mardi 15 avril 2014

On Medical Tyranny

Friend (status plus ensuing comments, mostly quotes)
"Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship to restrict the art of healing to one class of men and deny equal privileges to others; the Constitution of the Republic should make a special privilege for medical freedoms as well as religious freedom." -Benjamin Rush, MD., a signer of the Declaration of Independence and personal physician to George Washington

Feel free to share this! If there is no "share" button, just copy and paste.

"The doctor of the future will no longer treat the human frame with drugs, but rather will cure and prevent disease with nutrition." -Thomas Edison

"If we doctors threw all our medicines into the sea, it would be that much better for our patients and that much worse for the fishes." -Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes, MD

"We must admit that we have never fought the homeopath on matters of principle. We fought them because they came into our community and got the business." -Dr. J.N. McCormack, AMA, 1903

"One of the biggest tragedies of human civilization is the precedents of chemical therapy over nutrition. It's a substitution of artificial therapy over nature, of poisons over food, in which we are feeding people poisons trying to correct the reactions of starvation." -Dr. Royal Lee, January 12, 1951

"The human body heals itself and nutrition provides the resources to accomplish the task." -Roger Williams Ph.D. (1971)

"Nutrition can be compared with a chain in which all essential items are separate links. We know what happens if one link of a chain is weak or is missing. The whole chain falls apart." -Patrick Wright, Ph.D.
Me (commenting on some quotes)
"If we doctors threw all our medicines into the sea, it would be that much better for our patients and that much worse for the fishes." - And for (which is relevant to Catholics) Gollum and any other Fisheaters.

"The human body heals itself and nutrition provides the resources to accomplish the task." - Except of course when a beggar is forced to live more of alms given in sweets than of what he can buy with money, because some jerks think if he gets money he will drink or because some jerks know that if I get money, I will not use all on eating, but also some one communicating.

Benjamin Rush failed to foresee another kind of dictatorship of the medical corps. The one exercised by Shrinks.

Even over Hollywood. When I was small there was a film called "And One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest". When I am in my forties, the main actor is now the hero of "Anger Management", the guy who "helps" a patient through therapy to use his anger correctly. That film would in my view have been better for the role of same actor ending with an axe* in his head (role, not live person, mind you).

I withdraw one word choice.

I said "medical dictatorship", but that is an insult to Mussolini. I meant medical tyranny, of course (you know, I AM in fact a bit tired)!
What a brilliant film. I greatly sympathised** with the main actor, and loved all of the other characters, too. Then, there's "Doc," before he became "Doc" (one of the actors later ended up being a main character in a famous film "Back to the Future").
All the other characters? Even nurse Ratchet?
Well, although I did not like who she was, I did appreciate the character as part of the story.
Well, that is hardly loving, is it? It is loving to detest.
What is "hardly loving?"
If you appreciate the character in the story but do not like her, that is hardly loving but rather loving to detest.
Well, my point about Nurse Ratchet is that the character was needed to make the film what it was.
Btw, did Benjamin Rush actually use the words "undercover dictatorship"? Sound a bit modern to me. Sure the quote has not been tampered with? Like "secret tyranny" in original?
I just confirmed the accuracy of the above quote by Rush.
OK, what proximate source?

Gifts of Speech: Excerpts From Closing Argument
In The Trial Of Alternative Health Care Provider
Rodger Sless versus
The United States Food And Drug Administration
by Nancy Lord,
1992 Libertarian Party Vice-Presidential Candidate

Almost sure it comes from his "Medical Inquiries and Observations Upon the Diseases of the Mind."
OK, you quoted your proximate source correctly. Now, I would like to know how Nancy Lord quoted. Can you get his "Medical Inquiries" etc?

Btw, one fault in your quote as per your source: she showed where she had left out parts, by giving three dots, you omitted them and made it look like a continuous quote.
Did you know: "Dr. Benjamin Rush, the 'father of American psychiatry,' was the first to believe that mental illness is a disease of the mind and not a 'possession of demons.' His classic work, Observations and Inquiries upon the Diseases of the Mind, published in 1812, was the first psychiatric textbook printed in the United States. Rush served on the Pennsylvania Hospital medical staff from 1783 until the time of his death in 1813." Source:

Pennsylvania Hospital History: Stories - Dr. Benjamin Rush

How ironic!

I found it available for free as an e-book:

Medical Inquiries and Observations Upon the Diseases of the Mind ("Livre numérique"*** Google)
Benjamin Rush
Grigg and Elliot, 1835 - 365 pages
Now, as to Rush, perhaps he was doing a favour to people wrongfully considered possessed who in fact were not. But then, perhaps, he was himself overdiagnosing and doing worse than even protestant pseudo-exorcists had been doing.

And thank you very much for the e-book!
It is not in that book.

Well, I initially saw the quote on another website, and only attempted to confirm its accuracy upon your request, which is why I might have accidently left out the ellipsis.
One good thing about copy-paste is these things are not left out.

I noted the book hardly contained any info on his views on status of doctors. It very much DOES however contain his info on his views of which certain ones can abusively have entered DSMH, so I am glad you gave it me.
I wish I could find the original source of that quote, but I assume Nancy Lord already did that.
And she might have been as sloppy on vocabulary as you on the ellipsis. Or she might have been quoting from memory.

I checked and saw there were no footnotes. Btw, since she was doing a speech, she would have been quoting from memory rather than looking at a paper!
…and? Her speech first had to be written though.
Not necessarily word for word. She can have learned a list of points by heart rather than learning every word by heart or even worse looking at every word on a paper.

What I meant by being grateful for the book is that if you look at chapter XI and consider the kind of tone Dawkins takes, you can see how Rush's take can very easily be abused by Antichristians if they only adjust the concrete application of the criterium a bit.

I am not sure Rush was not already treating as madmen capable of believing ANYTHING people who had true stories to tell, but whom he did not believe. I am however very sure that right now that criterium is abused against Christians, against Creationists, against CCHR, against quite a few similar people.

