What's Philanthropy?

Michael Nahass

status

Kristine Braaten-Lee

This comment is not easy to grab onto. Having the context for it may help.

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Kristine Braaten-Lee How about people in the street?

How many efforts are directed by philanthropists to:

• give me food, perhaps articles of hygiene, not money
• give me the attention of people organised to care for me, not the people I'm trying to get interested in my blogs
• keep me among people similarily in the street or otherwise in very humbled (not just humble) positions, rather than allowing me the company that could help me get my things into print, my lice treated in the house of a friend or that of future inlaws and generally speaking my life into the kind of order that *I* rather than *they* want for me?

II

Michael Nahass

Kristine Braaten-Lee Put it in the context of what someone like Bill Gates is doing with his philanthropic efforts. What philosophy is he imposing at the moment? He thinks there’s too many people on the planet and aims his wealth at *remedying* this.

a)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Michael Nahass That too.

b)

Joe Wheeler

Michael Nahass the antidote that GKC prefers is the democracy that rejects the tyranny of "the small and arrogant oligarchy!"

Michael Nahass

Joe Wheeler With a healthy kick in the arse for the mad billionaire.

Joe Wheeler

Michael Nahass let's hope so!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Joe Wheeler "that GKC prefers is" ... old fashioned individual alms giving.

Geocentrism

Gonzalo Martinez

status, June 2nd 2026

I’m pretty open to geocentrism however one thing that I haven’t heard Sungenis or any one explain is how such a massive body as the sun can be revolving at such an incredible speed as to go around the earth in just 24 hrs. Comments?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

My option is this.

The aether (which is also one of my options, the favoured one for the raqia / firmament) is moving around Earth in 23 h 56 min and 4 sec, full circle, from the Oceans where that's basically Earth's circumference up to the fix stars, where that's 2 pi to 20 pi times a light day (one to ten light days being the radius).

As the aether is the substance of space, this means, the Sun is basically just in for a ride. Its angelic mover is meanwhile slowing it down to precisely 24 h by adding a motion 365 times slower in the opposite direction.

Neither God's moving the aether nor the angel moving the Sun (backward) through the aether require any physical effort, since spiritual agents, uncreated or created, act on matter by act of will.

Related:

Audie Abel

status

Do you think Thomas Aquinas was a highly inspired church father? 🧐😆👇

[two more with unrelated diagrams, suggesting a flat earth, which neither Aquinas nor Josephus believed.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Church Fathers don't need to be inspired. They just need to be faithful to Bible, Tradition and the Magisterium up to their time.

Chrystalline spheres was what he got wrong.

He would NOT have considered Flat Earth a correct interpretation, and rightly so.

Since Tycho Brahe (some centuries after Aquinas) proved the crystalline spheres don't exist, I've updated "actual solid" to "quasi solid" (like an aether holding and bringing with itself the coordinates of space OR, other possibility, the magnetic field).

Todd Jacob

Hans-Georg Lundahl there’s no quasi solid in space. Care to elaborate or revise?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I actually didn't say there was a quasi solid IN space.

I said space is a quasi solid.

This means, if space is turned around Earth, parts that are 90° apart remain 90° apart, they don't float into each other.

Do Catholics in Any Sense Keep the Torah?

Clint tony Goldrest

status

If Christians actually followed what Jesus taught, they'd be Jewish and following the Torah. Because jesus didn't start a new religion and was jewish

own answer

Hans-Georg Lundahl

What if Christianity actually does follow the Torah?

I mean Roman Catholic Christianity.

That's the Torah fulfilled.

I

Frank Maiolo

Hans-Georg Lundahl it super doesn't

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Care to elaborate?

Frank Maiolo

Hans-Georg Lundahl the law forbids eating unclean things. The law commands not to plant mixed crops or wear mixed fabrics. The law commands all peoples If all nations to be circumcised in the heart and the flesh in the new Jerusalem. The law commands stoning disobedient children and wives who don't bleed in their wedding night. It commands that Hebrews may enslave non-Hebrews, unless they're living in the land of Canaan. In that case, the law commands slaughtering anything that breathes, including infants and even livestock.

You don't follow the Torah.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Frank Maiolo "the law forbids eating unclean things."

Clean meat walked on fully cloven hooves, symbolising the Two Testaments, Old and New, belong together, but not mixed, hence "fully" cloven.

Rabbits are unclean because they hop on feet with several toes, representing polytheism, hence idolatry.

It also had to chew the cud, in the case of actually clean things, that means four stomachs. This symbolises meditating on God's law or doctrine.

In rabbits, chewing the cud means sth else, just like Hindus meditate on sth else.

In swine, there is no chewing the cud. Like some have both testaments, but don't avail themselves of meditating on them.

And a camel has an only partially cloven hoof, symbolising an undue mixing of the Testaments.

"The law commands not to plant mixed crops or wear mixed fabrics."

We are not allowed to mix Christian doctrine with Pagan error, such as Stoicism or Epicureanism or Polytheism.

And we don't do it.

We keep this command spiritually, by admitting Two Testaments, admitting they are separate and meditating on them.

"The law commands stoning disobedient children"

That was part of the civil law and as such is no longer applicable after Archelaus or his dad Herod the Great died.

Also, Jesus did not tell dads to stone minor children, he told adult sons to stop behaving to elderly dads like jerks that deserve stoning (but whom no one can stone).

"It commands that Hebrews may enslave non-Hebrews, unless they're living in the land of Canaan."

I think you got that part totally wrong.

Sorry, you haven't learned what the law says, you've copied a list.

Canaanites were to do one of three things:

• get out
• get enslaved
• for specific cities (like Jericho) get slaughtered.

They were to do that in ONE specific circumstance, the entry of Israel into the promised land, and that circumstance is now over, 3500 c. years ago. Not doing that over again is not "not following the law."

Frank Maiolo

Hans-Georg Lundahl I didn't copy a list. I wrote it down because I read it. You're flat out making up stuff about what these laws mean. The words mean what they say.

Jesus advocated stoning disobedient children. He did not qualify them as "adults".

The symbology and typography you're trying to arm-wrestle into the text is simply false. You're making it up.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Frank Maiolo If anyone is making the typology up, it's St. Thomas Aquinas, I have it from him.

// Jesus advocated stoning disobedient children. He did not qualify them as "adults". //

Here are the words, and "children" does not occur:

But he answering, said to them: Why do you also transgress the commandment of God for your tradition? For God said Honour thy father and mother: And: He that shall curse father or mother, let him die the death But you say: Whosoever shall say to father or mother, The gift whatsoever proceedeth from me, shall profit thee And he shall not honour his father or his mother: and you have made void the commandment of God for your tradition
[Matthew 15:3-6]

People who are able to declare a thing a korban, are not children. He is blaming the punishables, not the non-punishers, in his adult audience.

So, as you said "children" you have clearly not read the actual passage.

II

David Ewers

Hans-Georg Lundahspecial pleading, not adressing the issue. major dailurel

Hans-Georg Lundahl

David Ewers I don't care whether you call it special pleading or not.

It's one specific claim of my religion, you had better try to poke an actual hole rather than just throw big words around with no specifics.

David Ewers

Hans-Georg Lundahl you proven to be irrational. thanks

Hans-Georg Lundahl

David Ewers also a big word to throw around when you have no concrete evidence

technically it's called an ad hominem.

What Does Faith Mean? Same as in St. Thomas' Day!

Tyrone

status

why do you apply logic and evidence to literally everything in life—health, money, decisions—but abandon it when it comes to the bible?

you don’t run your life on faith when it comes to doctors, mechanics, or finances. you demand evidence. so why lower the standard here?

what’s the justification for using a completely different set of rules for one belief?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

When I stopped drinking a pint of beer every evening on the day of St. Lucy, I was exercising FAITH on three items:

• that I did not have a fractured bone in the left toe
• that I did have very probably gout
• and that alcohol is one factor that makes gout occur.

Now, it's only one, and some have been pushing other risk factors, but these three things were NOT things I could have checked for myself, I had to have FAITH in what the doctors said, because of their expertise.

Faith isn't absence of logic, it's confidence in someone who knows better trumping what the own logic would have one believe (I had gone to the hospital believing I had a fracture).

Tyrone

Hans-Georg Lundahl You dont know what the word 'faith' means. You're trying to redefine it to make your religious beliefs sound as reasonable as trusting a doctor, and it's a pathetic and dishonest comparison.

