a very interesting use of mental disease diagnoses : the higher percentage of any population has these, the bigger a minority can be and still be ignored. Because, Africans are not the only ones who will resort to investigating a person before his argument. And that is bad news for the West.

Want to save the West ? Don’t punch a Black Man. Punch (or other measure seeming adequate) a shrink.**

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bibl. Parmentier
St. Ursula and Companions
21.X.2017

PS, if it is true that more people among scientific élite are diagnosed as mentally ill than the ones who are Young Earth Creationist, this shows efficacity of a Communist brainwash type education, and its being very intense among those élites. Before a man has come out as a Young Earth Creationist, his pals may have come out as regarding him as a freak and as thinking psychiatry is the proper way of dealing with such./HGL

* Very dated example, unless they want to sue psychiatric institutions for it : the Antebellum Psychiatry of the South, in which a slave who fled could be « diagnosed » as drapetomaniac. No, not megalomanic, drapetomaniac. What does that mean ? Well, drapetes is Greek for a slave on the run. You can presumably guess the « medication time » given to a drapetomaniac : his master or rather master’s foreman played the role of Nurse Ratchett. Very recent example : a black woman in France had abandoned her daughter to the waves, the daughter died. She was condemned to twenty years, and now it’s fifteen. Except, now she is under « obligation des soins » and this also during ten years observation after the fifteen, so, she is facing twentyfive years without freedom, instead of twenty, because she was given the excuse of insanity, and this because she was convinced of having been victim of witchcraft. ** Actually, just punching a shrink may be very dangerous, since he could abuse his position to stamp you as mentally ill and therefore withdraw you from common law and due process – or at least from due process. Well, this may be a case for not doing worse things to him, or not, as you judge.

Moral or Ceremonial : Was it Against Moral Law to Eat Porc Between Moses and Jesus or St Peter?

1) Creation vs. Evolution : Natural Law is Constant : St Augustine Presumably Refuting Sarfati on Sibling Marriages [after second generation of mankind] · 2) New blog on the kid : Moral or Ceremonial : Was it Against Moral Law to Eat Porc Between Moses and Jesus or St Peter? · 3) HGL's F.B. writings : Overpopulation Still Falsehood


Here is Dr. Jonathan Sarfati's* solution:

Another problem is this artificial separation of moral and ceremonial laws. Surely every law God gives is a ‘moral law’, in that it would be immoral to disobey. The Mosaic Law of 613 commandments is a unity, which is why James told us that breaking one commandment was breaking the whole Law (James 2:10). And were we to categorize the law that Adam broke, it would come under ‘ceremonial’ since it was a prohibited food law.

Any law of God is immoral to disobey, including a ceremonial law. However, some commands are immoral to break before they are commanded, and some are immoral to break because of high and ceremonial respect and special relation to the lawgiver.

There is a law which is written in man's hearts. In and of itself it does not forbid eating porc or shrimps as such, unless one eat so much it leads to sexual overindulgence (when eating porc and shrimps were among abhominations of Canaanites, this was the case). There are two ways of dealing with porc and shrimps so as not to become sexually immoral. The old Jewish way was to avoid them. The Catholic way is to abstain once or even better twice a week. Twice was the original discipline and also involved fasting up to a certain hour.

Probably the Pharisaic custom of fasting developed in Babylon among people told to eat porc and shrimps and not wanting to defile themselves.

But to Jews living in freedom, like under King David or King Solomon or in the South Kingdom, abstinence from the fattest meats and allowance of other meats, was the custom required by law. It would have been immoral for them to disobey it. However, it was immoral to them, but not to each and every neighbour, unless they were so opulent they didn't fast. A Hindoo or Buddhist monk at that time would have been sinning by idolatry, but not by eating shrimps, since these monks were also fasting - and since they had no such special relation to God as the Israelites had. Socrates and Stoics may be presumed to have eaten of shrimps in this sinless way. Their behaviour was not identic to Canaanite behaviour when overindulging in aphrodosiac foods.

So, in the time span given, it was not unlawful for non-Jews to eat moderately of foods which, if taken in greater quantities would be aphrodisiac foods, hence Socrates** who was not a Jew did not sin by eating clams or shrimps. Some might even say that shrimps are not technically "fish" anyway, so it doesn't matter if they have fins and scales or not. On the other hand, are shrimps "plants" like some have regarded clams, or rather non-locust insects? But eels and lampreys would have been sinful for a Jew, unless forced by a Babylonian to eat thereof, and sinful if eaten as the Canaaneans did, in great quantities. But was not sinful for a non-Jewish philosopher enjoying them in moderation, even at that time.

When we say that ceremonial laws of the Old Testament are not binding, we do not mean that it would only have been a ceremonial bad manner rather than immoral to obey them, we mean that the ceremonial law is now other, as especially clear with reference to sacrifice and circumcision, we now have Holy Mass and Baptism.

And it would be immoral for a priest of Byzantine rite to use unleavened bread and for a priest of Roman Latin rite to use leavened bread in Holy Mass : because these ceremonial rites are, unlike that of the Old Testament, still in current validity. At least one of them, probably both, will remain so up to Doomsday. However, during Mosaic rite of Old Testament no bread at all was used in sacrifice, it was in the older Melchisedecian rite that bread and wine were used, as they are again under Christ.

In each case, breaking the laws of a ceremonial rite in current validity when belonging to the covenant is immoral. But not because of the action in itself, rather because of the covenant. And the Eternal Covenant is the New one. The Old was desecrated by Caiaphas and was made impossible to keep after the letter by destruction of the Temple.

But after the spirit, even now we must observe the ceremonial laws, though not each one doing so knows he is doing so. Because each of the 613 laws, if that is the correct number, has a spiritual significance which remains valid in the common or specifically ritual laws of the New Covenant, as given by the Church.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Sts Philip and Jacob, Apostles
11-V-2015

* Cain’s wife and brother-sister intermarriage
Published: 14 May 2011(GMT+10)
http://creation.com/cains-wife-brother-sister-intermarriage
Main theme already answered under the other post.

** Socrates was not technically fasting, but he was "only eating when hungry", i e eating frugally. Lean fish was more frequent in Athens of his time than either porc or even presumably shrimps. And he was more frugal than most Athenians of his time.