And obviously, Jews are likely to abuse it both against any one believing Jesus is the Christ and against anyone not quite believing all details in the Shoah story.

This is why Jewish Community when overrepresented among shrinks is doing a great deal of harm. If one wants to get rid of it without harming the community as such, the ideal is to get rid of quite a bit of psychiatry.

Obviously they° are also often enough mediocres who simply do not know enough to judge correctly whether someone's story is correct or not.

I was confronted with a person one evening who considered me as having a very screwed up view of history simply because I did not share his and his girl friend's Dan Brown fandom (basically). But he did overbelieve the claims of one Théodore Monod, a French naturalist from a family of Calvinist pastors. Himself he was not of that family as far as I could see, but could be related to one young Rothschild I have seen.

* And no, the spellcheck program is wrong to suggest I replace "axe" with "ax". The latter is an US American reformed spelling. ** Just so I prefer "sympathised" over "sympathized". *** Yes, I am reading this in France. °Is as true of shrinks as of Jews.

jeudi 10 avril 2014

Karl Keating Admitting Excessive Judaeophilia in Today's Society?

He shows a photo of Lawrence Krauss, so technically my link is to a FB photo:

Karl Keating showing Lawrence Krauss in photo

But there is a LOT of text under it.

It is a somewhat longish essay to the effect that Robert Sungenis is being accused of acting as a Talmudic Jew against a Jew (since Lawrence Krauss is a Jewish Atheist) which is ironic considering what Robert Sungenis has said about the Talmud in very other contexts than the film The Principle.

However, there is a quote which I find golden to me and a bit brazen from him:

(How many theaters would risk it when Sungenis's anti-Jewish obsessions become known in the local area? Theater owners don't make money by ticking off the local rabbi and his congregation.)

That was an admission of a certain kind of Jewish supremacy syndrome.

Also an admission of Jewish habit of Guilt By Association.

  • a) Robert Sungenis is an antisemite (according to ADL standards)
  • b) The Principle is by Robert Sungenis
  • c) The Principle is an antisemitic film (even though it nowhere mentions Jews)*

Such a non-syllogism!

Apart from that Karl Keating is not exactly saying that Krauss' accusations are true, but he is going on about them and never actually putting them in doubt.

To think that I had had the cyncicism of figuring out that Robert Sungenis and Rick DeLano could have had the Chutzpah of paying Lawrence Krauss and the Star Trek actress to make this kind of "cinema" outside the film, just so as to get more attention to it without actually making it seem as publicity! But no, Karl Keating's article frees my friends from this suspicion pretty much insofar as he states that what he had seen by Krauss does not mention the film. Though it links to it.

And no, once again, this morning I saw some evidence that today's society is so much less freethinking among young than in the Sixties that a smear campaign might alas not be so likely to backfire. Since Robert and Rick are a bit better acquainted than I with "men of the world" that would surprise them less than it still surprises and pains myself.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Fulbert of Chartres
and St Hezechiel

* Unless you count the footages with the Jewish Atheist Lawrence Krauss as "mentioning Jews"!


I see this when publishing under Karl Keating's photo:

Kate Mulgrew saying:
8 April, 21:22

"I understand there has been some controversy about my participation in a documentary called THE PRINCIPLE. Let me assure everyone that I completely agree with the eminent physicist Lawrence Krauss, who was himself misrepresented in the film, and who has written a succinct rebuttal in SLATE. I am not a geocentrist, nor am I in any way a proponent of geocentrism. More importantly, I do not subscribe to anything Robert Sungenis has written regarding science and history and, had I known of his involvement, would most certainly have avoided this documentary. I was a voice for hire, and a misinformed one, at that. I apologize for any confusion that my voice on this trailer may have caused. Kate Mulgrew"

Under it Lawrence Krauss states:
8 Avril, 22:52

Good for you Kate. Glad we agree.

The likes were 11 478 for the statement by Kate Mulgrew and 718 for the approval by Lawrence Krauss./HGL

mercredi 9 avril 2014

Geocentric Yes, Flat Earth No

Paul Michael Bales
(at least according to the FB profile)
Paul Michael Bales‎ > Robert Sungenis

Cheers for the accept Rob, I was tweeting to Phil Plait, for I am a geocentrist and flat earther and he blocked me, then posted this straight afterwards. It mentions your documentary.

The Principle: A Documentary About Geocentrism. Yeah, I Know.
By Phil Plait

I think the flat earthers and geocentrits are starting to touch a nerve of the powers that be, the scientists and astronomers and NASA are getting nervous up there in their tower of babel, for it is trembling and about to collapse.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Paul Michael Bales - how do you argue the earth as a whole is NOT bent surface going at least full circle Paris - New York - San Francisco - Peking - Moscow - Paris in face of travel?

(Btw, this is the kind of evidence that factually is lacking but in imagination is supplied by pop culture for Heliocentrism : Star Trek, Star Wars, Agent Spatio-Temporel Valérian and some more)

And Phil Plait is not new to this controversy, btw:

That NASA look
By Phil Plait | July 26, 2010 12:00 pm
On Discover Magazine, his blog Bad Astronomy
Paul Michael Bales
There is no curvature of the Earth, people do not live on top of a ball, and Australians certainly don't live underneath the ball hanging upside down by their feet.

[Link to Flat Earth Cartoon showing impact of a Globe if Centre of Gravity were outside earth, very opposite North Pole]
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nice cartoon, if "down" were same direction counted from Paris and Australia. It is rather opposite directions.
Paul Michael Bales
NASA's cartoon paintings and drawings of a globular spinning earth are not very convincing. They are about as convincing as this picture.

Link to Geocentric Cartoon lampooning diagrams of Earth spinning around its axis or orbitting the Sun.]
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Paul, in case you missed it, I was not arguing from a cartoon being convincing. I am arguing from known travels. MANY of them.

(If Heliocentrics would want a similar argument, we would need Han Solo to be fact. Newsflash : he is fiction.)