You didn't have 'faith' in your doctor. You had trust based on EVIDENCE. You trusted them because doctors have years of medical training, they use diagnostic tools like x-rays, they understand biochemistry, and there is a massive, publicly verifiable track record of them successfully diagnosing and treating things like gout. Their expertise is built on a mountain of EVIDENCE. If your doctor told you to treat your gout by sacrificing a goat, you'd get a new doctor.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Yes, I do know.

"You're trying to redefine it to make your religious beliefs sound as reasonable as trusting a doctor"

Well, that's the meaning.

I answer that, Sacred doctrine is a science. We must bear in mind that there are two kinds of sciences. There are some which proceed from a principle known by the natural light of intelligence, such as arithmetic and geometry and the like. There are some which proceed from principles known by the light of a higher science: thus the science of perspective proceeds from principles established by geometry, and music from principles established by arithmetic. So it is that sacred doctrine is a science because it proceeds from principles established by the light of a higher science, namely, the science of God and the blessed. Hence, just as the musician accepts on authority the principles taught him by the mathematician, so sacred science is established on principles revealed by God.

Summa Theologiae, I Pars, Q 1, A 2, Corpus of the article.

Tyrone

Hans-Georg Lundahl You think quoting a 13th-century monk proves what 'faith' means today? You're just hiding behind Thomas Aquinas because you got caught dishonestly comparing religious faith to trusting a doctor.

You can call your 'sacred doctrine' a 'science' all you want, but it's not. Real science is based on testable evidence. Yours is based on 'principles revealed by God', which is just a fancy way of saying you have to believe it with no evidence.

Your analogy of a musician and a mathematician is stupid. A musician can test the principles of harmony for themselves. You cannot test your 'revealed' principles. You just have to believe.

You didnt answer the point. You just tried to hide behind a quote from a guy who lived before the scientific method was even invented. You're trying to redefine faith to make it sound reasonable, and when you got called out, you ran away to a medieval philosopher.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"what 'faith' means today?"

Faith is about the Catholic religion, which is the exact same one today and in his day.

"A musician can test the principles of harmony for themselves."

Yes, but a beginner can't.

"before the scientific method was even invented"

What the H...l do you mean by "the scientific method"? Denial of God as explanation?

Because, if it means anything else, St. Thomas as well as his more natural sciences oriented mentor St. Albert were great exponents of "scientific method" if it means doing science with a rational method.

And by the way, as there are different sciences and different questions in each science, there is no "one" scientific method.

Geocentric Assault on Atheism

HGL's F.B. writings: Geocentric Assault on Atheism · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Refutation of Le Maître's main point · Parallax and Tycho

DB

status

god only appears in your mind and in books, but not in real life.

prove me wrong .

HGL

Take a look up the sky. Note where the sun is. Look back same spot same direction an hour later or two.

Wait until night. Note where the Moon is. Look back same direction an hour later or two.

Also at night, look for a constellation you can recognise. Look back same direction an hour later or two.

If all these things turn around us, at around the same rate, who is moving them?

I

KR

Hans-Georg Lundahl gravity and the continuous expansion of the universe. That question was answered by science in the 1500’s when gravity was first conceived of.

HGL

I'm sorry, but those factors do not answer the exact question I put:

If all these things turn around us, at around the same rate, who is moving them?

Instead, it requires to assume that they are NOT turning around us each day, and that it's Earth that's turning.

Those are extra assumptions, clearly not necessary if God is moving the universe.

II

GH

A

Why say who? Why not say what is moving them? You question is silly 😜

GH

B

Heavenly Body... okay😜 Indoctrination is a powerful thing...

HGL

GH The movement of the universe around us every day involves a displacement of planetary movements so intricate (heliocentric orbits around a Sun with a double geocentric one, daily and yearly) that they would be swept away by the daily motion if there was no delicacy to the sheer force of turning the universe around us.

Besides, each heavenly body that's luminous to us, whether a reflector or a self-luminous one, seems to have an independent movement, so they are not just all one single inside of a ball that the luminaries are glued to. So, the taking of all these bodies together around us requires some intelligence.

Your answers that involve a "what" also typically involve reinterpreting the observed geocentric movement each day into a spin of the earth itself.

GH

= A

HGL

I think I already answered your "new one" and you switched the prior one to another topic. Heavenly body is a term. In France "corps céleste" and in Germany "Himmelskörper" are even mainstream terms.

Has nothing to do with "indoctrination" ...

As I blocked GH for his duplicitous dealing, I got no answer from him. But, also, not from DB or KR.

PS, If anyone would like to argue, "no, the actual argument is, kalaam, and 20th C. science has proven the universe is not eternal" ... while it has, fine, but St. Paul in Romans 1 wasn't referring to the act of creation 5000 + years earlier, nor to 20th C. science, he was referring to sth which has been visible since the beginning (but not as since that or any beginning) so in a sense it would work as well if the universe were in fact eternal. It isn't, as we know from faith, but even if it were, the daily motion of it around earth involves too intricate and compared to the whole delicate motions to come from a blind force of nature./HGL

Tolkien: Neither Woke Nor "Based Conservative" ... More Like "Gentle Traditionalist"

I Have Seen Worse Things from the Late Bergoglio, Than Some of his Economic Advice ... · What an Occasion to Make Clarifications on Fascism · Tolkien: Neither Woke Nor "Based Conservative" ... More Like "Gentle Traditionalist"

The "Gentle Traditionalist" is obviously a reference to a character in Roger Buck's novel.

APSt

I

HGL

I'm sorry, but this gets Tolkien equally wrong, if not more.

1) Tolkien would not have called someone crazy bc of an intellectual error, and would not have exposed a relatively peaceful person, let alone an admirer, to the horrors of psychiatry for such a thing,

2) Tolkien certainly thought that European colonialism was tainted. His point about Numenor being blessed was basically a point about European Christendom being blessed for resisting brutal enemies of the faith ... but the point about Black Numenoreans setting up things in certain parts of Middle-Earth is a point about colonialism gone deeply wrong.

It would be a horrible thing to be for Sauron just to be against Numenor, but it is perhaps even more horrible and certainly possible to be for Sauron as a Numenorean.

I am presuming you know more than just the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings, perhaps Unfinished Tales, and at least Silmarillion.

AC

HGL The fall of the Numenoreans (and I mean that spiritually and physically) is a clear reference to how our society decays as turn away from God in favor of selfish pursuits. It had nothing to do with colonialism and everything to do with selfishness and materialistic idolatry. Though it is far worse today, the 1920's was a disgusting and perverse era and, for Tolkein who was a traditionalist Catholic, it was probably downright maddening.

HGL

"It had nothing to do with colonialism"

Sorry, but you are very explicitly contradicting a letter by Tolkien.

The Black Numenoreans are marked out for preferring to dominate the more primitive folks in Middle Earth over brotherly teaching them.

That very clearly has sth to do with colonialism.

Here is Tolkiengateway:

The Black Númenóreans emerged from the King's Men party;[2] they were cruel oppressors and overlords over the primitive Men of Middle-earth. Since they were colonising the continent, they survived the Downfall of Númenor but swiftly diminished.

Tolkien Gateway: Black Númenóreans
https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Black_N%C3%BAmen%C3%B3reans

HGL, added

Here is Girl Next Gondor giving three videos about the fall of Númenor, here are two of them, partly about the colonialism in Middle-Earth:

Before the Shadow: The Downfall of Númenor [Part One]
GirlNextGondor | 19 July 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDPL-NDvrqg

Glory and Decay: The Downfall of Númenor [Part Two]
GirlNextGondor | 24 Aug 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQuPWhZuYkw

II

HGL

I missed the last part of Miss Woke's second line, it's actually rather gross, but even then I think Tolkien would have refrained from the measure you portray.

Someone Attacked the Crusades

Status:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Religions are not locked demographics.

One is perfectly capable of converting.

Demographics are capable of converting.

Loren Hickerson

Star contributor

Hans-Georg Lundahl All it takes is a little bit of genocide. Which Christians are really good at, seeing as how their scripture not only explains how to commit it, but also justifies it as okay.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Loren Hickerson Or a little bad mouthing, which Atheists and Freemasons are excellent at against Christians, with a little genocide (Vendée, Russian Revolution, Holodomor) to back it up.

The same is also partly true of Protestants against Catholics, who are the real Christians.

No, the Bible does not promote Genocide. Whatever you could say about ethnic cleansings under Joshua, they were under Joshua Ben Nun. Under Jesus, the orders are to make disciples of all nations, which implies killing off none of them. And unlike both Protestants and Atheists, we have generally obeyed that (some places of Canaries and Hispaniola did suffer from bad habits that Spaniards took over from Muslims).

Loren Hickerson

Hans-Georg Lundahl Cool except every part of philosophy and history proves you wrong.

