lundi 29 octobre 2018

Curiosity


Pope Michael
[status/meme]
The first rung on the ladder to hell is curiosity. Remember Eve, began by being curious about the forbidden fruit.*

* note
I suppose "Even" is mistype for "Eve," and "she" left out. Hence my correction.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
For curiosity not to lead to Hell, or its earthly antechamber mortal sin, it needs some bounds, of orthodoxy and manners.

There seem to be four kinds of evil about studiousness of intellectual knowledge:

.... Secondly, there may be sin by reason of the appetite or study directed to the learning of truth being itself inordinate; and this in four ways.

1) First, when a man is withdrawn by a less profitable study from a study that is an obligation incumbent on him; hence Jerome says [Epist. xxi ad Damas]: "We see priests forsaking the gospels and the prophets, reading stage-plays, and singing the love songs of pastoral idylls."

Note - this is why Pope St Gregory considered it unlawful for the bishop of (Bordeaux?) to teach Homer and Virgil - that bishop answered that without sollicitude about the poets, the culture would die. However, this is more of a pursuit worthy of laymen (including myself).

2) Secondly, when a man studies to learn of one, by whom it is unlawful to be taught, as in the case of those who seek to know the future through the demons. This is superstitious curiosity, of which Augustine says (De Vera Relig. 4): "Maybe, the philosophers were debarred from the faith by their sinful curiosity in seeking knowledge from the demons."

I'd put asking a shrink about the mind of one's neighbour next to asking a demon about it. But of course, yes.

Thirdly, when a man desires to know the truth about creatures, without referring his knowledge to its due end, namely, the knowledge of God. Hence Augustine says (De Vera Relig. 29) that "in studying creatures, we must not be moved by empty and perishable curiosity; but we should ever mount towards immortal and abiding things."

Which may be fulfilled when I direct my most studies on science subjects to apologetic ends.

Fourthly, when a man studies to know the truth above the capacity of his own intelligence, since by so doing men easily fall into error: wherefore it is written (Sirach 3:22): "Seek not the things that are too high for thee, and search not into things above thy ability . . . and in many of His works be not curious," and further on (Sirach 3:26), "For . . . the suspicion of them hath deceived many, and hath detained their minds in vanity."

Which is why I am very careful to determine, what is the capacity of man to know a certain topic.

S. Th. II-II, Question 167. Curiosity | Article 1. Whether curiosity can be about intellective knowledge?
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3167.htm#article1


I am saying this by precaution, partly.

It seems that FSSPX (back when I was in their flock) was banning their parishioners from reading my blogs, under the pretext they were guilty of some type of vice of curiosity.

It would be highly unworthy of the Pope of the Catholic Church to determine such a question about someone's future behind closed doors and without hearing him - and on a rumour spread by clergy guilty of such massonic behaviour.

samedi 27 octobre 2018

Self Renunciation NOT Basis of Morality


Pope Michael
[status on wall, meme]
Every good act is an act of self-renunciation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl 
False.

If true, it would follow that every act of self indulgence is sinful.

THAT is heresy.

Every self indulgence against the law of God or otherwise expressed will of God is sinful, but not for the sole reason of being an act of self indulgence.

Dying to yourself every day does not mean every moment of every day.

And if you quoted a saint, I'd like to see the context which makes the isolated statement's horrible implications not implied in context.

"So likewise every one of you that doth not renounce all that he possesseth, cannot be my disciple."
[Luke 14:33]

Speaking of special disciples.

"But we renounce the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor adulterating the word of God; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience, in the sight of God."
[2 Corinthians 4:2]

Speaking of faithful in general.

http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/s?q=renounce+himself&b=drb

Now, renouncing dishonesty may be self renunciation to one, but not to another layman, therefore some of his good acts are NOT self renunciating.

Note also
renounce himself
No verse contains all these words when searching the Whole Bible.

jeudi 25 octobre 2018

Ghosts?


DB
Have you had experience with 'ghosts' ie demons?

I
HGL
  • 1) No, I haven't.
  • 2) No, I don't think ghosts are always demons.


Samuel's own ghost came, not a demon (which the witch of Endor would have been used to and not afraid of).

In a case like the Ghost of Canterville, I'd say it was likely a real ghost asking for real intercession.

II
JS
Demons pray off the weak and deceive them. If Christ is strong in you, demons won't waste their time.

HGL
Exactly - I saw three possible (at least to me) UFOs, and when I took "falling stars" as per Matthew 24 as a cew for praying, I never got bothered by any aliens.