[On link to Phil Plait, quoting from it:]

"The trailer does seem to be making a case for Geocentrism (it's mentioned specifically), but given the title, I would guess they're going to try to make a broader point that the Universe itself was made—created, if you will—purposely for us."

I thought the title referred to the Copernican Principle which is being debunked.
Paul Michael Bales
I am going to take that Pied piper Phil Plait down, he is a pied piper misleading people, with his flute like telescope. He is not a real skeptic, he is paid to ridicule anything that goes against orthodox sciences cherished dogmas.

[Link tp Marvel Style Cartoon of Pied Piper]
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I already did some of that under his post and I was blocked from combox, I think, or thread was closed:

That NASA look
By Phil Plait | July 26, 2010 12:00 pm
On Discover Magazine, his blog Bad Astronomy
Paul Michael Bales
They never circumnavigate pole to pole, only east to west, which you can do on a flat surface, for example a formula one car going around the racing track, or you can walk around your table, but they never go up and under the so called globe, because they can't, for we don't live on a globe, there is no south pole, only a north pole in the center.

[Link to seriously taken Flat Earth map with North POle in the Middle and "Outer Rim of Ice" instead of South Pole.]
Hans-Georg Lundahl
That map would make quite a few distances illusory.

Going from Australia to Chile, for instance is a shorter way than it would be according to that map.

Of course, God can create dimensions. Emmaus may have been already 160 stades from Jerusalem and Jesus and two disciples still have walked it in only 60 stades (32 vs 12 km, do not know about miles so well, say 20-21 vs 8)*. Now, on the Day of Resurrection this could have happened so as to spare the disciples fatigue. I do not think this happens regularly in what Globe Believers like myself call Southern Hemisphere.
Paul Michael Bales
It would be impossible to travel anywhere on a ball, you would slip right off. We are not flies who have suckers on our feet and who can walk on the ceiling.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Once again, your argument is from believing "down" is same direction here as in Australia.

Down is INTO the centre of the Earth.

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: ... on Hell Fire (Yes, it Exists) (=short link=works in adress bar)
Paul Michael Bales
Of course it is, our beloved Creator, who is perfect in all ways, created this world perfectly, with all countries being level, he did not create the racist globe theory which suggests Europe and North America are on top of everyone and Africa and South America below.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
In Medieval Maps the direction of UP was Jerusalem upwards.

In Spanish voyagers' discoveries, there was a constellation opposite Pole Star called Southern Cross.

If your concern is about saving vercaity of certain passages in Holy Writ, my take is that there is a very roughly square piece of land (as in a square on a globe), which does have four corners, but which is not all there is to the globe.

That rough "square on a globe" has the corners of England - Good Hope - Australia - Sachalin/Japan.

Americas and most of Oceania are a kind of "island world" outside the main square.
Paul Michael Bales

[If clicking this works, even outside FB, you should be opening or downloading a word document with title given above - other links with such square brackets as these are inside FB.]
Hans-Georg Lundahl
As to your link, it seems to have been taken down

Did you write the following? Here :

[On FB profile of Paul Michael Bales]

"At his present stage of evolution man depends upon food solely because he has not become conscious of the Law governing the Force which gives atomic action to all parts of his organism. FOR THERE IS A LAW WHICH GOVERNS THE ACTION OF THIS EVER FLOWING STREAM OR REGENERATING CURRENT DIRECTED UPON MATTER. When man, in time, becomes conscious of this Law he will be able to assimilate this Force and will no longer be dependent upon matter for the support of his physical organism."

Is that what you believe or were you only quoting someone for the fun of seeing a discussion about it?
Paul Michael Bales
That was from a book.

The link works, it should download a word document straight to your computer.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am not downloading, only opening on this computer, and when I tried I got an mt word doc
Paul Michael Bales
I will try to tag you to my post, I have it on facebook also.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
It works now, here are my replies to the first five:

1. The aeronaut can see for himself that Earth is a Plane. The appearance presented to him, even at the highest elevation he has ever attained, is that of a concave surface - this being exactly what is to be expected of a surface that is truly level, since it is the nature of level surfaces to appear to rise to a level with the eye of the observer. This is ocular demonstration and proof that Earth is not a globe. Have not checked. At least I had the impression horizon was round, as is to be expected on a convex, and especially is this a good explanation if one country disappears from the round horizon and another appears in it. But I have not been flying for years.
2. Whenever experiments have been tried on the surface of standing water, this surface has always been found to be level. If the Earth were a globe, the surface of all standing water would be convex. This is an experimental proof that Earth is not a globe. The apparent flatness of water surfaces are a participation in the VERY huge convex with a VERY far off centre of radius.

Thus, INSOFAR as globe theory needs it, water surfaces can be assumed to be convex.

Note that this is just an explanation allowing Earth to be a globe. Not a positive proof that it is.
3. Surveyors' operations in the construction of railroads, tunnels, or canals are conducted without the slightest "allowance" being made for "curvature," although it is taught that this so-called allowance is absolutely necessary! This is a cutting proof that Earth is not a globe.  For railroads this is not so, since the distances taken into account are distances on a globe.
4. There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet - notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth's "convexity." It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe. Not so.

It is quite compatible if, as earth-globe-believers including myself and Aristotle and St Thomas Aquinas between us argue, down equals at each point the direction of centre of earth globe.
Since in that precise case, the curvature does not constitute a deviation upward from the level.
5. The lights which are exhibited in lighthouses are seen by navigators at distances at which, according to the scale of the supposed "curvature" given by astronomers, they ought to be many hundreds of feet, in some cases, down below the line of sight! For instance: the light at Cape Hatteras is seen at such a distance (40 miles) that, according. to theory, it ought to be nine-hundred feet higher above the level of the sea than it absolutely is, in order to be visible! This is a conclusive proof that there is no "curvature," on the surface of the sea - "the level of the sea,"- ridiculous though it is to be under the necessity of proving it at all: but it is, nevertheless, a conclusive proof that the Earth is not a globe. I have not seen Cape Hatteras, I suppose you may be wrong on the facts or have calculated for too small a globe.
BOTTOM LINE: we have proof from travel against absolute flatness of Earth.