Just the fact that you completely ignored the Crusades is enough to make me laugh and recognize you as an idiot and a liar.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Loren Hickerson Crusades were not genocidal, and the ones in the Orient were not missionary.

You could get one point for 5000 people massacred in Béziers for being (among) Albigensians.

Loren Hickerson

Hans-Georg Lundahl Look at you pivot and then suggest bold faced lies.

Cambridge has multiple studies showing the Crusades were a genocide.

Infact, the depiction of blood often mentioned in the Crusades is so egregious, as to suggest that blood ran through the streets up to the ankles of the Judaic and Muslim places the Crusaders attacked. Being a bold faced liar doesn't make you right. It makes you and your religion you're defending look like it has bold faced liars in it. Thanks, but I want no part of that doctrine.

And I don't see how mentioning the Inquisition helps your case.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"blood ran through the streets up to the ankles"

Literary exaggeration. Note that Jerusalem's taking in 1099 could be added to Béziers, 3 days, until Geoffrey of Bouillon stopped it.

Again, the taking of Jerusalem wasn't a missionary enterprise, and the liar here is either you, or the people you wrongly trust.

"Cambridge has multiple studies showing the Crusades were a genocide."

Like very new ones by Muslim students?

Loren Hickerson "And I don't see how mentioning the Inquisition helps your case."

To showcase your ignorance, I didn't. The Albigensian Crusade and the Inquisition are two distinct things.

Loren Hickerson

[lol to both]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Loren Hickerson Just checking ... did you have actual answers to what I stated, or do you prefer making a show of laughing?

He Used Geocentrism as Example of a Wrong Scientific Consensus

He Used Geocentrism as Example of a Wrong Scientific Consensus · Heliocentrism, No Thanks!

Not Robert Bennett, he started the thread correctly. But someone else. A new acquaintance.

Robert Bennett

Admin

Principal contributor

Is it really a stumbling block to the Gospel, as OEC's claim, to reject science that is taught as fact in all colleges and universities across the world?

Michael Head

Colleges and universities used to teach the sun revolved around the earth. Was it true just because it was taught somewhere?

Robert Bennett

Admin

Principal contributor

Michael Head it's worse than even that today. They are teaching that men can have babies and that humans evovled over millions of years from ape-like creatures.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Principal contributor

Michael Head What's your exact problem with God turning the Universe around the Earth each day?

Seems to be St. Paul's apologetics for God's existance and qualities in Romans 1.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice: 19 Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

He wasn't speaking of the flagellum of the bacteria. Those have not been visible since creation, since microscopes, at least post-Flood, are a fairly recent thing and were not around in the 1st C. AD.

Why "from heaven"? Well, perhaps because we see precisely heaven revolve around us.

Michael Head

Hans-Georg Lundahl reeeealy missing the point….

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Principal contributor

Michael Head "Colleges and universities used to teach the sun revolved around the earth."

OK, you meant it as an ad homines, those who disagree with Geocentrism should look out better next time that someone claims one should go with mainstream science. Right?

Given some Geocentrics are actually on your board, would it not be somewhat more delicate to avoid infighting to take advances we actually agree on, like Harvey proved the pulse was not a movement of air and that blood was not stationary in the body (apart from wounds).

Or did you mean St. Paul's point? I don't think so, prove me wrong, if that's what you meant.

Michael Head

Hans-Georg Lundahl still absolutely missing the point.

And apparently also missing that the Bible doesn’t teach geocentrism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Principal contributor

Joshua 10:12.

Note. Verse 13 is a description of what happened, it could be construed as phenomenal language.

Verse 12. Joshua first prayed to God and then gave an order to what miraculously stopped. It was not the "rotation of the earth" he adressed.

I think I do have kind of a point in this context. On this issue, you are modernists like OECs. And if your example was meant to adress a mistake they make in a way they could understand, how about using Harvey's blood circulation next time?

Michael Head

Hans-Georg Lundahl I guess you don’t know about the countries that recorded a long night in history, too.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Principal contributor

Did you take my remark as some kind of doubts on Joshua's long day?

I have calculated the exact geographic point where long day and long night would meet, it was in East China. So, logically some people in China would have had differring opinions on what it was, but the conflict was resolved, those having observed a long night simply went further East, to Japan, perhaps even to the Americas.

No, I am not a scoffer.

I am a Geocentric. Unlike TST, I am not doing publicity stunts to provoke Christians.

If Church Fathers and Scholastics agree that the Earth stands still and it was Sun and Moon that stopped, that's good enough for me. MY suspicions go to the contrary narrative, like how Heliocentrism is supposed to be a proven fact. Especially since a day in 2001 (23rd of August, I noted the following day as St. Bartholomew's Feast), when someone gave me the Distant Starlight Problem ... all the problems start when between December and June or January and July we are supposed to have a known distance involved in the triangle of Earth, Star, one body moving. If Earth moves around the Sun, we do have one known distance, twice the Astronomic Unit, and its end points are two positions of Earth. If Sun moves around the Zodiac, the twice the Astronomic Unit is instead about the Sun, which is not involved in the triangle Earth viewing two positions of the star.

I see no moment in history when Heliocentrism went from unproven to proven. It is still unproven, and it is, worse, against the Bible.

On your view, Joshua spoke on God's behalf to work a miracle, after praying, and expressed himself in a manner confused about what the miracle would involve. Could Jesus have been confused when He "thought He" drove out demons too? No. I believe demons exist, and so I also believe Joshua, inspired after his prayer to God, knew exactly what it was he adressed on the long day.

Especially as Jesus and Joshua, in Hebrew as in Greek, are namesakes:

Yeshua (ha Meshiakh) ~ Yoshua (Ben Nun).
IHCOYC (O XPICTOC) ~ IHCOYC (NAYH).

That's why I referred to verse 12.

Discussing Carbon 14

David K. Muncie

Admin, Principal contributor

27.XI.2023

Half rates, Does this make any sense?

Let us use C-14 because it’s the fastest used in dating.

C-14 in a weed is at atmospheric equilibrium in the say 4 months of its life. Then it dies and no new C-14 can enter it, by any means, not by water or air or any means, so the time clock starts ticking in 5730 half the c-14 has decayed and by 11460 years another 50% has decayed, by 100,000 years the last c-14 element decays, why did some c-14 decay by say 100 years and other last 100,000 years they are the same, they were taken in at the same time, and why is 5730 the magic number where exactly 50% of the remainder vanishes? This whole concept doesn’t make sense, I know the math behind it, but I really don’t except that the formula is accurate and never has one half life of any of the radioactive elements ever been observed so it really is no but an assumption, and a ridiculous one at that.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"This whole concept doesn’t make sense, I know the math behind it, but I really don’t except that the formula is accurate and never has one half life of any of the radioactive elements ever been observed so it really is no but an assumption, and a ridiculous one at that."

5730 years can be deduced from observing the halflife in shorter periods.

5730 years is down to 50 % of original content.

So, 2865 years would be down to ... if you know the A4 related formats and can use them on a xerox machine, you have already seen it : 71 % or 70.7 % ...

1432 or 1433 years would leave what of the orignal? Sqrt of 0.707 etc is 84.09 %.

Are there objects known to be from 590 AD which can be carbon dated? Yes.

716 years leaves what? 91.7 %

Are there objects from 1307 AD which can be carbon dated? Yes.

Instead of a half life of 5730 years and a stable c. 100 percent modern carbon, one could theorise the possibility of for instance 11460 years and the carbon level still rising.

I think that can be excluded, as I think there are objects from 50 years ago or so, which we know the carbon 14 content in back then, and can check the carbon 14 content now. BUT ... let's suppose it couldn't. It would not do much of a difference.

I suppose, as a Young Earth Creationist, that the carbon 14 level has been roughly stable since the time when Troy fell, 1179 BC.

If the halflife were twice what it is, that would mean the level when Troy fell was 4/5 of 100 percent modern carbon instead.

We would still need a carbon 14 rise after the Flood. And not just the rate at which on that view carbon 14 had risen since the time when Troy fell. But a higher rate.

David K. Muncie

Author, Admin

Hans-Georg Lundahl, How long has carbon 14 decay been under observation in a single sample?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I looked up, and the answer seems to be:

The method was developed in the late 1940s at the University of Chicago by Willard Libby.

I e, the oldest sample possible (not sure if actually extant) answering to the criteria of tested then and tested now would be 78 years old between the tests. It should have 99.061 % of what it had back then. If the half life were twice as long, it should instead have the percentage for 39 years, as now counted. That's 99.529 %.

