Angels for Sungenis and Levi Pingleton

It is a common opinion that only 1/3 of the angels fell, based on Apoc. 12:4.

It is also a common opinion (perhaps less so) that God decided to create man in replacement for those images of God that had definitely fallen with Satan.

This means, there are two angels to each demon, and two angels to each man.

Now, in order to fight a demon, one single angel is sufficient, because he has God on his side.

However, most of the time any given angel are not fighting demons, because most of the time demons are not overstepping what God allows them or rather will allow them. They certainly DO fight demons on occasion, like when St. Michael is invoked for the purpose, and guardian angels as well as principalities for communities certainly COUNTER demons in suggestions given to men, which is different from direct fighting them and far more frequent.

But overall, most angels would have nothing to do if fighting demons and guiding men were all there was. Maths. Just imagine the scenario of each angel either having a demon to fight or a man to protect, most of the time, they would have nothing to do. Already explained as to fighting demons, and as for guardian angels, a human life is so much shorter than an angel's existence over created time.

My guardian angel was created 4 days before the Sun. So was yours. 5199 + 2025 = 7224 years, possibly somewhat rounded, if St. Jerome was 20 years off on the pre-Flood period, by a copying mistake in his LXX, possibly some other years off if Fr. (Br.?) Denis the Lean was a few years off about how long ago in his time Christ was born. I count on living perhaps 20 more years, 30 would be a stretch because of how harsh things I have been through at hands of people sharing your mockery.* What mockery? I'll come back to it.

Point is, each of us is active in the created universe a fraction of the time that our guardian angel is.

At one point, when we were babies, possibly as far up as toddlers, our angels were arguably doing company with Seraphs and Cherubs watching God on His throne and praising Him (bilocation? leaving us to God alone in our most vulnerable stage and just praying? doing both but taking turns with God? I don't know). But this does not mean they were in God's throne room all of the previous time. What were they doing?

Not guarding some other man, that would be uneconomic, especially as not all demons need one angel to fight them, they have lost anyway, so, what are they up to?

Well, I gave you Job 38 with the interpretation of St. Thomas. I can add Prima Pars Q 70, A 3:

A proof that the heavenly bodies are moved by the direct influence and contact of some spiritual substance, and not, like bodies of specific gravity, by nature, lies in the fact that whereas nature moves to one fixed end which having attained, it rests; this does not appear in the movement of heavenly bodies. Hence it follows that they are moved by some intellectual substances.

I can mention that God in the flesh spoke of hosts of angels** where, when speaking to Moses, He had spoken of "host of heaven"*** ... this means that angels actually are in some sense equated to the creatures of day IV. Precisely as Job 38 verse 7 and lots of other passages consistently suggest. That would be a sensible thing for a future and (for the men already dead) past guardian angel to do.

Now, to your mockery. There is a cabale surrounding me, probably with some kind of "trying to help me" intent, because cabales for directly evil purposes don't tend to get all that much following. There was a certain GrimFabel on a Swedish Forum° who suggested to me that if I believed that angels made water boil at 100 ° C at the pressure of 1 at. and at a lower temperature up near lake Titicaca, that's fine, but it's more economic as a description to drop the angels. I obviously pointed out that I very much do NOT replace angels for each and every naturalistic explanation there is. On your example, I would not state that the pen dropped because an angel pushed it down. And getting harrassed about this ludicrous parody of my position years on end after stating my position in a way which neither stated nor logically implied such a thing, that's harrowing. That's one reason why I believe the Popes your priests and bishops are under are evildoers. They arrange for Catholics to ignore my work, if possible even avoid to name me, or at least someone does, and if not the Pope, WHO? I refuse to believe that you've taken an oath to the Illuminati, whoever else may have done so! And they actively PUSH for my work to be misrepresented in such ways as the one you gave.

So, how come you stated "if the pen falls down, it's not an angel pushing it down" as if you were teaching me sth? Come on, I never DID say that all natural processes were moved by angels any more than St. Thomas did. It is you who are either pushing the narrative that no natural processes have any moving cause other than causes that are material, physical, which is metaphysical nonsense, or you are illogically pushing an application of such a principle that you in sober moments don't believe (sober as when not carried away by your irritation). It's a principle of Marxism, and I don't mean economics, I mean Dialectic Materialism. Physicalism is a Marxist heresy. As a Catholic you are not supposed to push it.