As far as I know we have no similar proof for Heliocentrism.
Paul Michael Bales
Aristotle's 5 arguments for the Earth being a globe have all been debunked before. I am not going to continue this discussion, for I have had this same discussion many times before, it gets boring having to repeat myself. If you want to continue being the little prince living on top of your ball, fine, enjoy it. Don't waste my time.

[Link to a charming cartoon of The Little Prince - manga style and all!]
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Aristotle's argument number four was factually false, but principally right, it was replaced, factually, with the Vasco da Gama circumnavigation and all the other travels I referred to.

Being "the Little Prince" is quite a charming way of putting it.** Fare well, thanks for the compliment!
Update on St Fulbert of Chartres' Day
I got a mail from the guy.
His mail to me
Did I give you my permission to use my name and words on your blog? I have reported this to Facebook, and unless removed I will take this further.
My mail back
OK, do. As to your words, I find this a scoop not to be missed. A Flat Earther who is embarrassing Geocentrics shows up as having an interest in "spiritual evolution". As to your name, since I saw you described yourself as a poet, I considered you a public person, hence one whose name can be publically shown. With friends who are just friends of mine in private, I tend to use initials. Remove from my blog? You dream.
His second mail
What a sad and pathetic man you are, you need to copy and paste my material into your blog from Facebook, because nobody goes to your blog to talk with you there. aww poor Hans, he has no friends. But it is understandable, if you treat people like you do. I on the other hands have lots of friends, if people want to talk with me they can, for there is trust and love there, they know that I am not the type of person to scoop so low as you and try to use their conversation against them. Get a life mate. I just checked your facebook page, it seems that nobody ticks like on any of your posts, you are unliked, and for a good reason. You are not a likeable person. What a loser.
My second one
My dear, if you think I am "using our cnversation against you" when I am an fact copying it, is not that an admission that you did not make the best impression in it and you know it? Wouldn't you otherwise be spreading the blogpost, if you thought you had argued well?
A bit later
It seems he has forgiven me. He gave me a link to a book on Geocentrism and Flat Earth:

Zetetic Cosmogony; Or, Conclusive Evidence that the World is Not a Rotating-revolving-globe, But a Stationary-plane-circle***

I expect for my part that there are some arguments for Geostationary Universe that are better than those for a plane Geography. Enjoy the read, but I will say in advance that 1899 the author of this book thought he had to hide his name behind the pseudonym Rectangle. Says something about attitudes, doesn't it?

* The most conservative estimate is that the Emmaus in Jesus' day was only 60 stades from Jerusalem. We know it was destroyed by Romans and later rebuilt, so the 160 stades could be same community rebuilding habitation 100 stades further away from Jerusalem. One could also consider as possible that a Syriac manuscript which has 160 stades is a survival of the correct reading.

** Excepting of course the end with the snake bite!

*** The book has some nonsense about perspective in its denials of a globe-formed earth, like on p. 25. On p. 65 it becomes brighter in logic, but some people to whom this was a reference may very well have been put off by p. 25 so as to be untattentive at p. 65. Sometimes it is good to skim over pages so as to get a picture of what is there in a work. But ok, on p. 67 he is not on top form.

If the earth is at a given point in space on say January 1st, and according to present-day science, at a distance of 190,000,000 miles from that point six months afterwards, it follows that the relative position and direction of the stars will have greatly changed, however small the angle of parallax may be ...

He is not a good geometer and does not realise what angle of parallax means. What Heliocentrics mean is that alpha Centauri would be making an apparent movement of 190,000,000 miles in six months, BUT this is due to the distance of 4 light years only visible as a very small angle of parallax, namely 0,76 arch seconds.

My own argument against Heliocentrism is NOT based on angle of parallax not being greater, but on angle of parallax not being uniform. It is not a proof of Heliocentrism being impossible as "Rectangle" would have it here, but a proof of stars moving being an equal possibility as explaining what we have optically. This would not be so if we had parallax measures from Mars, giving same stellar distances (for those "measured by parallax", i e for instance 4 light years to alpha Centauri) but a parallax dependent on Mars having a greater orbit around Sun and a longer "year" than Earth. As far as I know, we do not have that. Therefore stars being all of them far closer than 4 light years and the 0,76 arch seconds of alpha Centauri being due to its moving back and forth, is an equal optical possibility. As for the physical possibility thereof, I am not an Atheist and do NOT deny what St Thomas Aquinas said about stars moving material objects in general (I, Q110, A3) or stars more specifically (I, Q70, A3). But "Rectangle" who wrote that book was a bungler in geometry./HGL

Neither Sungenis nor Palm is totally right on Psalm 18 (Sungenis is less off)

1) Creation vs. Evolution : If some pseudo-orthodox thinks Patristic and Literal interpretation of Genesis are incompatible ..., 2) CMI on Allegorical Method - Answered, 3) Literal Sense vs Literalistic Approach, Allegoric Sense vs Figurative Approach, 4) Great Bishop of Geneva! : Congratulating Lita Cosner on agreeing basically with StThomas Aquinas, 5) Mark Shea's Understanding of Scripture, 6) HGL's F.B. writings : Neither Sungenis nor Palm is totally right on Psalm 18 (Sungenis is less off)

"Posted by galileowaswrong on Jun 18, 2013 in Blog" ? June 18, 2013? Hmmm ...

Debunking David Palm, Phase 8
The Literal Interpretation of Scripture

Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition.
Psalm xviii. (Cœli enarrant.)