If samples from 1307 and around then, reasonably presumed to have been effectively sealed off since then, have 91.7 pmC (percent modern carbon, corrected for pre-industrial values) or around that, either it had 100 pmC or around that and a halflife of 5730 years, or if it has a significantly longer halflife, the carbon 14 content in 1307 was significantly lower than now.

David K. Muncie

Author, Admin

Hans-Georg Lundahl the problem is no one is interested in running another test to verify the decay rate.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Apart from measuring the decay in samples already tested, I don't think there is need of any.

THAT is a much surer test than testing the rate in one year in a lab.

My reason AGAINST decay rates of Uranium or Potassium 40 is, you cannot do this kind of over centuries test for either of them.

Btw, the difference between straight 100 pmC X half life 5730 years and carbon level rising from 80 to 100 pmC in 3000 years X half life 11460 years, for the amount of time we can have sure historic samples from is actually LESS than the deviations we actually have in calibrations, like the Hallstatt plateau, if you've heard of it.

I've done the math and I've compared to the calibrations.

So, in practise this doesn't matter.

This is in no way, shape or form an endorsement for taking carbon dates like 39 000 BP at face value. From the Flood to the Fall of Troy, carbon 14 rose very rapidly, was produced up to 10 times or a little more as fast as now, and 39 000 BP in a real Biblical calibration translates as 2957 BC, because the supervolcano explosions, including the so dated Campi Flegrei, are from the Flood, and it happened in 2957 BC. It's just that while decay happened since then at half life 5730, back then the atmospheric content was 1.625 pmC - around 1/61 or 1/62 of what it is now.

Which Argument Should One Use?

Alex Coleman

7.XI.2023

[shared]

St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church
https://www.facebook.com/stnicholasil

7.XI.2015

Trust The Scriptures. Look how often they are proven right.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am sorry, but the part of the meme that says "science then" is very imprecise. As to time.

If the time when St. Paul wrote Corinthians is included, it is wrong to include "the earth is a disc" in "science back then" ...

For Isaiah 40:22 it could be argued that the wording is compatible with both flat and spherical earth.

Alex Coleman

Hans-Georg Lundahl. How much authority did Eratosthenes actually have among the learned pagans? Perhaps the anti-Christian Enlightenment thinkers have overemphasized his authority and influence among the educated heathens of Antiquity?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No.

As a historian of scholasticism, I am pretty sure.

Details, but they detract from the whole of the meme.

Alex Coleman

Hans-Georg Lundahl. The whole of the meme is wrong in demonstrating the divine wisdom contained within the Holy Scriptures?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The whole meme would be better without the erroneous details.

"Sick people must bleed" actually is a medical trend from late Middle Ages to when George Washington was bled too much.

There is some truth to it when it comes to high blood pressure -- if it's done correctly with leeches. When it's done with knives as in late 18th C, the dosage can be overdone.

In this context, it looks like if the medical trend was raging in the time of the Bible writers. Not the case.

Alex Coleman

Hans-Georg Lundahl. The Bible contains knowledge otherwise unknown to the ancients. This a strong piece of evidence for it being a divinely inspired document.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Possibly, but it is one which gets bogged down by fake examples.

In fact, anyone who can only do "science back then" instead of looking up what non-Jewish and non-Christian sources from the precise time of a certain Bible book give you, is not doing the best for the meme.

I would state, while modern geographical knowledge confirms 4 corners on a globe, and they would not be 4 outer corners on certain flat earth maps with the N pole in the middle, as far as the audience back then could make out, the hagiographers were not taking sides.

I'd give you a real example if you like. The Bible hints at a) a hunter gatherer society that was generalised and b) spoke one language c) just after the Flood.

How so?

1) Name of Noah involves a prophecy of him giving "rest" from agricultural sweating
2) Genesis 9:2 states sth about intensified hunting
3) Obviously, the time from Flood to Peleg is the time from Flood to Babel, and before Babel all had one tongue.

This is in fact confirmed.
a) From the Upper Palaeolithic after last Neanderthals and Denisovans, we have found some, but exceedingly few traces of any kind of agriculture, but lots of traces of hunting and fishing.
b) Genevieve von Petzinger has found 32 symbols (that's like an alphabet) in cave art all over the world, mostly from this period (the hashtag is one of them and was found from a Neanderthal inhabited cave, presumably carved into the wall before the Flood (note: the cave walls of that one had no paint, which might obviously have been damaged in the Flood, if the Neanderthals thought of doing it). Same script suggests either same language, or at least same culture.
c) Unrealistically, for those taking uniformitarian dates at face value, that script, those 32 symbols, and the art style and roughly speaking the motifs, lasted 10 000 ~ 20 000 years. But those dates are mostly carbon dates. If you presume the Flood is what wiped Neanderthals out, and the Denisovans too, you get a carbon date of 40 000 BP or (Campi Flegrei) 39 000 BP for a real year 2958 BC (you would presumably say for 3267 or 3367 BC), this gives a carbon 14 level back then of 1/61 to 1/62 of the present one. The ensuing rise explains why just a few centuries of real time (a more realistic perspective for Upper Palaeolithic) is in carbon dates drawn out to several myriads of years.

The Bible very clearly directly says, after Babel, you had different languages, and you also began to get kingdoms.

This is confirmed by the fact that the 32 symbols cease before Göbekli Tepe (1000 years between 9600 BC and 8600 BC meaning real time 2607 to 2556 BC), and after Göbekli Tepe you find DIVERSE scripts, including the undeciphered proto-writings.

As to kingdoms, you find settlements with longer habitation, and the ones surrounding Göbekli Tepe seem to have five major cities lining up with the list in Genesis 10 (Niniveh wasn't great in Nimrod's time, but Qermez Dere later became the greay Niniveh). You find traces of what seems to be either ritual murder or capital punishment from Göbekli Tepe (severed skulls stringed onto a rope through holes in the skull roofs) or Çatal Höyük (pottery depicting men lying down without heads and vultures going for them).

Vulture like birds have been associated with power in lots of cultures since then. Condors in South America, American Eagle in Aztek Mexico, Eagles of Rome ...

To me, it looks like Apocalypse 19 is going to involve Christ's payback against Nimrod in the use of vultures / eagles.

By contrast, the example on Eccl. 1:6 seems to be another error, not just because it is pure guess work to say "winds blow straight" according to "science back then" but also because it's not even sure the verse mentions winds at all.

Ver. 6. Spirit. The sun, (St. Jerome) which is like the soul of the world, and which some have falsely asserted to be animated; or rather (Calmet) the wind is meant, as one rises in different parts of the world when another falls. (Pliny, [Natural History?] ii. 27.) (Menochius)

1) St. Jerome takes it as the sun. Note, attributing an angel to the sun would literally fulfil it, even without the Sun itself being animated.
2) While Calmet takes it of winds, he clearly takes an authority, not in modern science, which perhaps he didn't much read, but precisely in "science back then" (though Pliny admittedly is 1000 years after King Solomon).

Cosmic "Banana" vs Distant Star Light Problem

New blog on the kid: Not So Far Away, Not So Big · "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...." · How do we know stellar distances? · But Angels Don't Move Planets, They Are Guardian Angels! · HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS: Cosmic "Banana" vs Distant Star Light Problem

While the title is a clickbaiting reference to Ray Comfort and Singing Banana (the former discussed in a video I was hearing while making the html), whatever view you take of the heavenly bodies, even a Heliocentric one, it is kind of a cosmic version of Ray Comfort's well designed banana which fits the human hand. Here are CMI doing a Heliocentric version:

Remarkable evidence of a designed, young, and stable solar system
by Andrew Sibley, This article is from
Creation 45(4):55, October 2023
https://creation.com/young-stable-solar-system

But the problem is, it doesn't take care of the Distant Starlight Problem, Geocentrism does.

Gary Robokoff

Admin, Meilleur contributeur

17.X.2023

The age of the universe is all over the place.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Geocentrism.

Recall how the shortest distance measures are done that involve light years, e g 4 light years to alpha of the Centaur? Trigonometry. If earth is what is moving, sun and star both are relatively still (though moving on a very much more long term basis), then we have one distance and two angles and can do trigonometry. If the Sun and the star is what is moving and if we can't guarantee the stars moves in stride with the Sun, even if we see it is in pace with the Sun, then we have simply one angle and no distance. Not enough to do trigonometry.

Roger M Pearlman

Admin, Meilleur contributeur

Hans-Georg Lundahl my understanding is parallax never reliable over 1k LY and needs revision once more data available, even under 1k LY.

Any claim of accurate parallax or any light departure point of light visible here and now over 5,784 (minimum value SPIRAL LY radius i the nearest departure point of any light arriving here and now at standard light speed) is disputed science.