Again, you refer to my position as "angels pushing planets" and I have not expressed myself that way. I have expressed myself as God pushing the universe around Earth each day, but not as angels pushing planets. Moving is the verb I use, consistently, and celestial bodies is more often than planets the object I give for this angelic action. As Riccioli gave it.°° So, since "pushing planets" isn't my actual words, someone is pushing a misquote about me. And I recall that parody being used decades ago on forum debates. Possibly, the forum was read by someone behind this way of getting around my actual work by constantly referring to a misrepresentation, and the words of my opponent are now reused against me.

Now, let's get back to the pen. If all that happens is that the pen drops to the nearest lower surface, the action of gravitation on the pen, is, as far as resulting movement, interrupted by that surface. If you catch the pen in the other hand, the effect of gravitation as to moving the pen is interrupted by your hand, moving on your will. So, it would be your will interfering with the effect of gravitation. Either way, gravitation is interfered with. In ideal Newtonian orbits, gravitation is interfered with by inertia of a movement sideways compared to inward to the heavier body. There too, gravitation is interfered with, only in this case, the interference is less arbitrary than your decision or not to catch the pen with the other hand, less arbitrary than the height of the pen above the nearest stable surface, because inertia also is a law, and also is proportional to mass, in this case only the mass of the body itself. But the fact that a very special case (if it occurs at all in purity and without interference) actually has two natural laws interfering with each other does not mean that only natural laws, or more correctly, processes described by natural laws, which are our abstractions, can interfere with workings of causes that are according to natural laws. If you admit, as you should, that your mind is not the product of material forces between particles in your brain, but considered as such actually more similar than that to the immaterial God it is an image of, then you must admit that spirit or mind is one of the things that act on material bodies, since your mind acts on your own body, like my mind acts on mine.

St. Thomas makes an application about this to angels.

I answer that, As Dionysius says (Div. Nom. vii): "Divine wisdom has joined the ends of the first to the principles of the second." Hence it is clear that the inferior nature at its highest point is in conjunction with superior nature. Now corporeal nature is below the spiritual nature. But among all corporeal movements the most perfect is local motion, as the Philosopher proves (Phys. viii, 7). The reason of this is that what is moved locally is not as such in potentiality to anything intrinsic, but only to something extrinsic—that is, to place. Therefore the corporeal nature has a natural aptitude to be moved immediately by the spiritual nature as regards place. Hence also the philosophers asserted that the supreme bodies are moved locally by the spiritual substances; whence we see that the soul moves the body first and chiefly by a local motion.

Article 3. Whether bodies obey the angels as regards local motion?
Prima Pars, Question 110. How angels act on bodies
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1110.htm#article3

However, in order no wise to be accused of making celestial bodies the body with which angels are united as souls, which is forbidden in Paris and in England and arguably also in all of Canada and parts of the US not originally colonised by Spanish or by Irish, Germans and Italians along the French and English, let's take objection 3:

Objection 3. Further, the corporeal members obey the concept of the soul as regards local movement, as having in themselves some principle of life. In natural bodies, however, there is not vital principle. Therefore they do not obey the angels in local motion.

Reply to Objection 3. The power of an angel is not so limited as is the power of the soul. Hence the motive power of the soul is limited to the body united to it, which is vivified by it, and by which it can move other things. But an angel's power is not limited to any body; hence it can move locally bodies not joined to it.

Now, go back to the discussion in Q 70, and I'm skipping most of a pretty long corpus, but I resume it accurately in the following:

... Hence it follows that they are moved by some intellectual substances. Augustine appears to be of the same opinion when he expresses his belief that all corporeal things are ruled by God through the spirit of life (De Trin. iii, 4).

From what has been said, then, it is clear that the heavenly bodies are not living beings in the same sense as plants and animals, and that if they are called so, it can only be equivocally. It will also be seen that the difference of opinion between those who affirm, and those who deny, that these bodies have life, is not a difference of things but of words.