Ver. 6. Sun. Here God seems to reside, (Ferrand) and the magnificence of his works shines forth, insomuch that almost all nations have offered divine honours to the sun, and even the Manichees adored it, imagining that it was the very body of Jesus Christ. (St. Augustine, contra Faust. xiv. 12., and xx. 6.) --- Hebrew, "For the sun he has place a tent in them," the heavens, (St. Jerome; Haydock) or the ends of the world. The Jews supposed that the heavens rested, like a tent, upon the earth. (Calmet, Diss.) --- The Hebrew preposition l, may have (Haydock) different meanings, ad solem posuit, &c. "He placed a tent in them, at or for the sun." The idea of the Vulgate is more noble, but we would not exclude the other, which is very good, (Berthier) and obviates the gross mistake of the Manichees. (Amama) --- The Vulgate may admit the fig. hypallage, (M. Geneb.) as good authors say dare classibus austros, and thus it may signify "he placed the sun in his tent." (Haydock) --- This vast body stands in need of no vehicle, or tent, but itself. (Diodorus) --- It was placed in the firmament at first, (Genesis i. 16.) and still performs its revolutions exactly. (Haydock) --- Giant. Moderns would render "a strong man;" and Bythner remarks that the bulk of a giant would render him less fit for running, as if the stoutest wrestlers were not often the most active. (Berthier) --- The sun is represented as a hero at some of the ancient games. St. Augustine and St. Jerome explain all this of Jesus Christ, who diffuses the light and warmth of his grace throughout the world. (Calmet) --- He always resides with the Church, and is never divorced from her. (Worthington)

Ver. 7. Circuit. So the Hebrew word is rendered "revolution." Septuagint and Vulgate, "meeting" occursus, may insinuate that the sun is found in the centre, while the earth moves daily and yearly round it, according to the Copernican system. But we must be more attentive to the life and motions of Jesus Christ, in whom the Deity resided corporally. (Berthier)

New Advent > Fathers of the Church > Expositions on the Psalms (Augustine) > Psalm 19

6. « In the sun has He set His tabernacle. » Now that He might war against the powers of temporal error, the Lord, being about to send not peace but a sword on earth, Matthew 10:34 in time, or in manifestation, set so to say His military dwelling, that is, the dispensation of His incarnation. « And He as a bridegroom coming forth out of His chamber » Psalm 18:5. And He, coming forth out of the Virgin's womb, where God was united to man's nature as a bridegroom to a bride. « Rejoiced as a giant to run His way. » Rejoiced as One exceeding strong, and surpassing all other men in power incomparable, not to inhabit, but to run His way. For, « He stood not in the way of sinners. »

7. « His going forth is from the highest heaven » Psalm 18:6. From the Father is His going forth, not that in time, but from everlasting, whereby He was born of the Father. « And His meeting is even to the height of heaven. » And in the fullness of the Godhead He meets even to an equality with the Father. « And there is none that may hide himself from His heat. » But whereas, « the Word was even made flesh, and dwelt in us, » John 1:14 assuming our mortality, He permitted no man to excuse himself from the shadow of death; for the heat of the Word penetrated even it.

My ensuing comments, quoting Sungenis directly and Palm via Sungenis:

"neither Augustine nor any of his patristic colleagues allegorized Joshua 10."

Wrong. Sun standing still so that Joshua's men can beat Amalekites is an allegory for Christ as Sun of Justice giving us the light to beat our vices. A standing allegorisation of Joshua 10 since Origen.

However, this allegorical take has nothing to say against the historical one.

"Psalm 19 could only be categorized [I read allegorized] as phenomenal language [if etc.]"

You need to check up [unless he wrote categorized where I read allegorized] on what Allegory means, Robert Sungenis! Even Jonathan Sarfati, who rejects it, could help you out.

Taking any words as "phenomenal language" is only possible while strictly talking of the Literal Sense.

CMI : Mutilating Miller*
by John Woodmorappe and Jonathan Sarfati
A review of Finding Darwin’s God
by Kenneth R. Miller
Cliff Street Books, New York, 2000

Quoted and corrected by me in:

Creation vs. Evolution : CMI on Allegorical Method - Answered

"Miller’s inconsistent thinking comes through in many other ways. Like a compromising evangelical, he misrepresents Augustine and Basil (p. 255), and states that the Days in Genesis were supposed to be understood as long periods of time. But Augustine thought that Creation was instantaneous, and so he erred in the diametrically opposite direction. He was a member of the Alexandrian school that fancifully allegorized almost all Scripture (which did not necessarily deny its historicity but tried to seek additional meanings), and was not a Hebrew scholar."

[Those were the words about Miller, back to Palm and Sungenis, this time Palm:]

"Attribution of emotions to the sun reminds us that we are still firmly in the realm of metaphor."

Palm totally misses and Robert Sungenis upholds not the parallels Baruch 3 and Job 38:7 (the Song of the 3 young men in complete versions of Daniel 3 could be construed as a quasi-psalm).

May I remind that Pagan Greeks in St Augustine's day were far more likely to tout Plotinus than Heliocentrism, so if an idea is found in Plotinus, before we conclude it is erroneous, what about checking if the Church Fathers contradicted it or not?

Oh Palm ...

"And finally the psalmist emphasizes the sun’s heat, which would confine his description to the daylight hours."

The Sun is as hot on Australia when we have night in Paris as it is hot on Paris while they have night in Australia!

That was so NOT an argument for phenomenal language!

"First, what Mr. Palm doesn’t understand is that, from the geocentric model, Psalm 19:1‐6 can refer either to a daily or an annual cycle. That is because in the geocentric model the sun travels with the universe on a daily basis and completes a circle, but the sun also completes another circle of its own because it lags behind the stars by about 1 degree per day, which then makes the sun travel through the Zodiac in one year. The heliocentric model has no such movement of the sun. So, Mr. Palm wants to take it as a daily movement, but also insists that the language is merely metaphorical of a sunrise and sunset. We thus refute him on the basis that the passage does not refer to a sunrise or sunset. It refers to an orbit, even on a daily basis. On an annual basis, there is also an orbit, and one that is more specifically related to the sun itself since the annual orbit is independent of the rotating star field, whereas the daily orbit of the sun comes from the fact that it rotates around the Earth with the rest of the universe."