SPIRAL shows why basic physics and math explanation of the vast body of empirical cosmological observations, attest the vastly higher probability science is the year age of the universe is capped by the LY distance SPIRAL radius i. So the mantle of science is firmly within the universe being 'thousands, not billions' of years old.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Roger M Pearlman "my understanding is parallax never reliable over 1k LY"

The problem is, above that, there are other methods taking over.

Parallax X optic size of star is supposed to break down to certain star types with certain typical sizes, like main series has a size 1 ~ 2 times the sun. By this method, astronomers think they have gone far beyond 1k LY.

And from there, Cepheids take over until you have the 13.8 billion LY away.

I do not have the book you have written on spiral cosmology, but Geocentrism actually takes away the need, since it involves no reliable reason to take even alpha Centauri as even 4 LY away.

And how does Geocentrism work?

Two options.

Riccioli: angels move individual heavenly bodies through a void from East to West, but are not keeping the same speed.
Thomas Aquinas: God moves the upper heaven, which moves spheres below it, from East to West, and in each sphere angels move the celestial bodies the other way round.

In the mechanics of St. Thomas, I analyse the miracle of Joshua's long day as follows:

a) God obeyed Joshua, by ceasing to move the heavens westward
b) the angels of sun and moon also stood still in their habitations (which is why they did not move slightly eastward either).

This way, Joshua 10:14 is true:
There was not before nor after so long a day, the Lord obeying the voice of a man, and fighting for Israel
and Habacuc 3:11 is true:
The sun and the moon stood still in their habitation, in the light of thy arrows, they shall go in the brightness of thy glittering spear.

And the thing which God moves directly and in which angels move their orbits can be considered as the firmament, which also reaches down in this circular motion to the surface of the earth, which is why we have Coriolis effect and winds of passage and oceanic currents. The matter of which this is made is presumably aether, i e the actual non-void in so called vacuum. Not only celestial bodies, but also atoms, are suspended in aether. However, the aether between the atoms in our bodies does not belong to the firmament, as it is not firmly tied to similar positions in relation to other parts of it.

Note, when an object starts to fall, the reason it does not fall westward with the aether is, while it was suspended before the fall, it acquired an eastward momentum through the aether of the firmament, this being also why geostationary satellites work.

Roger M Pearlman

Admin, Meilleur contributeur

Hans-Georg Lundahl
In Pearlman YeC SPIRAL we illustrate how/why even if parallax was accurate up to 30k LY (somehow able to account for all gravitational lensing...) based on the highest probability science it would still align best with the most distant stellar objects light departure point of 5,784 (6k rounded) light years to date maximum. As one needs to take into account the change in density of the universe at light departure. All over SPIRAL Radius i departed on day 4. The more distant the stellar object, the earlier on day 4 in passed that distance from us. We conclude a Earth-sun elliptic centric universe.

Roger M Pearlman

Admin, Meilleur contributeur

(PDF) SPIRAL's 'MVP' hypothesis our most preferred view of the universe exhibit A
www.researchgate.net/publication/315676261

MVP hypothesis, i will see if i have an excerpt on the cosmic distance ladder.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Unlike a blog, your link to researchgate won't open on this computer.

It may be interesting, but I think it is also superfluous.

Roger M Pearlman

Admin, Meilleur contributeur

Hans-Georg Lundahl see if this link works on SPIRAL Blitz PDF on the comic distance ladder. if not i will see if i have the link to it on academia.

(PDF) Parallax, Gravity and The Cosmic Distance Ladder.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301567405_Parallax_Gravity_and_The_Cosmic_Distance_Ladder

Hans-Georg Lundahl there can be more than one viable hypothesis on reconciling the cosmic distance ladder, a light speed limit of standard light speed, and the universe being 6k rounded years. It is good to have more than one in case one is falsified.Either way, time (and or our One common father) will tell which one best describes the one actuality.

SPIRAL 'Blitz' cosmic distance ladder hypothesis.
https://www.academia.edu/44429404/SPIRAL_Blitz_cosmic_distance_ladder_hypothesis

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thanks for sharing.

// Don't assume uniformitarian assumptions. Do you assume a stellar object 15k LY, 1.5M LY, 1.5B LY.. has always been at that approximate distance?

Obviously if it was subjected to a material amount of cosmic expansion it was not. So the light we see here now from all objects at and over 5778 LY, could have departed when 5778 LY distance. //

The problem is, on your view, the views we have of the stars OUGHT to reflect, not the actual distance now (if anything like known), but the distance within 5778 LY.

Because you see, when a modern cosmologist says "those far off stars are 13.8 billion LY away" he means they were so 13.8 billion Y ago, and that they could now be very much further off.

The REAL logical result of your theory being true is, no star should even by uniformitarians be measured further away than 5778 LY, since the "distance measured" reflects very strictly the conditions of the light we receive, filtered through certain assumptions.

The positions given by astronomers are definitely NOT meant as "what the distance is now, long after the starlight was emitted" bt ONLY "distance when the starlight was emitted" ..

So, your solution seems to be a non-solution.

Geocentrism vs "Simon Skinner"

Geocentrism defended,
A against reasons Geocentrism Defended Against FrJerome Zeiler
B against ad hominems Geocentrism vs "Simon Skinner"

Simon Skinner*

status, 6.IX.2023

The overwhelming majority of people I've encountered on the internet who claim the earth is stationary and at the centre of the universe, and also claim that science is based on motivated lies and assumptions in order to hide God, also similarly claim the earth is flat.

You'll already be well aware of this from internet search results for geocentrism, and several posts here (including from admins) have recycled their same material.

These are people of faith who claim an evil conspiracy by those in power to undermine religion. However, by their ridiculous claims, dishonest tactics and promotion of accompanying right-wing conspiracy theories, they actually cause serious damage to the image and credibility of religion.

Are you not worried that this group has the same effect ?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

// The overwhelming majority of people I've encountered on the internet who claim the earth is stationary and at the centre of the universe, and also claim that science is based on motivated lies and assumptions in order to hide God, also similarly claim the earth is flat. //

May be the case among Judaising Protestants, but not among Catholics.

// You'll already be well aware of this from internet search results for geocentrism, and several posts here (including from admins) have recycled their same material. //

Flat earthers are perhaps overly sceptical about voyages, and part time inept about horizon questions, but that doesn't mean that they are wrong in showing healthy skepsis against pseudo-arguments for Heliocentrism. Nor that they will miss the objections that are also obvious to round-earthers.

// These are people of faith who claim an evil conspiracy by those in power to undermine religion. //

Have you checked out what the Russian revolution changed, and how much of it is implemented outside Communist countries as well?

Have you heard of the Kulturkampf and the Third Republic? How much of those politics are being recycled and some Catholics don't dare to mention it?

// However, by their ridiculous claims, dishonest tactics and promotion of accompanying right-wing conspiracy theories, they actually cause serious damage to the image and credibility of religion. //

Image and credibility before whom?

As far dishonest tactics, what is done to my blogging definitely is one, as people are time after time giving me YET another chance to change my ideas on things I have not wavered on the last 20 years or more, and they pretend to do so at a preliminary for taking seriously I really mean what I say.

Apart from being dishonest, it is cruel, as it leaves me poor, and over 10 000 blog posts that could feed paper printed essay collections and royalties are being repressed over giving me YET another chance.

Was there a priest who put you up to this to give me YET another chance to change my mind? Well, there are Catholic priests who constitute at least some kind of harlot to the enemies of the Catholic Church.

Simon Skinner

Author

Hans-Georg Lundahl It's a bit difficult to understand some of your points, but your English is certainly a lot better than my French 👍.

//You claim Catholics are immune from believing the flat earth conspiracy nonsense. I know that to be incorrect.

They are not displaying 'healthy skepsis', they place such a low weighting on empirical evidence and such a high weighting on their (flat earth) religion (based on rigid interpretation of the Bible and that science is biassed or dishonest) that they are convinced of the wrong reality. Their priority order for the weighting of evidence which led them to their ridiculous conclusion is exactly the same as Johnny Proctor has described in this thread.

// If they do understand the problems / objections they happily ignore them for the sake of keeping their faith and world view.

// Image and credibility before anyone rational, religious or not.

// I don't know what you mean about blog posts and essays, and no priest could put me up to this, or anything else for that matter.