I actually was so out of modern reading, I would not have made the connection with UFOlogy back then, just thought of Matthew 24.

So, I took up the rosary to pray for three souls I thought in danger.

By the way, that was years ago, back in late nineties.


Update next day:

MS
Even if they say they are not demons, how would we know that to be true!

HGL
A demon would not ask intercessions, and St Gregory the Great was successor of St Peter and therefore had discernment of spirits and could decide that.

MS
Any spirit can put up an act. At that things may have been different in the days Scripture was written. Back then asking for an intercession may had an effect, if it has today I am rather skeptical about.

SO'N
considering that the dead KNOW NOTHING, it was impossible for the 'ghost' that the witch of Endor 'brought up' to have truly been Samuel's ghost. The bible does not contradict itself.

MS
Only the spiritually dead know nothing.

SO'N
Ecc 9:5

MS
Does that contradict that what I say?

SO'N
We see spiritually dead people around us all the time. They happen to be breathing, however.

MS
Their body is breathing, that's just mechanics... Ever noticed that this planet is zombieland?

DB
HGL quite disturbing reading what you are saying. So you are convinced by the apparent testimony of demons, who are known for deception and deceit, that their word is true

SO'N
MS oh yes... far too many zombies walking and talking these days. Tis truly scary.

MB
The witch of endor wasn't afraid of the Demon, she was afraid of Saul, who had a decree of death hanging over her head.

HGL
MS "Any spirit can put up an act."

Sure, but any spirit can't make it fool a pope who is a canonised saint.

Both the office he enjoyed (see Matthew 16:19) and the fact miracles happened after he died show Pope Gregory the Great was not mistaken.

SO'N "considering that the dead KNOW NOTHING, it was impossible for the 'ghost' that the witch of Endor 'brought up' to have truly been Samuel's ghost."

Would you mind giving context?

Or, I'll search.

"For the living know that they shall die, but the dead know nothing more, neither have they a reward any more: for the memory of them is forgotten."
[Ecclesiastes 9:5]

Now, here is what bishop Challoner says about this verse, which some Protestants have disfigured:

[5] "Know nothing more": Viz., as to the transactions of this world, in which they have now no part, unless it be revealed to them; neither have they any knowledge or power now of doing any thing to secure their eternal state, (if they have not taken care of it in their lifetime:) nor can they now procure themselves any good, as the living always may do, by the grace of God.

This means, "unless it be revealed to them" takes care of Samuel's ghost being Samuel's.

DB "So you are convinced by the apparent testimony of demons, who are known for deception and deceit, that their word is true"

You like strawmen?

Or does "apparent" mean "apparent to Derek Brown" and are you asking me to trust you more than Pope Gregory the Great?

I came here for debating, not for apostasising from Catholicism!

DB
HGL you may have come here for debating. I did not. And I don't engage with necromancers or people who put the word of necromancers above the bible

HGL
MB "she was afraid of Saul, who had a decree of death hanging over her head."

Actually, I had relied on CSL's reading of that passage.

Second time over very many passages (Biblical or non-Biblical) where I - thanks to you - catch him as being somewhat sloppy for a moment.

DB "I did not."

I thought Kent Hovind was in and of himself fond of debating, so a group dedicated to him would be a debate group?

[DB "And I don't engage with necromancers or people who put the word of necromancers above the bible"

I have however to engage as long as they do with lots of people strawmanning me.

Like you just did with this sentence.]
[was delated after I posted and copied it - but, no, it wasn't, was slow in showing]

MS
The popey system is a human framework. Most of them were either crooks or heavily mislead.

DB
HGL I am not Kent hovind. I don't debate people.

HGL
DB even so, you take a lot of interest in a debate your don't "do"

MS Where did the Church then go on your view?

Matthew 28:20 says "all days".

Speaking of crooks, who delated my comment to Derek Brown which went:

DB "And I don't engage with necromancers or people who put the word of necromancers above the bible"

I have however to engage as long as they do with lots of people strawmanning me.

Like you just did with this sentence.

Sth went wrong
here are two comments which were concerned by the glitch, second explaining it.

DB
HGL I am not Kent hovind. I don't debate people. Nor will I use terms such as 'strawman' outside of context such as you have done

HGL
Apparently previous had not been deleted, but was slow showing.

DB "Nor will I use terms such as 'strawman' outside of context such as you have done"

It is a strawman to ask me why I believe necromancers. I don't.

It is a strawman to pretend I am placing human words "above the Bible" in the sense of not beliving the Bible as God's word.

Sth went wronger
"Cette publication a été supprimée ou ne peut pas être chargée."