That is true of the Greek Geocentric model, with a round earth. Not quite so of the Hebrew Geostatic (and often conceived by Rabbis as Flat Earthed) one.

Chrysostom: And again, David saith of the sun, that “he is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a giant to run his course.” Seest thou how he places before thee the beauty of this star, and its greatness? For even as a bridegroom when he appears from some stately chamber, so the sun sends forth his rays under the East; and adorning the heaven as it were with a saffron‐colored veil, and making the clouds like roses, and running unimpeded all the day; he meets no obstacle to interrupt his course. Beholdest thou, then, his beauty?

Gregory Nazianzus: The sun is extolled by David for its beauty, its greatness, its swift course, and its power, splendid as a bridegroom, majestic as a giant; while, from the extent of its circuit, it has such power that it equally sheds its light from one end of heaven to the other, and the heat thereof is in no wise lessened by distance.

St Gregory Nazianzus is not [necessarily] thinking about circuit as in terms of Hebrew words that can also mean year.

Each day-and-night (nychthemeron, Swedish has the word "dygn" which derives from dag=day) the sun is in fact making two semicircles or a full circle. From easter horizon to western one during daytime, and from western horizon to eastern on the antipodes during nighttime.

"The only one who is going to run screaming for the hills is Mr. Palm, since his whole essay is nothing but historiography, not history."

History is what happened, or more properly diligent research into it. Historiography is a bad or good writing down of it.

"Be that as it may, perhaps Mr. Palm doesn’t realize that, in the geocentric system, in order to make an annual orbit the sun has to go through 365 daily orbits. So, as fast as it requires the sun to travel for the daily orbit is as fast as it goes for the annual orbit."


In Greek Geocentrism as per Aristotle et al. the quick motion is attributed to the Primum Mobile. Sun is moving both along it, passively, and against it, actively, slower in the course of a year.

So in this view the yearly movement is 365 times slower than the daily one.

In Hebrew view, as per Josephus on Abraham, each star is moving with physical independence of the other ones (making God choreagrapher and mover by giving orders to angels rather than physical mover). This means the Sun itself is making a very swift movement (on the Greek view this would be true of the compound movement, heaven's movement minus sun's own) but a little less quick than that of Sirius, Aldebaran, and so on.

[That mere difference of speed adding up to full circle in one year.]

"The sun does not rise vertically and then trend lower, and it does not form a “complex wobbly spiral.” Rather, the whole universe is swaying between the 75 million mile margin created by the 23.5 degree angle made between the line from center of the Earth to the center of the sun , which then carries the sun in its motion. As such, the sun will always complete the same circle it began with, since it always moves in the same plane."

Still, even if this were the true physical explanation, phenomenally it is seen from earth as zenits rising higher in summer and sinking lower in winter. Except on equator where the high points are spring and autumn months (as per other parts of world) and the low points summer and winter points.

The most obvious and simple explanation of this, without resorting to Heliocentrism, is that Helios is driving his chariot in an interesting way, even if he is doing so much more in order to obey God who wants all parts of the Earth to have seasons.

"The idea that we can reach firm conclusions about scientific details of the universe by reading such a text looks increasingly ludicrous."

The question is what Palm means by detail.

If it is unimportant detail, why is Palm bothering to answer Sungenis as if the matter were important?

If it is NOT unimportant detail, but a vital matter, would Palm admit we can in THAT case find scientific truth in the Bible? Or would he find that as ludicrous as his Atheist friends would?

"In the geocentric system is the sun’s “course” or “circuit” literally from horizon to horizon? No, in that system its “course” or “circuit" literally is a circular/elliptical orbit that has no end points."

Nevertheless its passing by horizon make convenient "end points" quoad nos. Even very convenient ones.

"Once we speak of end points then even from the geocentric vantage we are unambiguously in the realm of phenomenological language. And if it’s only the language of appearances then it cannot be claimed to contribute any concrete knowledge about actual, physical motion."

If that were true of the descriptions in the INDICATIVE third person about the Sun, it can hardly be so for a command in the IMPERATIVE, second person to the Sun. Which is what we find in Joshua 10.

Providentissimus Deus:

To understand how just is the rule here formulated we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost "Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation." Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers -- as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us -- "went by what sensibly appeared," or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.

  • Problem: a miracle worker would not be in the same position. IF the Pope referred to Geocentrism/Heliocentrism debate.

  • Problem 2: if he did, why did he not simply name it?

    We are NOT obliged to take every hint and allusion from the Pope, in matters where he dare not speak up loud and clear.

  • A non-problem - the Pope thereby does explain why Atomism vs Continualism is not treated in Scripture.

Sean O'Neal lacks the basic skills for journalism.

1) Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : I was told Mark Steyn wrote better than me ..., 2) HGL's F.B. writings : Sean O'Neal lacks the basic skills for journalism.

[OK, for the kind of journalism he is doing.]

Star Trek's Kate Mulgrew says she was tricked into narrating film that argues the Sun revolves around Earth
By Sean O'Neal
Apr 8, 2014 •3:33 PM

Watch and read this, please:

Magisterial Fundies : Statement of The Producer Of "The Principle"
Wednesday, April 9, 2014, by Rick DeLano

OK, this was linking to another denial than the one here mentioned, but Lawrence Krauss matters too.

I am not referring to his story about the actress. I am referring to these words:

Should Mulgrew and Krauss’ accusations of misrepresentation be true, they certainly wouldn’t be the first levied against The Principle’s creator and principal voice, Robert Sungenis, [...] It wouldn’t even be the first time Krauss has made one; he’s on record as refuting Sungenis as far back as 2006.