Johnny Proctor

Admin

Simon, with all due respect, I asserted that Catholic geocentrists obtain their cosmological viewpoints through the sources of revelation. It is simply inaccurate to compare flat-earthers to us as there is no Tradition of Biblical interpretation that buttresses belief in a flat earth. There is a broad and venerable consensus among the Church Fathers and Doctors in the geocentric conception of the cosmos.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Johnny Proctor Do you find respect due to him, really, after his attitude?

Johnny Proctor

Admin

Hans-Georg Lundahl, as an admin, I have to be polite. 😉

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Johnny Proctor You are aware, the profile picture this "Simon Skinner" has is from a film where "Simon Skinner" is a crook played by Timothy Dalton.

Expelling people with fake profiles is also an option.

Or check if the real Simon Skinner (yes, there is one) uses the Timothy Dalton picture on FB and has denouncing Young Earth Creationism, Geocentrism as well as Flat Earth among his intellectual hobbies.

Johnny Proctor

Admin

Hans-Georg, thanks for the explanation. I hadn't scrutinized his user profile. The admin team will take your suggestions into consideration.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Simon Skinner "You claim Catholics are immune from believing the flat earth conspiracy nonsense. I know that to be incorrect."

I never spoke of "immune," nor of "from believing conspiracy nonsense".

I simply speak of not being flat earth.

If you meant you find them believing other tenets than that, and that you categorise them as "flat earth conspiracy nonsense" I find your categorisation disingenious. "Conspiracy nonsense" would do. And even then I'd like you showing examples rather than taking your word for it being so.

If you meant they often go for earth being flat, I call your bluff. Show me guys who do and who can credibly be categorised as Catholics.

"They are not displaying 'healthy skepsis',"

Totally beside the point. Displaying what you call healthy skepsis is not the normal way to get earth being round. The normal way to get earth being round is NOT to display skepsis in the face of voyage narratives.

"they place such a low weighting on empirical evidence"

I only have your word for it, and it's not good enough.

"and such a high weighting on their (flat earth) religion (based on rigid interpretation of the Bible and that science is biassed or dishonest)"

There is obviously a thing or two you could consider rigid interpretation of the Bible in Geocentrism.

I have yet to seen a coherent even rigorist argument for flat earth from the Bible, and I do interact with at least two flat earthers, one of whom recently died, Rob Skiba. It's not as if I hadn't heard flat earth arguments purportedly from taking the Bible literally.

"they are convinced of the wrong reality."

This totally doesn't sound like a compte rendu of their arguments. It sounds like psychoanalysis, i e dishonesty.

It is NOT up to shrinks to decide what's the right or the wrong reality on items like cosmology, that's just Communist politicalised psychiatry - or similar.

"Their priority order for the weighting of evidence which led them to their ridiculous conclusion is exactly the same as Johnny Proctor has described in this thread."

You have NOT shown:

• that you have any empiric evidence for Heliocentrism being true other than scientists saying so, which is not empiric evidence for the matter at hand
• that any Catholic Geocentric is flat earth
• that you care one whit about actual argument rather than calumny.

"they happily ignore them for the sake of keeping their faith and world view."

Sounds like a shrink spreading his bla bla to demonise or infantilise someone. I mean your assessment of them.

You have NOT shown this to be true.

"before anyone rational,"

You have not shown you are able to assess who is rational.

"I don't know what you mean about blog posts and essays,"

Cancel culture. Does it ring a bell?

I find that dishonest.

"no priest could put me up to this, or anything else for that matter."

Or anything else? Not even to pray three Hail Mary's in penance? Well, then you aren't a Catholic.

New Start

Simon Skinner

Author

Hans-Georg Lundahl You claim declaring that flat earthers are wrong is 'Communist politicised psychiatry". That's pretty creative. Communists, psychiatrists (and priests?) appear to be in the front of your mind..

Nature has no regard for our thoughts or politics.

I'm interested in the process by which people can employ motivated reasoning rather than empirical evidence. Flat earthers are an extreme example of this and I understand most in this group are more rational and hopefully able to converse calmly. But the fact it's taboo in this group is in itself an acknowledgement of discomfort at the similarity.

I intend no animosity and apologise if my questions have caused offense.

which

I answer twice, I and II

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Simon Skinner "You claim declaring that flat earthers are wrong is 'Communist politicised psychiatry". That's pretty creative. Communists, psychiatrists (and priests?) appear to be in the front of your mind.."

You are once again showing a disregard for my actual words, and a preference for analysing my mind - exactly as psychiatrists would.

You declared flat earthers wrong, so do I. BUT you declare round earth geocentrics flat earthers and therefore wrong, because they have the same mentality. Instead of arguing with round earth geocentrics on the merits of the case, as I do with flat earthers.

I think the creativity is on your side, not mine.

"I'm interested in the process by which people can employ motivated reasoning rather than empirical evidence."

Take a look into your mirror then.

You analyse geocentrics by your motivated reasoning, instead of by the evidence of their (our) words.

"But the fact it's taboo in this group"

Not I who set the policy. I have no qualms about getting to flat earthers and reasoning things out, whether four corners or Lake Michigan horizon.

Simon Skinner

Author

Hans-Georg Lundahl again with the psychiatrists ?

I didn't ever declare geocentrics flat earthers. I know most aren't. I already acknowledged that.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Your screen shot is not of something you acknowledged, but a comment of mine.

You are for BOTH stating sth about being "convinced of the wrong reality" - which sounds like a psychiatric definition of delusion.

What would I define as "wrong reality" / "delusion"? If you are 25 years old and don't speak Danish, you are deluded if you are convinced you invented LEGO.

But you seem prepared to drag in having the wrong cosmology into that.

And for neither are you dealing (at least here) with the actual arguments as arguments.

In other words, you are not a normal player on the argumentation field.

Simon Skinner

Author

Hans-Georg Lundahl Whatever this is, it's not communication. I hope you get over your issues with priests, Communists and psychiatrists.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Simon Skinner, as you speak of "issues" you confirm my suspicion you could be a kind of psychiatrist.

And dito for "it's not communication" - you set up a "communication" over your extreme ad hominems, and when I call you out as showing yourself therein something else than a normal communicator, you say "it's not communication" ... I was not all that interested in communicating with YOU in the first place.

I asked the admin to block you for taking a fake profile picture.

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Communists, psychiatrists (and priests?) appear to be in the front of your mind.."

Communists and psychiatrists have a certain way of ignoring the others' argument. I had a run in with a few priests, one of whom had without any evidence called me a flat earther, and who might have somewhat Communist leanings.

Epilogue?

Alex Naszados

Admin

Since this group is emphatically not a flat earth forum, please alert an admin if you notice anything that promotes it or attempts to conflate flat earthism with the Neotychonic model. This includes posts by admins that "recycle their material"- in which case it would definitely have been in error and a correction would be much appreciated.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Alex Naszados This is also not a psychoanalysis forum.

Can one alert admins if anything suspiciously like a psychiatrist or psychologist turns up?

* He seems to have taken a film character as alias, his portrait is identic to the villain Simon Skinner of Hot Fuzz, portrayed by Timothy Dalton.

https://villains.fandom.com/wiki/Simon_Skinner

Geocentrism, Tradition and Science

HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS: Geocentrism, Tradition and Science · New blog on the kid: What Happened to the Sungenis Debate?

Steve Szabo

status

June 2:nd, 2023

Magesterial ? The following article makes a case for unanimous consent by the Church Fathers on Geocentrism. Have you seen a good case against that argument?

Scripture Catholic : Geocentrism : Tradition / Church Fathers*
https://www.scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism/#Tradition_Church_Fathers

Answers

I and II (in inverted chronoligical order, as my "first" answer wasn't answered and so can stand first, as a preliminary).

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I've seen a bad one, made by David Palm.
One CF said that such and such pagans discovered such and such things, and one of the discoveries enumerated was "so and so discovered the earth orbits the sun" - the problem with taking this as an exception is, the word "discovered" can have been used ironically, the CF can have been making fun of the great men. Also, it was in context not at all an exegesis of the Geocentric passages of the Bible.

II

Matthew Myers

Yes. St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Robert Bellarmine. Also the very truth of Fides et ratio.

Answers

III and IV and V and VI (in actual chronological order)

III

which has an insert α and then resumes at β

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Matthew Myers Neither of these two denied Geocentrism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Matthew Myers Also, neither of these two seriously questioned it.
St. Robert is often quotemined as saying "if a proof of Heliocentrism were upcoming, then we would need to be very careful about determining what the Bible is saying" - but the quote continues "but I don't think such a proof is possible" - as to St. Thomas, yes he spoke of orbits possibly being physically different from what Ptolemy taught, which as a Tychonian I agree with. However, he also based prima via (at least according to Riccioli and therefore the common reception of it in Riccioli's time) on Geocentrism, on heaven being turned every day around earth, by God.