"I will explain why geocentrism is wrong if you don't post my words elsewhere."


Who would say a thing like that? Have we seen them before on this blog? One warning, what I post here is - for the first roughly half or more - less interesting than what I link to in it, so, if you want to spare yourself a boring debate with a boring man, and are not too curious, take previous post or scroll down to where it gets interesting.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
shared
Creation vs. Evolution : CMI Promoting Heliocentrism Again
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/10/cmi-promoting-heliocentrism-again.html


Matthew Hunt
[laughed.] (Emoticon)

[His ensuing emotica, varying between laughed and angry, are ignored, when put next to my comments. Until next day, 25.X.2018]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ah, Matthew Hunt - glad you are amused.

Like some debate? As usual, it comes to my blog, not stopping you from doing likewise!

Matthew Hunt
Hans-Georg, as always I don't give you permission to copy and paste my responses to your blog.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Well, as always, I would feel, as you are a public person, the public has a right to know how you argue.

I will therefore take that as you decline to debate, right?

Matthew Hunt
I'm a "public person" am I? I'm not. It's your excuse to post my comments to a public forum.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
You are as I recall professor at a university.

If it is in reality just assistant professor and my memory sucks, so be it, that is a public person too.

It's not as if it were on topics foreign to your position : it is a teaching one, and you teach science in a way polemic to Christian doctrine after what I've seen.

Now, if it were a matter of your opinions on cats, since you are not a veterinarian, you would be a private person on a cat forum.

And if I found your opinions on felinity sufficiently feline, I'd republish with MH replacing Matthew Hunt.

Also, since you are a cat owner, you would probably not be losing a debate against me on the subject. And therefore you wouldn't mind so much having your comments republished.

Losing a debate sucks, right, but being exposed over lots of places of the internet (not one forum where you could not check what was being said, but a post where you can confirm no single comment of yours was distorted, nor taken out of context), that sucks even more.

Matthew Hunt
No. I'm not a professor and even if I was that doesn't make me a "public person".

There isn't a debate over geocentrism...

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Except you participated in one.

Did you resign from teaching positions at University College London?

You certainly had one back then.

My list of in relevant sense public persons would include writers, teachers, priests, not just key positions in administration or people who get attention in "people" magazines.

Matthew Hunt
I was a teaching assistant for the duration of my PhD at UCL if that's what you mean. Since then I have been research fellows at various institutions.

It appears that you're making a lot of things up.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
OK, such as? Mistaking a "teaching assistant" for a "professor"?

My bad ...

Still a public person as per your university.

For a comparison, on the following post, Pope Michael is a public person, while NS is not, he's a student (and I notified his university he shouldn't study Catholic theology with his attitude to homeless), this is why NS was abbreviated:

HGL's F.B. writings : His Holiness Suppressing a Defense, Not an Attack, in a Quarrel Under His OP
https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2018/10/his-holiness-suppressing-defense-not.html


And on previous one, EG is a layman, therefore a private person, while Chanoine Thibaut de Ternay who didn't answer my question, is a public person, relevant sense:

HGL's F.B. writings : Vive la Tradition, Mais la Vraie!
https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2018/09/vive-la-tradition-mais-la-vraie.html


On the connected other post on other blog, Atheos and a few others left what youtube considers automatically as public comments - under the chosen aliases.

Répliques Assorties : Vidéo anti-créationniste, b) des débats
https://repliquesassorties.blogspot.com/2018/10/video-anti-creationniste-b-des-debats.html


I think, overall, this is a reasonable procedure about the privacy of debaters, without therefore withholding the actual debate.

Matthew Hunt
Hans-Georg, can I ask why you're such a dishonest person?

You make things up like "teachers are public people", that isn't the case. You could make a case if I gave lots of public talks and engaged as a public figure but I don't.

I've attempted to get you to understand why geocentrism is wrong but I've only been attacked by you.

If I recall you were banned from a group for what you're doing today with [DW].

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"You make things up like "teachers are public people", that isn't the case."

It is in the relevant sense for my usage on how I deal with it.

"but I've only been attacked by you."

Do you want to reread the dialogue, whether you call it debate or not?

One reason to have saved this:

HGL's F.B. writings : Matthew Hunt Tries to Ban my Previous Post and Starts Explaining Michelson Morly
https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2018/03/matthew-hunt-tries-to-ban-my-previous.html


"If I recall you were banned from a group for what you're doing today with DW"

I did not recall it was "with DW" - I rather think the group on which I confronted DW was one where I am still active, but if not, well, I know there are groups I was banned for for this.