There he links to this supposed "refutation":

In this world view, the sun revolves around the earth
The Times-News - Google News Archive Search
Thursday, March 30 2006, 5A

[Robert C. Newman and Alec MacAndrew had some more to say, perhaps not to the point, but more than Lawrence Krauss, or rather Robert C. Newman had. However the latter was an intelligent designer. That is perhaps why Sean O'Neal prefers crediting the supposed refutation of Sungenis to Krauss, who is on record as saying "a star had to die so that you can live."]

"What works? Science works, Geocentrism doesn't. End of story."*

ALL that Krauss had to say in that long article. Hardly a refutation. Especially not as people have been busy answering it.

OK, not all, he adds

"I've learned over time that it is hard to convince people who believe otherwise, independent of evidence."

So this is what Sean O'Neal considers as "being on record refuting Sungenis"? Please, Sean O'Neal, what about doing your journalism carreer investigating crime like Tintin or looking at wars going on? If you want to do science journalism and use words like "refuting", you might want to learn some logic first!

* Quoted within the article I am quoting from, hence the quotation marks are from there.

mardi 8 avril 2014

Some Links about Justina Pelletier

The Courant > Health > Connecticut
Lou Pelletier Rebuts Judge's Decision,0,2393890,full.story

Huckabee: After 14 months Mass. responds to Pelletier family
Apr. 06, 2014 - 4:01 - After overwhelming response to case, parents get answers

Justice for Justina

Not yet signed, but I think I will when I have read through what it is about. I am not in the habit of signing lightly. However, my internet access is being hampered, so I am not sure when I will be able to hear all the videos. Whether or not she has a lifethreatening disease, she should not be kept in Psychiatry. Even if it's all in her head as they claim, keeping her captive will not mend matters./HGL

Dialogue entre sourds avec un vieil ami

1) New blog on the kid : Pascal Lamy ou Moyen Âge?, 2) HGL's F.B. writings : Dialogue entre sourds avec un vieil ami

Lui, statut (de la suite modifié)
"If you don't want your tax dollars to help the poor, then stop saying you want a country built on Christian values, because you don't" Jimmy Carter
Jimmy Carter qui aurait quand même pu faire beaucoup plus...
Pour le coup, nous sommes parfaitement d'accord. Léger caveat, toutefois : la citation doit se comprendre dans un contexte américain
Moi (en anglais comma la citation)
Sorry, but a Christian wants the poor helped, but only partly by tax dollars.

Of course the couple of Sales Boisy were helping poor and of course they were feudal lords in some ways taxing the country. But giving alms on occasions like the Baptism of St Francis of Sales and hoping others will also give alms on their great days is different from making alms givng a state monopoly.
Hans-Georg, il va sans dire que la charité ne peut se vivre sans implication personnelle. Bien entendu, ceci ne signifie nullement qu'il faille fermer les yeux sur les structures économiques en soi immorales. C'est le tout qu'il faut rechercher.
Une structure du fisc qui augmente les impôts pour que le gouvernement fasse à peu près la charité de tout le monde (qui devient par là solidarité plutôt que charité) est une des structures économiques en soi immorales qu'il faut combattre.

HGL's F.B. writings : Reflections on a stone block and on gruesome factory farming and more

New blog on the kid : The Communist Government of Pensacola
Ce n'est pas mon avis. Il y a certes des abus et de grands travers dans le système actuel, dont les principes ne sont du reste pas évidents. Abusus autem usum non tollit.
Ah ... bon ... tu préfères peut-être le système qui m'a ruiné ma vie et que j'ai fui en 2004?
Certes non. Ce système-là est en effet fort nuisible. Il y manque de nombreux éléments du droit naturel.
Tu préfères quoi, alors?
Un système distributiste fondé sur l'idée de bien commun. La justice commutative faisant bien entendu partie d'un tel système.
Commutative? Ce n'est pas la justice distributive que tu vises? Et tu entends quoi par "distributiste"?
Quant à 1 : les deux ; relativement à 2 : Chesterton et alii... Chesterton auquel tu m'initias jadis, du reste.

[La question est s'il a bien compris Chesterton.]
Ça sont les noms, j'ai aussi lu Chesterton. Il aurait aimé que le fisc soit le soutien principal des pauvres? Non.

[Il n'aurait pas été complètement d'accord avec la citation de Carter, par exemple.]
Je n'ai pas dit le principal soutien. Je n'ai pas non plus parlé des modalités, mais du principe. L'état a la charge du bien commun. Par ailleurs, sous un régime n'exigeant pas une pauvreté de masse comme l'actuel, la situation serait bien différente sous bien des aspects.
La justice commutative est celle qui règle les justes prix et les justes salaires. Et qui exclut le prêt sur interêt. N'a rien à voir avec le soutien des pauvres.

Les dollars des impôts sont d'abord pour le militaire et la justice, et ceux des dîmes/deniers de l'église y compris un peu plus pour les pauvres. Mais ni l'un ni l'autre est le soutien principal des pauvres, non plus que les pauvres soient leur principal but.

Le denier en Suède du Moyen Âge: celui principal sur le blé allait 1/3 pour le curé, 2/9 pour l'évêque, 2/9 pour l'église en soi, 2/9 pour les pauvres.

Somme total du denier = 10% d'impôt sur la récolte de blé.

Les deniers accessoires venaient uniquement au curé.

Après, c'était une responsabilité PERSONELLE et morale du curé d'utiliser davantage en faisant l'aumône.

[Notons, cette aumône était distincte du budget prévu pour les pauvres.]
"La justice commutative est celle qui règle les justes prix et les justes salaires. Et qui exclut le prêt sur interêt. N'a rien à voir avec le soutien des pauvres." - Détrompe-toi, cher ami, tout se tient, fait que la question monétaire démontre amplement.

[Si le manque de justice commutative cause effectivement de la pauvreté, le soutien des déjà pauvres en tant que tels plutôt qu'en tant de producteurs, relève de la justice DISTRIBUTIVE.]
Et la question monétaire est laquelle (il y en a plusieures, non?) et comment change-t-elle les données?
Je ne vois pas le principe en jeu, ni du reste la raison de ton opposition.
Non, tu ne vois pas le principe, tu ne vois pas la raison. Bien dit.
Le système monétaire actuel est basé sur l'usure systématique. Il consacre le pouvoir du capital sur le travail.
Alors c'est ça qu'il convient de changer.