Matthew Myers

Hans-Georg Lundahl so scientific infallibility for those two. Got it.

Matthew Myers

Hans-Georg Lundahl we aren’t even at the center of this galaxy.

Matthew Myers

Hans-Georg Lundahl so you’re saying that the outer edges of the observable universe are careening around us at the center every day at about 4 billion light years per hour every day?
Or are you saying that (as science has shown unarguably) that the earth does rotate, but just that the earth is at the center and not just this solar system? So at which time of the year is the earth at the center?

Matthew Myers

Hans-Georg Lundahl and even if we only contain this ludicrous idea to a truncated solar system near the edge of Pluto’s average distance from the sun (when it at times is much farther from the earth than that), it would have to travel at about 4 billion miles an hour to arrange itself at nearly the same place the next day. And caused physically to circle around the earth by what scientific mechanism? Certainty not gravity. Or are all of these objects just much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much tinier than we thought?

α

Johnny Proctor

Admin

Matthew Myers you have a tape measure that measures the perimeter of the galaxy?

Matthew Myers

Johnny Proctor there’s this stuff called science. It is used to make far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far , far, far more educated guesses than the pap on this page. Catholic leaders and Saints would’ve rejected their interpretations with the kind of information and data that we now have. They would’ve marveled at the amazing universe that God created even more. They wouldn’t have tried to carve out some neo-Gnosticism built on silly adherence to interpretation that was mixed with a natural ignorance. This kind of ignorance is aberrant.

Johnny Proctor

Admin

You mean like Cardinal Ratzinger?**

<< According to [Ernst] Bloch, the heliocentric system – just like the geocentric – is based upon presuppositions that can’t be empirically demonstrated. Among these, an important role is played by the affirmation of the existence of an absolute space; that’s an opinion that, in any event, has been cancelled by the Theory of Relativity. Bloch writes, in his own words: ‘From the moment that, with the abolition of the presupposition of an empty and immobile space, movement is no longer produced towards something, but there’s only a relative movement of bodies among themselves, and therefore the measurement of that [movement] depends to a great extent on the choice of a body to serve as a point of reference, in this case is it not merely the complexity of calculations that renders the [geocentric] hypothesis impractical? Then as now, one can suppose the earth to be fixed and the sun as mobile.” >>

Josef Cardinal Ratzinger, CDF, 1990

Matthew Myers

Johnny Proctor he was not arguing for himself that the Sun orbits the earth. He was not stupid. He also understood quite well about gravity.

Johnny Proctor

Admin

You are inserting words into his mouth. He is clear:

"Then as now, one can suppose the earth to be fixed and the sun as mobile.”

Matthew Myers

Johnny Proctor reading comprehension. Try it.

Matthew Myers

Johnny Proctor context. Try it.

Johnny Proctor

Admin

Matthew Myers you first.

Ratzinger's 1990 remarks on Galileo
NCRONLINE.ORG, January 14, 2008, by John L. Allen Jr.
https://www.ncronline.org/news/ratzingers-1990-remarks-galileo

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Matthew Myers Pro tip.

You seem to be responding from your wall, and sometimes confusing where you are responding to me with where you are responding to Johnny Proctor.

How about not responding from your wall, but go to the group and see where your comment to respond to is on the discussion?

β

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"so scientific infallibility for those two. Got it."

More like for Bible and Church Fathers.
Do you have a specific CF or scholastic prior to Trent session IV who was for Heliocentrism at least as a possibility in connexion with Day 4, Joshua's long day, and Jesus calling Earth God's footstool?

"we aren’t even at the center of this galaxy."

What exact evidence do you have for the galaxy ("this one", and, since 1920 or 30, "others" outside it in the universe)?

"the outer edges of the observable universe are careening around us at the center every day at about 4 billion light years per hour every day?"

I am saying 1) we have no tightly argued reason from observations to consider the observable universe as greater than 1 light-DAY in radius. The reasons alleged depend on the false assumption of Heliocentrism, 2) even this involves stars going around us at 2 pi the speed of light, which would be impossible as vectorial movements within space adequately defined, but not impossible if they are simply moving WITH a moved portion of space-stuff.

"(as science has shown unarguably)"

Actually not. You are horribly shoddy about what you can argue and what you can't. I maintain Earth (in another, non-moved portion of the space-stuff) does NOT even rotate.

"it would have to travel at about 4 billion miles an hour to arrange itself at nearly the same place the next day."

As said, impossible for the material piece of body it is to accomplish vectorially through matter, even just the matter of space, but highly possible if a given portion of space-stuff itself moves at an angular speed of 360° every 23 h 55 minutes.

"And caused physically to circle around the earth by what scientific mechanism?"

Citing St. Thomas:

<< The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God. >>

Matthew Myers

Hans-Georg Lundahl your reading comprehension is crap. You claim that I claim things that I don’t claim.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am sorry, but you were actually doing the same to me a while ago, remember?

The "scientific infallibility" for the two Church Doctors, by themselves alone and in all matters of science? I never said that.

But you found it a fair comment on what I had said.

Now, I quoted part after part of what you said by copy-paste, and then answered it bit by bit, how about telling me where I am attributing to you a position the quote doesn't show you to have?

IV

Steve Szabo

Author

Matthew Myers What do you mean? St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Robert Bellarmine are Doctors of the Church, not "Church Fathers". As far as I know, they were both Geocentrists....which is strong among Church Doctors. Even Saint Terese the Little Flower was a Geocentrist.

Matthew Myers

Steve Szabo there’s this stuff called science. It is used to make far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far , far, far more educated guesses than the pap on this page. Catholic leaders and Saints would’ve rejected their interpretations with the kind of information and data that we now have. They would’ve marveled at the amazing universe that God created even more. They wouldn’t have tried to carve out some neo-Gnosticism built on silly adherence to interpretation that was mixed with a natural ignorance. This kind of ignorance is aberrant.

Steve Szabo

Author

Matthew Myers Sorry, I totally disagree with your claims. I find that as science progresses, it keeps confirming more and more traditional Catholic Doctrines. Not sure why you are on this sub.
Also, my question was about Church Fathers and you made an answer based on Church Doctors, so I hope you see how your views on these things are off-base.

Matthew Myers

Steve Szabo it does not confirm geocentric claims.

Steve Szabo

Author

Matthew Myers Sorry, but did someone ask for your opinion about that ?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Matthew Myers A few notes.
1) You pretend that "Science" makes far more educated guesses than we do. But you do not show why or how they are educated.
2) You said Sts Thomas and Bellarmine (and a few more) "would’ve rejected their interpretations with the kind of information and data that we now have" but you are imprecise as to what information or data you mean, except if you meant things like galaxies and distances which are not raw data but derived by a process of thought that can be contested, and also, the test of Trent is not what CF would have interpreted, but what they did interpret, when unanimous.
3) You call what we stand for "some neo-Gnosticism built on silly adherence to interpretation that was mixed with a natural ignorance" - would you be precise on what raw data we ignore or how our interpretation is close to Gnosticism?

Matthew Myers

Hans-Georg Lundahl explain away gravity. I’ll wait.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No explaining AWAY to do.

Suppose I drop a pen from standing height, can you by gravity calculate how it will impact the floor? Yes - on the simple condition that nothing wilfully interferes with its fall. If I catch it with the other hand, your prediction will fail.

The parallel to my "other hand" in Geocentrism is, direct acts of God for the daily rotation of the universe, direct acts of angels for the orbital movements along the zodiac or for the movements mis-analysed as "proper movement X aberration X parallax" rather than as solely proper movement.

Now YOUR turn.

An Atheist can prove Heliocentrism by stating gravity and inertia alone (both depending on mass) determine movements. He can dismiss God and angels as not existing. So, he is forced by his denial to accept Heliocentrism.

Why do YOU deny God and angels being directly involved?

Matthew Myers

Hans-Georg Lundahl yep! That sounds like the way God designed the perfection of science. As a lie and a bizarre puzzle. It is just like Protestants with the Scriptures. Catholics can explain the Scriptures. Protestants are forced to explain so much away. Here you misinterpret Scripture as a science text and are forced to explain so much science away.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"As a lie and a bizarre puzzle."

What's a lie about it?

What's a bizarre puzzle about it?

The science that St. Thomas and (to an extent) Riccioli shared is bizarre and a lie?

Well, there goes your claim "Catholics made the first universities" down the drain!

Not my claim, with similar wording though. I actually respect the intellect of these men.