A 3 Are they living beings?
Prima Pars, Question 70. The work of adornment, as regards the fourth day
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1070.htm#article3

In other words, St. Thomas like Aristotle thinks a spirit is joined to a celestial body like a biker to a bike. But, if St. Thomas admits Plato thought spirits are joined to celestial bodies like souls to human bodies, it's because he considers Plato considered soul and body in man joined only as a biker to a bike. St. Thomas didn't believe that any philosopher actually considered that angels or spirits or (philosophical jargon) intelligences were the actual forms of which the visible celestial bodies were the matter. Even though arguably that was precisely what Plato thought, and that, rather than Newton, was what was replacing Scholasticism in fashionable quarters of the Renaissance. No, Thomas wouldn't believe that he had thought such a stupid thing. We can look at stars and planets and they don't seem to have any organs, so they can't be living organisms.

It is not, however, possible that the functions of nutrition, growth, and generation, through which the nutritive soul operates, can be exercised by the heavenly bodies, for such operations are incompatible with a body naturally incorruptible.

If there is something St. Thomas might change his mind on had he lived on to today in a pre-Flood patriarch's lifespan, it may perhaps be this sentence.

Now YOU and Levi were all about, had he lived today, he would have changed his mind once he saw the mathematical line up between the orbits and the graviation and the inertia and the masses. Well, for starters, it is not a perfect one. It is always being slightly changed in response to new observations that don't quite line up. But over and above this, no astrophysicist has ever stopped the orbits, picked out a body, whether sun or planet, posed it on scales, verified the mass, put it back and then started to the solar system's orbits again. The masses are not independently known, they are calculated from the orbits on the assumption that they must match. Sure, the set-up doesn't run into problems all that obvious (all that often, last time was a thing about Mercury that Einstein proposed a solution to, and it took minute observation to detect it), but this is certainly a grade below independent verification of each mass and comparing that to orbits. If Voyager has made real flyby's near planets, or other space probes, it is at least verified that gravitation exists, but still not that gravitation is the sole cause with inertia of the orbits.

Especially as that works best in the two body problems. I'm actually not sure how much Newton could improve predictions due to his mechanistic explanation, his views were largely spread by his ex-Huguenot fan Desaguyliers, who was one of the founders of freemasonry. I will probably check on quora, and I will not be content with very general "oh, sure, it certainly improved predictions" ...

Now, you can of course say the calculations are at least overall on average clearly correct. Fine. You know sth else which on average is very clearly a product of inertia and gravity? A biker on a bike in full speed, when he isn't pedalling. Nevertheless, the bike would very certainly cease to roll forward and simply fall if the biker didn't do fine regulations. So, even presuming gravity exists, there is a conceivable role for angelic movers. Especially if one doesn't take your view (perhaps a bit idiosyncratic) that planets follow Tychonian orbits mechanistically, because of the gravitational field of the Sun. If we agree that Geocentrism of a generally speaking Tychonian type is the truth, here not yet entering the difference between classically Tychonian (with Riccioli taking ellipses from Kepler) or Neo-Tychonian, exclusing or including stars into centeredness on Sun, instead of positing such an effect of the gravitational field of the Sun, we can posit that much of the Tychonian orbits would definitely have the own inertia of each body and the gravitation of the Sun as causes, but the narrow turns would in part be possible due to angelic movers.

You mentioned going there only as a last resort, I cannot for my life understand why. If your priority was to get a message as little different from the general tenor of the world as possible, the sensible thing would have been to skip Geocentrism altogether. I was into Geocentrism on August 24th, 2001. I think that was before you were so. And angelic movers were already part of, not just my intellectual background (read a lot of the Summa in a kind of "wild novitiate" which didn't lead to monastic life and which was interrupted on 5.II.1998) and then reread some after last of June 2000 leading up to this. They were also part of my motivation.

In Geocentrism, apart from your hypothesis of a mechanistic link between Sun and stars, which constitutes the Neo-Tychonian difference, which I definitely do not share, there is no proof or a priori likelihood that the movement analysed as parallax (for instance 0.76 arc seconds in α Centauri and 0.13 I believe I recall in Vega) is really parallactic. Therefore, no implication about the distance. The one thing we can know about the distance (if we trust Voyager is genuine) is, fix stars and therefore α Centauri and Vega are at least a light day away. Because Voyager 1 is 23 light hours 12 light minutes 00 light seconds away (hh:mm:ss) ... provided the distance is not exaggerated by gravitational lensing. But by now, that's a small component, I think. If it actually is 1 light day up, we will soon know. In fact, we would have known a long time ago, if the cameras facing the stars hadn't been off. If not, I think it was the case on days 4, 5 and 6, because not just Adam and Eve saw stars all over the sky that Friday evening, but previous day some birds and fishes had their inbuilt orientation fixed on available light from the stars. Now, this is a case against the idea of there even being a Distant Starlight problem for Young Earth Creationism. Instead of an Andromeda Galaxy 2.5 million light years from us, we have an Andromeda spiral nebula one light day up, and accordingly smaller. Instead of it having an isophotal diameter (whatever that means) of 152,000 light-years, you find its real diameter by ...