IF I got "joinage" on a group of mine, one primary rule would be anyone was free to reblog, correctly, the debates or dialogues held on the group on public topics.

Btw, if that debate with DW really was on another group, at least he is still anonymous on my post:

HGL's F.B. writings : Sinlessness of Mary - and Continuity of the Church
https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2018/08/sinlessness-of-mary-and-continuity-of.html


It would not have been the case if he had been a pastor of some Protestant denomination trying to cover up he lost against a Catholic.

If DW doesn't see me any more, it's probable he blocked me (or I blocked him and forgot).

I was just wondering a few days ago why someone was arguing with DW and I didn't see DW's comments.

[Obviously, I had already identified Matthew Hunt's [DW] - he posted a full name that I abbreviate - with the "DW" on my previous post on this blog.]

Matthew Hunt
DW is [DW].

The point is, you don't get permission to begin with. That's what people are annoyed with you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Some are, yes.

Like DW. I do recall being banned from another group we were in, bc reposting not just your comments but also those of some others responding to you.

If some people are annoyed, others aren't. And still others wouldn't be if some were not seeking me out like you are, on my behaviour - which while not typical of this age, is neither dishonest nor otherwise immoral, on this issue.

Now, you want a society in which what is said under a debate is treated basically as if said in confession. I am not a priest, you did not confess to me sub rosa. You offered an argument, and I spread it along with my counterargument.

Ad if losing to me bothers you, look at all the others who did so on same blog - or a few more on another one or two:

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Carrier carries on the obtusity on a key point ...
https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2018/09/carrier-carries-on-obtusity-on-key-point.html


Scroll back over the years.

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... against Maurice Buccaille, Basically
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2018/10/against-maurice-buccaille-basically.html


Scroll back over the years, this one is just comments under a youtube, but five back, you'll see me in debate with a Protestant:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Bible Versions
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2018/10/on-bible-versions.html


Matthew Hunt
Your behaviour is inappropriate in this matter. You don't get permission and that is dishonest. Now we have laws (Called the General Data Protection Regulations) in the UK which specifically forbids doing what you are doing.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
OK, you seem to have more than one rule calculated to overrule free speech.

In case you had taken me to court in UK, I would have invoked general interest of public to know a physics clear specialist is unable to refute geocentrism in a rhetorically satisfactory way.

I might conceivably lose, like UK courts don't always are too bright or were to bright when it came to libel, back in Chesterton's day.

I think that would still be morally winning. Since such a decision would continue to favour the kind of secrecy in which peoople like you can go on pretending that "there is no debate" when the debates you DO get in are what you lose.

Matthew Hunt
"I would have invoked general interest of public to know a physics clear specialist"

You'd be laughed out of court.

You still are dishonest in not obtaining permission to begin with.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
In other words, it would be dishonest of you to teach anything related to physics while trying to cover up things about what I reposted.

I checked a profile on DW. He is as far as I can see some kind of businessman.

BUT his business is totally another thing than his being a Protestant, so, I treat him as a private person in relation to subject, not pretending to publically defend the subject he debated on.

Hence, he is given privacy, he is just abbreviated to DW in order to distinguish him from other debaters.

So, do you intend to bring me to court about this?

For now, I think there is some Brexit business ... and I am in France?

And no, I don't think honesty works like that, since on your view anyone beaten by me in debate could pretend not to want to give me permission, and so deny it in order to cover up being beaten.

Matthew Hunt
Honesty does indeed work like that. You obtain permission first.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Now, if we had been engaged in some business negotiation and found an agreement, but the agreement involve third party or public being told about it, yes, obviously I'd ask for permission about that agreement.

But debates and business negotiations are two different things.

And I am obviously not taking you as an expert on honesty, after being refuted over a subject and then pretend to be attacked, when I simply expose the debate.

To clarify syntax of previous sentence : after your being refuted etc.

Matthew Hunt
You need to obtain permission for use of my words. You don't. That makes me think you have little integrity.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
OK ... you pretend to deny permission on a debate which you lost, that makes me think little of yours.

If you like to posthumously so to speak give for previous use, and for this one, I'll put it down to your just being grumpy.

Matthew Hunt
I will explain why geocentrism is wrong if you don't post my words elsewhere. I don't trust you though as you've demonstrated a lack of integrity.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
If I don't post your words elsewhere?

As in you are afraid of people seeing your words beside the holes I put in your arguments?

"I don't trust you though as you've demonstrated a lack of integrity."