[Avec des lois, plutôt qu'avec les impôts.]

Et ce n'était pas ça le propos de Jimmy Carter.

[Car le sien était - en effet sinon en intention - de laisser appauvrir les modestes si juste les impôts sont là pour les soutenir comme pauvres.]
Nous parlons de phénomènes imbriqués.
Qu'on peut aussi désimbriquer. Mais, même imbriqués, on peut les traiter ensemble de la bonne manière plutôt que de la mauvaise.

HGL's F.B. writings : Reflections on a stone block and on gruesome factory farming and more
Pour Carter: Certes non, du moins pas parfaitement. Ceci ne le rend pas entièrement faux. Le propos de Carter est à resituer dans le contexte de l'ultra-libéralisme actuel, où la souffrance du prochain ne gêne plus grand monde.
Il prétendait que son propos était la bonne cure contre ultralibéralisme, je le trouve une des causes de ce même ultralibéralisme.
Non, pas nécessairement. Je crois que son propos est plus profond. Quoi qu'il en soit, il vaut mieux vouloir un bien par des moyens inadaptés ou imparfaits que de rester de marbre devant le mal. Malheureusement, nous en sommes là, de nos jours.

[Que ce ne cause pas nécessairement par provocation de l'ultralibéralisme en chaqu'un qui en souffre par oreille ou le jour de payer l'impôt est une chose, ça n'empêche pas que c'est assez nécessairement vrai que ça le provoque chez quelques-uns et que ça devient donc UNE DES causes. Et que son propos soit "plus profond" ne change évidemment rien à ses effets tel qu'il a été pris.]
Et je ne considère pas l'opposition au système d'impôts aux États-Unis comme de l'ultralibéralisme.

Au contraire, quand les petites entreprises ferment à cause de par exemple d'impôts de succession, les richissimes s'enrichent davantage et appauvrissent les autres davantage.

[il vaut mieux vouloir un bien par des moyens inadaptés ou imparfaits que de rester de marbre devant le mal.]

Oui, et il accusait peut-être sans aucun fondement les opposants aux moyens inadaptés d'être de marbre.
Sur les impôts tuant les petites entreprises : Bien entendu. Le fait que tu croies que je pense le contraire tend à prouver que tu ne suis ni ma pensée ni mon intention.

[Que les impôts vont quelque part aux pauvres, qui l'aurait disputé aux années 70? Mais ce qu'on disputait était précisément faire des impôts un soutien principal ou même le soutien principal des pauvres, ce qui donnait des impôts qui tuaient des petites entreprises.]
Je ne suis pas télépathe. Je regarde tes propos directement et tes intentions et pensées à travers.
Non, malheuresement pas. Carter parle dans le contexte suivant :

Kevin O'Leary says 3.5 billion people living in poverty is 'fantastic news'
Matt Hudson

[Je dirais, à partir de la chronologie, que Kevin O'Leary, pour démoniaque qu'il soit, pourrait être excusé, quoique malhonnêtement, par le fait de parler dans un contexte des propos de Carter et de ceux-ci n'ayant pas marché. C'est d'ailleurs Kevin O'Leary que mon vieil ami mettait dans le statut modifié.]

Tu demandes pourtant souvent aux autres de l'être, télépathe. Un peu de bonne volonté suffit le plus souvent.
Non. Celui qui ne me comprend pas est libre de me poser la question ou d'argumenter, même de manière erronnée. Et s'il le fait, je suis libre de m'expliquer.

PAR CONTRE, je me plains des gens qui jouent aux télépathes. 0 btt [=à btt, faute de frappe.]

[Après, je reviens:]
Tu viens de prouver mon propos, peut-être sans le réaliser. Laissons donc là de côté toutes ces questions pour l'instant.
Non, je ne viens pas de le prouver du tout.

Tu n'as pas donné une seule occasion que je t'aurais demandé d'être télépathe. Et tu n'as pas non plus donné une seule bonne raison pourquoi l'enchevêtrement des choses obligerait un distributiste ou soi-disant tel de faire le cas d'un socialisme essentiellement avec la "nomenclature" (Nomenklatura tak sam Sovietitchkaia, da?) échangée pour une telle un peu moins anticléricale mais vivant de même manière. En s'interposant entre le riche et l'aumône, en faisant de manière que le riche paie, en plus de l'aumône aussi son salaire. Et parfois non pas seulement le riche, mais le non pas aussi riche aussi.

Kevin O'Leary n'était évidemment pas un Chrétien quand il s'agit de l'application des valeurs dans la société. Carter parlait à propos ceux qui étaient contre ses dépenses fiscales pour les pauvres mais qui se disaient Chrétiens. Un peu genre Tea Party, non?

Je ne dis pas qu'ils aient raison en tout, par exemple pas forcément en termes de "free trade". Mais ils l'ont qq part quant au fisc.

Je suis POUR certaines choses des Démocrates, historiquement, comme le Fair Deal, Square Deal, New Deal, comme les loi contre les Trusts (conglomérats d'entreprises privées ou entreprises privées gigantesques). Mais je ne suis pas pour chaque chose depuis, certaines me dégoûtent.

Bush avait promis d'abolir l'impôt de successions/d'héritage. Il a renoncé au projet, puisque les "Responsible Rich" (il y a un club qui s'appelle ainsi) disaient qu'il ne soit pas bon pour quelqu'un d'être né avec une cuiller d'argent dans la bouche. LEURS éventuelles progénitures ne perdent pas les entreprises parce qu'ils doivent payer l'impôt sur la succession. Pas mal de petits entrepreneurs, par contre, oui. Vendre ou emprunter à la banque. Je me fais compréhensible?

Je ne te demande pas quand même d'être télépathe?