2 500 000 * 365 = 912 500 000
152 000 * 9 460 730 472 580.8 km = 1 438 031 031 832 281 600 km
1 438 031 031 832 281 600 km / 912 500 000 = 1 575 924 418.4 km

Furthermore, the idea of angels moving the celestial bodies and of God moving heaven overall each day (or each 23 h and 55 min), goes together. In St. Thomas and in me, God moves the whole shebang each day, not meaning "habitually" as per what He set in motion at creation and set back in motion after Joshua's long day, but each day and moment providing the movement. Then the individual celestial bodies are moved by angels. The taking away of the one has tended to go with the taking away of the other.

And here is the rub. Riccioli did two mistakes in philosophy.

• Given the planets at least aren't in solid spheres of crystal, already proven by Tycho Brahe when observing a comet, he thought God didn't move Heaven as a whole. Hence, he concluded, against St. Thomas, not to use this as proof of God (prima via), but to instead use the Ontological Argument of St. Anselm.
• He wanted a mechanism by which angels moved celestial bodies. Instead of saying "at some point, spirit moves matter" he said "spirit moves matter by a mechanism" ... there certainly is a mechanism inside our bodies that's involved, and if it's damaged, we can't move, like can't move an arm if the nerve is cut in the shoulder, can't even breathe if certain other nerves are damaged. This doesn't mean spirit per se needs a mechanism to move matter per se. He indirectly contributed both to getting away angelic movers, and to getting away from a sound philosophy of the mind, and between them to getting away from angels and demons being involved in physical nature all around us, like demons in thunderstorms.

A Yaqui friend of mine, a Catholic, asked, in defense possibly of sth like Naiads, "if there are no pixies, whom did Jesus tell 'be still' " ...

Not sure if the exact word was "pixies" but the point is, you don't rebuke lifeless matter.

And rising up, he rebuked the wind, and said to the sea: Peace, be still. And the wind ceased: and there was made a great calm.
[Mark 4:39]

Molecules of oxygen and nitrogen are presumably not guilty of any offense, they are presumably just moving as mindless forces push them to move. So, what is the thing about "rebuke"? Well, look at this:

And Jesus rebuked him, saying: Hold thy peace, and go out of him. And when the devil had thrown him into the midst, he went out of him, and hurt him not at all.
[Luke 4:35]

Is Jesus God omniscient and knowing that both the possessed man and the physical winds were moved by unseen and evil agents, created more than 5000 years earlier? Or was He just a man influenced by his culture and seeing things that weren't there? Whichever you chose, there seems to be a parallel, the rest of the time Jesus rebukes (apart from three possessions and the storm), it is people with obvious freewilled agency.

Now, the idea of Riccioli and Descartes of seeking a mechanism behind every movement of bodies including freewilled, it seems to have actually contributed to no longer attributing storms and lightnings to demons at all. I'm not sure if you are aware, some people have argued that the lightning rod disproved any kind of demonic influence on where the lightning strikes. In fact, some Secularists have pretended, and I have got some of them°°° away from the internet, they have pretended that the belief in demons striking lightnings motivated Catholic opposition to lightning rods, with a disaster in Brescia as consequence.

I proved by examples there was no absolute ban on lightning rods, and the disaster in Brescia was attributed to a refusal of the Church to instal lightning rods in the Church. It actually seems the gunpowder was stored in a Bastion, not the Church itself, but a Bastion of the adjacent City Gate, so, it was not up to the Church to instal or not instal a lightning rod there.

But the site which is still~ up states:

For centuries Protestant and Catholic churches, basing their teachings on various texts in the Bible, taught that the air was filled with devils, tempests, and witches. Saint Augustine held this belief to be beyond controversy. Saint Thomas Aquinas stated in his Summa Theologica, “Rain and winds, and whatsoever occurs by local impulse alone, can be caused by demons. It is a dogma of faith that the demons can produce winds, storms, and rain of fire from heaven.”