I already said, if you do take a debate I do intend to use it. You have been warned beforehand. That's my integrity, where is yours?

Matthew Hunt
I don't give you permission to post my words elsewhere. How is that for you?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Well, I feel free to disregard it when it suits me, and you knew that before getting into this ...

Matthew Hunt
"Well, I feel free to disregard it when it suits me"

Showing that you have no integrity.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I also consider, both arguing on your ideas why geocentrism is wrong and on your idea how "I am dishonest" on your view while insisting on my keeping silent, is kind of asking me to submit in silence to a kind of harrassment, if you band up with others.

There are a bit too many who have argued with me for me to take some kinds of "sauce" I have been given without the prospect of "wait till they see that exposed".

Matthew Hunt
Fine, but the discussion remains here.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Thus, you have chosen today to first expose me to your laughter, fine, next a series of your pseudomoral view of honesty, totally lopsided, and then you have the stomach to ask the time I was asked to waste on you "remains here"?

No ... you even seem challenged in grammar, if you can first say "fine" and then add "but not fine" so to speak without noticing you did that.

Matthew Hunt
If you accept my terms, then I will talk about geocentrism with you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
If you accept mine, there is no problem.

You already DID talk to me about geocentrism, and you already lost, and you want to BOTH cover up that by asking me to take it down, I presume, or at least to "school" me without being caught redhanded in arguing badly by anyone except poor me ... so, no thanks to those terms.

Matthew Hunt
I don't accept your. You *must* accept mine.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
For what purpose? Getting a boring and repetitive lecture on how you fail to understand arguments not fitted into your world view because they are arguments that your worldview is wrong, and not even having the opportunity to take revenge by reposting?

You think, seriously, I am THAT lonely, THAT hungry to talk to just one person?

Sure, it sucks begging on the street and not connected to the guys I'd love to say a word, and then only having less hours than wanted to "speak" with them, and you imagine YOU are the guy I long to speak to MOST?

What do you take yourself for? A master in extorsion?

Matthew Hunt
You don't have a physics background if I recall. Why do you think you understand the topics and I don't?

I take myself as a private person.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
If you are a private person, why bother to tell me about your physics background?

I do have in my private capacity, UNLIKE my university studies some physics background.

I also have some in general philosophy.

"Why do you think you understand the topics and I don't?"

That was not the point I made ever.

If you will CHECK our previous debates, very accessible on my blog, that may be how you read my ulterior motives, that was never ever at all my actual words.

Me being right and you being wrong is a fairly common thing in debate intentions.

It is a very dishonest twist and shows real lack of integrity, to take that for pretending to understand a topic and the other not.

If I took you as not understanding the topic at all, why would I have debated?

On the other hand, you may think, if you are the expert and I am not (this is where your being publically credited on the subject, thus a public person, comes in), how come I can think you wrong on any subject?

Well, for one, experts disagree and think each other wrong, and for another, I have some amateur level on the subject.

Matthew Hunt
Don't forget you're going up against the greatest scientific minds for the last 300-400 years and saying they got it wrong.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
OK, and what about the greatest scientific minds for the previous millennia?

And, was the model for Sherlock Holmes (a physician) not a scientific mind? Conan Doyle put in Sherlock's mouth a decision to forget heliocentrism (Study in Scarlet, I seem to recall - but it was ages ago) since it changes nothing on earth.

Sherlock, by extension that physician, seem to have accepted Heliocentrism on materialistic prejudice.

Matthew Hunt
Agree to my one and only term, not to post what I've written here.

"OK, and what about the greatest scientific minds for the previous millennia?"

Seriously?
Newton, Laplace, Poisson, Fourier, Poincare, Gauss, Faraday, Clerk-Maxwell, Einstein, Fermi, Wallace, Kelvin, Rayleigh...

I could go on. They were all giants in physics and they ALL to a man rejected geocentrism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Agree to my one and only term, not to post what I've written here."

Nope.

"Seriously?"

"Newton, Laplace, Poisson, Fourier, Poincare, Gauss, Faraday, Clerk-Maxwell, Einstein, Fermi, Wallace, Kelvin, Rayleigh..."

400 years ago is 1618 (outbreak of Thirty Years War, btw).

Who of the above wrote in the MILLENNIA PREVIOUS TO 1618?

My knowledge says they were to a man within the last 400 years, rather.

Also, Daimler, Benz, Thomas Alva Edison, Tesla, Pascal (who invented the wheelbarrow), Charles Wiesenthal and Thomas Saint and their successors Thomas Stone and James Henderson, Josef Madersperger, Barthélemy Thimonnier, Walter Hunt (perhaps a relative of yours), leading up to Isaac Merritt Singer and Elias Howe, can you show for each of them, quote by quote that they rejected geocentrism?

For Newton, you seem to have been over eager to draft an ally.

Robert Sungenis has claimed that, while Newton invented a solution for two-body problem of Earth basically orbitting Sun, he also added one could find one for a many body problem in which Earth remains immobile. This could be spurious, though.

For Gauss, I'm not sure you aren't confusing him with Euler, who in fact DID reject geocentrism. On basically "aliens" grounds. He argued, and probably so did Kant, that God must have created populations for Mars and Jupiter as well, and each star must have its exo-planets, and each of their inhabitants could have an equal ground to claim HIS planet the centre of the universe, and so the observational claims cancel out ... except the observational claims outside earth all depend on the idea God meant each star to have planets and each planet to be inhabited. Is that a ground you wish to take? I grew up part time in Austria, and in late 70's this was still a popular thing (at least with old fashioned fogeys like the guy I was guest with for some months).

Fermi, as I recall, while actually accepting heliocentrism, observed a paradox which might be pertinent to the Euler stance.

As to Faraday and Clerk-Maxwell, as well as Poincaré, I'd like exact quotes about how they argued.

And Laplace, I have already analysed and rejected as totally superficial in argumentation.

And obviously, exchanging quotes of learned men is NOT exactly a very personal and soul searching exercise, so, I can't see why you'd bother even about your condition, it seems totally unreasonable and wanton. You lack integrity, once again.

And, again, I underline, what about the millennia before 1618. Like back to Aristotle and Plato? Over St Thomas Aquinas and Riccioli.

Also, you have both St. Robert Bellarmine and Riccioli accepting geocentrism past 1618. (Tycho Brahe had however died a bit before that in 1601).

Giovanni Battista Riccioli[1] (d͡ʒoˈvan:i bat:'ista riˈt͡ʃ:ɔ:li; 17 April 1598 – 25 June 1671)

One of Riccioli's most significant works was his 1651 Almagestum Novum (New Almagest),[7] an encyclopedic work consisting of over 1500 folio pages (38 cm x 25 cm) densely packed with text, tables, and illustrations. It became a standard technical reference book for astronomers all over Europe: John Flamsteed (1646–1719), the first English astronomer royal, a Copernican and a Protestant, used it for his Gresham lectures; Jérôme Lalande (1732–1807) of the Paris Observatory cited it extensively[8] even though it was an old book at that point; the 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia calls it the most important literary work of the Jesuits during the seventeenth century.

1651 - within last 400 years.

1671 (he didn't recant geocentrism after 51) - within last 400 years.

Source :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Battista_Riccioli

Matthew Hunt
[added laugh emotica on two separate comments, as they are on FB, of which I united my previous one]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Matthew Hunt - would you mind sharing the joke, with me and our readers?

Update:
Hans-Georg Lundahl
As you decline, let's see what I can make of what you already provided ...

[He was notified by a link here]

lundi 22 octobre 2018

His Holiness Suppressing a Defense, Not an Attack, in a Quarrel Under His OP


OP
David Bawden / Pope Michael
October 19 at 4:05 PM ·
No one truly wants to submit fully to authority. Instead we want to hold something back and be ready to hit the exits, when we hear an unpleasant truth.

I
HGL
"submit fully to authority"

I sense a whiff of Spurgeonite spirituality.

A monk is called to submit fully to his superiors. A Jesuit is called for submit fully to the Pope and his superiors. A Catholic is called to submit SUFFICIENTLY to the Pope.

II
NS
uhhh no offense but isn’t “i’ll hold my own conclave and elect myself Pope because I don’t care for what’s going on in the actual Church these days” the most blatant kind of comforting lie? you post lots of interesting stuff and I admire your faith but obviously you’re not really the Pope and if you’re gonna start getting nasty and insulting about those who DO submit to the authority of the actual Church and the actual Pope, then it’s not gonna stay civil.

Missing
some. Perhaps same technical reason as below ...

NS
haha maybe, but not in your case, no. in your case, not liking something and not considering it Catholic are EXACTLY the same thing.

as far as you know 😂😂😂😂

HGL
No, I happen to find it awkward having Pope Michael for Pope.

I could even find it confortable having "PF" for Pope, but I could even so not consider "PF" as a Catholic.

Btw, I might be exaggerating how comfortable "PF" would be if I accepted him ...