Here is the misinformation on Brescia:

One sixth of the city was destroyed and three thousand lives were lost, just because the clergy had refused to install the "heretical rod."

Omitting the part about Protestants, irrelevant for discussion between Catholics, though it may have given rise to bad guesses on the history of Brescia, this view obviously became unfashionable in the time of Benjamin Franklin, which probably highly contributed to Settele wanting an angel-free and especially angelic-movers-free astronomy, which to his mind was a Heliocentric one. It probably contributed to an atmosphere in which Fr. Anfossi was seen as an old fogey for clinging to Geocentrism. He was 20, 21, at the lightning strike in Brescia, and if Benjamin Franklin advocated lightning rods, he would probably not have heard of it directly.

Now, you or Levi mentioned talking to scientists. You seem to mentally be living in a world where:

• most people listen to school teachers
• school teachers listen to scientists
• so, your best option for reaching most people is to discuss with scientists, and then they will change what they tell school teachers ... at least you have done your best.

In actual fact, however, this is a situation which has rarely been the case and which is waning since the internet arose, so the real situation now looks again like:

• most people's world views are not made up by school teachers on all points
• school teachers do not always listen to scientists
• so, your best option for reaching most people is going to most people, as broadly as possible, whether it will fly with the scientists or not.

That's what I am doing, and instead of lauding me, it seems to bother you. You have for very long kept a kind of "cordon sanitaire" around my work, as they say in French. Last example, probably, unless it's from the cyber, you hid the direct chat, where I had made many comments. There are older examples.~~ To quote Rick DeLano (link below~~), hoping God has forgiven him, or will do so:

Because the movements of the stars and planets are exquisitely predictable, it is false to say that the empirical evidence of that predictable motion is not part of the science of astrophysics.

He has not proven astrophysics is a science of mainly determined by empirical evidence. He is just affirming that predictable motion is empirical evidence for non-voluntary causes, like exclusively gravitation and inertia, therefore masses. However, that affirmation is not proof that the empiric observation of predictable motion is that, it is his own analysis, not supported by St. Thomas, who certainly didn't settle for angelic movers because stellar movements appeared erratic to him. Dito for Riccioli°° who was far better at predicting celestial movements than St. Thomas was.

I used the analogy of a football field to point out that there is not a general exceptionless rule that a smaller body's movement is determined by the biggest body to the exclusion of will. Rick DeLano spoofed this to a pretention that football fields don't hold as a complete analogy (never my intention) because football matches aren't predictable. Oh "from physics" ... well, one can find sth predictable and yet use the wrong analysis metaphysically to predict it. Predictability per se is no guarantee for the analysis being right. When it comes to this level, predictability, rather than the level of gravitation of the biggest body, my analogy is how certain folk dancers move in very predictable ways, because they have a very high degree of self control. But even so, we know they are not robots. I think this level of skill is the least we can credit angels with.

Now, you made a point about "the spiritual world" ... if you mean the human psyche as it is laid bare before God, as angels and demons fight, the proper angel to fight a demon who's tempting would usually be the guardian angel. And the guardian angels cannot at any given time be even 1/2 of the angels, at least not guardian angels in active service. However, if you are suggesting that angels and demons live in a kind of parallel reality called "the spiritual world" this is not the traditional Roman Catholic view. You can partly find it in Tolkien (whose upbringing involves not just father Francis Xaver Morgan, Oratorian, but also Methodists) when explaining the invisibility of ring wraiths and it is frankly an explanation which, suggestive as it is, and effective in dramatic setting, is clearly more suited to that particular work of fantasy than to a manual of theology. Apart from Lord of the Rings, it is also found in some Evangelical circles. You will find the channel "God in a nutshell", alias Trey Smith time after time refer to demons (and consequently also aliens and pagan gods, which he on average correctly identifies with demons) as "dimensional beings" ... beings from other dimensions than our three dimensions.