NS
it’s almost like a publicity stunt that took on a life of its own. he play acted a papal conclave to draw attention to a cause in the Church and now he has to stick with it because he’s attracted the belief and loyalty of crazy people.

Hans, he’s not the Pope. you’re just gonna have to deal with that. face reality.

i don’t think it matters what YOU consider Catholic. Francis is the current Pope of the Catholic Church 😊

HGL
Creation vs. Evolution : "Pope Francis" is Not a Creationist
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/09/pope-francis-is-not-creationist.html


Where I link to:

35 – God is not a magician, capable of making everything
https://en-denzingerbergoglio.com/we-risk-imagining-that-god-was-a-magician-complete-with-an-all-powerful-magic-wand/


NS
yep. educated people these days aren’t creationists. and they’re still catholic. you’re gonna have to deal with that, too.

HGL
oh, dear ... you mean "educated" as "brain washed"?

And not being Creationist actually IS opposed to being Catholic, as per Trent.

NS
no i mean educated. intelligent. went to school.

it’s not too late for YOU to go to school!

HGL
OK, I spent 7 years at university doing 5 years and a week worth of exams with mostly excellent results.

Whether I am intelligent is a matter for some debate, but I can hardly be considered as not having gone to school.

NS
uh huh. I myself am not a Creationist, and I’m still a Catholic. And there’s nothing you can do about it. Just like how Francis is the Pope and David Bawden is not.

HGL
"I myself am not a Creationist,"

I believe you.

"and I’m still a Catholic."

Luther and Calvin said so too. I don't believe you.

The fact you are allowed to approach the altar says there is sth wrong with your bishop.

NS
yea i’ve noticed that. Bawden’s page is absolutely LOADED with angry guys who insist they have doctorates in theology, and are happy to tap out angry misspelled insults if you don’t abandon the real Catholic Church on their say so.

You’ll forgive me if I doubt the credentials of your school. We’ve already seen that your definition of “pope” is severely lacking so I can only imagine what you mean by “school.”

I know but you think some guy in Oklahoma is the real Pope cuz his mom said so, so no one cares what you believe about who and what is Catholic.

HGL
"doctorates in theology"

I never said I had any doctorate. While I got five years worth of studies, it's undergraduate ones.

Also, at Lund, I avoided theology.

"and are happy to tap out angry misspelled insults"

Did I misspell anything! The horror! I actually spent those years doing LETTERS. If I had a bachelor, it would be a bachelor of arts. And I misspelled sth? That's against my honour as a student?

Or you just considered a British spelling as a misspelling?

About as competent as considering my "insults" whether really such or not "angry" - i e not very competent.

"no one cares what you believe about who and what is Catholic"

I'm waiting for a Classic comment by Terence Hill ...

my name is nobody theme song
r1l1r2l2r3l3 | 25.IV.2009
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgrbUpyY_LY


(In case your mastery of English is less than perfect, "nobody" and "no one" are synonyms)

NS
No one believes you and even if they did, no one would care. You could be a Doctor of the Church, you’ll still be judged by the merits of what you say and what you say is pretty dumb.

HGL
Like standing with Trent?

Session four?

NS
aw man. “the horror!” who told you that you were funny? just fuckin painful.

HGL
I can relate to you thinking so, when you lack a valid answer about Trent Session Four.

NS
the real Catholic Church managed to stand with Trent too. Pope Francis, and I, stand with Trent. you’re not special.

HGL
(Or should it be "your thinking so"?)

NS
does it really burn your ass that I said your spelling is shitty?

or was that another attempt at a joke on your part?

HGL
"Pope Francis, and I, stand with Trent. you’re not special."

2014 - "we risk seeing God as a magician with an all powerful wand"
2018 - "educated people are not creationist"

1540's "according to the sense which the Church has held and holds" - "not except according to common sense of all Church fathers" [quoting from memory, OK]

"does it really burn your ass that I said your spelling is shitty?"

The difference between "you thinking" and "your thinking" is of syntax, not spelling. I don't own any jackass. Did you mean arse?

Yeah, it kind of does, since letters is what I spent doing at university!

Now, pause over, I hope, and what do you have to say about Trent?

I didn't claim to be special. I claim YOU are VERY special if you both claim to stand with Trent and to not be a Creationist. About as special as a giant with two heads. Or some joke by John Cleese.

NS
I know, I heard you the first time, but we’ve already established you have your own secret special definitions for “pope,” “school,” and “creationism,” so I don’t expect you to understand much of anything, let alone how an educated person could be a Catholic.

Hans knows what he’s talking about guys, he went to a “school.”

HGL
Lund University is hardly a "special definition" for school.

I have the same definition of Creationism as anyone else - like God created the world thousands, but not millions or even tens of thousand years ago, dinosaur fossils are from times of Biblical history, like Flood or similar.

NS
It’s also where he honed his sense of humor and learned to tell “jokes.”

hahahahaha no bro that’s not the definition of Creationism everyone else has. 😂😂😂😂

[Note:
that is not exactly what he said a little earlier, right?]

HGL
No, homelessness has honed my sense of humour more.

NS
aw man. how embarrassing for you.

HGL
ok, what definition of creationism do you have and on your word "everyone else"?

NS
anyway, your definition of the Creation would find a lot of support among evangelicals, but it’s not popular with educated folks.

HGL
And that means Evangelicals are more Catholic than the guys you called "educated folks".

At least those Evangelicals who are Creationist and on that account.

NS
but again, you’re a homeless idiot, so we don’t care what you think is Catholic and what isn’t.

HGL
(btw, "educated folks" sounds a bit like you were not quite too well read, and picked up more phrases from conversations than from books")

OK, being homeless is of course synonymous to being an idiot, that is why Sts Francis and Dominic became homeless voluntarily, right?

NS
were you homeless voluntarily?

HGL
And why Sts Bonaventura and Thomas Aquinas joined their ranks.

NS
yea I didn’t think so.

HGL
Well, as you mention it, it is kind of a two pronged issue.

If I had a "paper editor" for some of my blogged texts, I'd like to kiss homelessness goodbye ...

NS
is it common for you idiots to regularly compare yourselves to the saints and pretend each other are the Pope? do you ever just live your faith, or is it always a fantasy game?

HGL
But while my homelessness is not strictly voluntary, the voluntary one of saints should make a CATHOLIC pause before belittling someone even involuntarily homeless.

NS
yea I could tell you had a lot of unpublished writings. i think it’s gonna take more than an editor to make them publishable.

it doesn’t give me pause. the saints were homeless due to humility and service, because their riches were not of this world. you’re homeless because you’re an arrogant fool.

your own positions are internally inconsistent but instead of being open to dialogue, you just fling adorable insults and make such bad jokes that some actually just feel badly for you. “I don’t own a jackass, you must mean arse!” Ugh. If I were compiling a book about people who aren’t funny, that one line would have its own chapter.

some homelessness is exactly what you need, to grow your humility and shrink your ego. believe it or not, you DON’T know everything, and if you did know everything, you wouldn’t be sleeping on the streets and whining about mean internet people belittling you. you should obtain a residence and stop telling yourself the lie and fantasy that your homelessness is a sign of holiness and puts you on par with the saints. your homelessness isn’t STRICTLY voluntary because you’re not STRICTLY a saint, stop comparing yourself to one in the same conversation that you elect yourself arbiter over who is and isn’t a Catholic.

My answers
seem to have become inaccessible for technical reasons ...



Other OP
David Bawden / Pope Michael
October 20 at 1:21 PM ·
[7] And the peace of God, which surpasseth all understanding, keep your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus. [8] For the rest, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever modest, whatsoever just, whatsoever holy, whatsoever lovely, whatsoever of good fame, if there be any virtue, if any praise of discipline, think on these things. (Philippians 4)

I somehow sense
His Holiness is somewhat inapproriately imposing a perfection on this criterium on laymen beyond what is usually required of us. NS, who doesn't submit to him, got his say. I who do, didn't get to post my reply.

Or perhaps it is, he showed some Dunning Kruger about the editing business, just bc he has a deal with Amazon, he thinks he knows how I could get one and thinks he knows how he can offer me a book for free - when in fact I don't have the app required. Being a Pope doesn't necessarily cure one from being an arsehole socially. Nor impart supernatural knowledge about the editing business. But bc he has more money than I, doesn't need to seek a place to put his sleeping bag etc, he thinks he can do the attitude of NS.

And cover it up with a nice excuse.

Supposing he is Pope, I don't think even that obliged me to take that kind of shit from him. While SSPX were arguably wrong to go on accepting the "papacy" of men so long not correcting hideous heterodoxies, they did have a few things to say on obedience NOT being unlimited. If His Holiness can't even believe that, well, too bad, either he has some reading up to do in moral theology, or he is a non-Catholic too. And therefore not His Holiness.


PS, as for the defense I complained of as being suppressed, it was this, that Saints' lives are to Catholics what Supreme Court decisions are to US - they don't just concern "saint wannabes" or saints or people who think they are. They concern everyone./HGL