That's not how St. Thomas or bishop Tempier viewed the so to speak "habitat" of angels or of demons. Heaven and Hell are places in our material universe, with Hell in the centre of the Earth (a view that Galileo started to challenge before being Heliocentric), and with Heaven above the fix stars (a view not challenged up to Newton). Between these "poles" angels and demons are "placed" so to speak where they are at work. No angel and no demon is two places at once, and none of them can go from A to B without going through the places between them. However, as they are not material, they aren't stopped by walls. In fact, the Bible also suggests this about Satan:

Now on a certain day when the sons of God came to stand before the Lord, Satan also was present among them And the Lord said to him: Whence comest thou? And he answered and said: I have gone round about the earth, and walked through it
[Job 1:6-7]

Be sober and watch: because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour
[1 Peter 5:8]

Going round the earth or going about means moving from A to B in other ways than teleportation. No, angels and demons are not similarily material and not in a spiritual world, they are spiritual, but similarily in our three dimensions, except the adage "body is inside space, angel is around space" ... but even so, still one place at a time. Given that they are in our three dimensional world, given that they can move objects, why would their activity be nearly always just spiritual and never physical?

It's like Kant's idea of the physical world showing no observational evidence of being moved at any point by the spiritual, including to the point that Kant made free will a postulate rather than a solid and obvious fact. And that idea goes hand in hand with the idea that all events in the physical world "obey the laws of nature" ... rather than forces described by such laws being some of the things that bodies obey, and angels and demons and human freewills being some other ones, especially as to movement.

For a person promoting the philosophy of Kant while using Thomistic terminology, the theologians of last century had the pejorative term "Aquikantian" .... there was no pejorative term attached to being Thomasic.

Just before finishing, I get some debate under a video by Gavin Ortlund. He rightly rejects the Lutheran idea that Jesus' body is ubiquitous. Here are three lines by me and someone else:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

4:02 As an ex-Lutheran, a convert as yet to Novus Ordo (I became Trad somewhat later), and apart from the question of the Sacrifice of the Mass, where I obviously agree and already agreed with the priest that it was wrong to deny that, I asked "why transsubstantiation, why not for instance ubiquity" (which by the way was one of the Lutheran tries, another being impanation, I think, another consubstantiation).

The reply was very prompt. Ubiquity = Monophytism.

Jeremy Bamgbade

@jeremybamgbade

The Lutherans are simply being honest about the implications of their view. The Roman Catholics will say Jesus's body is not present locally, yet teach that the bread that is eaten in a spatial location, was the same body that was crucified, resussurected , and glorified, which obviously demands ubiquity.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@jeremybamgbade bilocation will do.

Jesus' body is primarily present in Heaven. Above the stars.

Same shape as He rose up from Mount of Olives.

This is the highest reason I go with Tychonian over Neo-Tychonian, and this shell formed sphere of fix stars requires "parallax" to be a proper movement, performed by an angel.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Sts Faustinus and Jovita
15.II.2025

Brixiae natalis sanctorum Martyrum Faustini et Jovitae fratrum, qui sub Hadriano Imperatore, post multa praeclara ob Christi fidem suscepta certamina, victricem martyrii coronam acceperunt.

PS, "Brixiae" is Latin for "in Brescia" ... confer the place with the lightning strike and explosion in 1769, which I discussed .../HGL

PPS, Sungenis has denied turning off the chat feed, and Pingleton has denied being against Angelic Movers./HGL

PPPS, the chat feed is back. Temporary glitch./HGL

* This post is a follow up to my participation in the direct chat on this live stream:

Creation Theology Roundtable
Robert Sungenis | 15.II.2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlRriIbiYu0

** Matthew 26:53

*** Deuteronomy 17:3.

° discussion on the posts Gud heter intet sol eller måne · Fortsättning and my reply to him with the complaint about his parody being on Fortsättning, A, my reply 6.II.2025, kl 10:17, so the actual parody has to be somewhere on the previous post, the first one.

°° New blog on the kid: What Opinion did Riccioli call the Fourth and Most Common One?
Thursday, 28 August 2014 | Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 17:24
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/08/what-opinion-did-riccioli-call-fourth.html

°°° Φιλολoγικά / Philologica: Did Catholic Authorities Oppose the Lightning Rod?
Friday, July 15, 2022 | Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 8:07 AM
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2022/07/did-catholic-authorities-oppose.html

~ Christian Churches vs. the Lightning Rod
Lee Carter speaking for Atheists United — the Rational Minority
https://www.miltontimmons.com/ChruchesVsLightningRod.html

~~ Partly in opposing me in debates: Ross Earl Hoffmann, Rick DeLano, Tom Trinko