"Catholics can explain the Scriptures. Protestants are forced to explain so much away. Here you misinterpret Scripture as a science text"

Sounds like a prejudice that Catholics are against and Protestants for Fundamentalism.

It's the other alternative that actually comes from Protestants, but Evangelicals are making that hard for you to see - and so are "Catholic" Modernists.

"and are forced to explain so much science away."

You are treating Science as an enunciation of truth, rather than sciences as (more or less successful) pursuits of truth.

I am not explaining away sense data. The rest can be bad conclusions gotten from bad paradigms.

In fact, as a Heliocentrist, you are the one explaining away sense data of sight and inner ear, both telling us we are not moving when we stand still on the earth, and the former also telling us that heavenly bodies ARE moving. YOU are the side making science a "lie and a bizarre puzzle" ....

But you are unlikely to see this, as long as your modernist priest tells you to treat Science as an extra Bible, and you don't step away from him.

Matthew Myers

Hans-Georg Lundahl when St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Robert Belarmine said that if Scriptural interpretation contradicted science that the Scriural interpretation was wrong. God is the Author of both Truths. They didn’t say that the science could merely be explained away and substitute miracles or planet pushing Angels.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

" St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Robert Belarmine said that if Scriptural interpretation contradicted science that the Scriural interpretation was wrong."

No.

They didn't.

Matthew Myers

Hans-Georg Lundahl yes they did.

Matthew Myers

Hans-Georg Lundahl again. Reading and reading comprehension.

Matthew Myers

Hans-Georg Lundahl it’s after midnight here and eisegesis is boorish and boring.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Get to bed and read my response tomorrow then, I am responding now.

1) Before you discuss reading comprehension, how about getting the exact text;

2) you didn't give one for St. Thomas saying when Science and Bible contradict, it's the Bible and not the sciences that is wrongly interpreted;

3) I will give you references for "planet pushing angels"

I Pars, Q 70, A 3, shortest cut, replies to objections 1 to 4:
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1070.htm#article3

<< Reply to Objection 1. Certain things belong to the adornment of the universe by reason of their proper movement; and in this way the heavenly luminaries agree with others that conduce to that adornment, for they are moved by a living substance.

Reply to Objection 2. One being may be nobler than another absolutely, but not in a particular respect. While, then, it is not conceded that the souls of heavenly bodies are nobler than the souls of animals absolutely it must be conceded that they are superior to them with regard to their respective forms, since their form perfects their matter entirely, which is not in potentiality to other forms; whereas a soul does not do this. Also as regards movement the power that moves the heavenly bodies is of a nobler kind.

Reply to Objection 3. Since the heavenly body is a mover moved, it is of the nature of an instrument, which acts in virtue of the agent: and therefore since this agent is a living substance the heavenly body can impart life in virtue of that agent.

Reply to Objection 4. The movements of the heavenly bodies are natural, not on account of their active principle, but on account of their passive principle; that is to say, from a certain natural aptitude for being moved by an intelligent power. >>

+ my Latin transscript and own translation from Riccioli, with citations:

New blog on the kid : What Opinion did Riccioli call the Fourth and Most Common One?
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/08/what-opinion-did-riccioli-call-fourth.html

Johnny Proctor

Admin

Matthew Myers, you couldn't be more wrong. And your mocking, sarcastic attitude is unfortunate.

<< As natural, angels have a part in the government of the universe that cannot be confined to the angelic world. In fact, by virtue of the universal law that decrees the superior’s help to the inferior, the angels should have more to do in the government of the universe than any other creature in the world. It may well be that pagan philosophers like Plato and Aristotle proceeded from a deeper penetration of a profound truth rather than from mere ignorance of scientific laws when they saw the angels as movers or governors of the heavenly bodies. >>

The Summa [of St. Thomas Aquinas] Simplified for Everyone, pp. 124-125, Confraternity of the Precious Blood, 1952 edition

Matthew Myers

Johnny Proctor talk about misapplication of principles!

Johnny Proctor

Admin

6. If anyone says that
the condition of the faithful and those who have not yet attained to the only true faith is alike, so that
Catholics may have a just cause for calling in doubt, by suspending their assent, the faith which they have already received from the teaching of the church, until they have completed a scientific demonstration of the credibility and truth of their faith:
let him be anathema.
Chapter III, Canons of Vatican I (1869-1870)

Matthew Myers

Johnny Proctor on Faith and morals. (So you aren’t only ignorant in the field of science? Something to be said for consistency, I guess.)

Johnny Proctor

Admin

Sorry, friend. You're busted. Actually, Hans took your arguments apart line-by-line last night. I'm just the relief pitcher.

Matthew Myers

Johnny Proctor because you don’t know the difference between discipline and Doctrine, what could not possibly be binding, and that science is not a matter of Faith and morals? You’re busted.

Johnny Proctor

Admin

To quote YOURSELF: reading comprehension. I quote St. Thomas and Vatican I. You keep offering your opinion about profane science. And no, as St. Robert said:

"I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits interpreting Scripture against the common consensus of the Holy Fathers; and if Your Paternity wants to read not only the Holy Fathers, but also the modern commentaries on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will find all agreeing in the literal interpretation that the sun is in heaven and turns around the earth with great speed, and that the earth is very far from heaven and sits motionless at the center of the world. Consider now, with your sense of prudence, whether the church can tolerate giving Scripture a meaning contrary to the Holy Fathers and to all the Greek and Latin commentators. Nor can one answer that this is not a matter of faith, since it is not a matter of faith “as regards the topic”, it is a matter of faith “as regards the speaker”; and so it would be heretical to say that Abraham did not have two children and Jacob twelve, as well as to say that Christ was not born of a virgin, because both are said by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of the prophets and the apostles."

Letter to Foscarini, 1615

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Matthew Myers "science is not a matter of Faith and morals"

What if some matters of faith and morals are improperly perceived as science?

Obviously by people who are against the faith and morals truth involved and want to take it out of that sphere.

If it were science, you had plenty of chances to give a scientific reasoning:

• for Heliocentrism as such - met by appeal to gravity, in the first instance
• for gravity being the sole operator of the bodies of heavenly movements (with inertial momentum) - not met.

V

Matthew Myers

What do you suppose ‘one can suppose’ means?*** I don’t think it means what you think it means. Back to the drawing (with color crayons, I presume) board.

Johnny Proctor

Admin

Matthew Myers I assume you are new here. We do not traffic in ad homina here. Please moderate your tone or we will enforce group discipline.

Matthew Myers

When silliness shows up on my wall, I respond. Did anyone ask you to spread eisegetical “science”?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Matthew Myers You are on a group called Catholic Cosmology and Geocentrism.

That content from this group shows up on your wall is because you are on the group.

You are free to leave it, I am not going to add you back.

If you stay, how about being polite?

And what do you mean by "eisegetical science"? That we have no science, only Bible interpretation, and that one eisegetical rather than exegetical?

How about backing up either?

Matthew Myers

Hans-Georg Lundahl no

Matthew Myers

Hans-Georg Lundahl When silliness shows up on my wall, I respond. Did anyone ask you to spread eisegetical “science”?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, why don't you leave the group, if you don't want its material on the wall?

And you have STILL not explained what you mean by "eisegetical science" ... did you get that from your priest who was rooting for modernism?

Matthew Myers

Hans-Georg Lundahl most traditionalist priests I know don’t buy this silliness.

Serious question, are some of you also flat earthers or young earthers also?

Johnny Proctor

Admin

Matthew Myers your reference to the Traditional cosmology of the Catholic Church as "sillyness" demonstrates a fundamentally unserious attempt to grasp the issue. Perhaps you would find kindred spirits on the Catholic Answers site, as they adore science.

Matthew Myers

Johnny Proctor they love all of God’s Truth and don’t make them fight each other.

Ron Eclavea

Matthew Myers

Nope. They fumble and stutter over the geocentric universe truth God has revealed in scripture. And as a result they fumble and stutter over the truth of the sabbath day as there can only be a 7th Day rest by God only if he started creation on the 1st Day!!

There’s no other credible way to explain this.

There must be an objective 1st Day of creation! Not some gobidigook half arse exegesis of the command to observe the sabbath as God commanded in scripture.

Genesis 1:1 👍🏻

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Matthew Myers Thank you for stating:
1) you are a trad (I was one when it still stood in some ways for integrism, I am into Pope Michael now)
2) you can't argue but go by "most priests"
3) you appeal to snobbery by stating your social reference (which is not a theological one) doesn't "buy into this silliness"

In return I owe you:

• I am not a flat earther
• I very much am a young earther.

That's how I came to Geocentrism, but it has more theological payouts than refuting the "distant starlight" supposed problem for young earth. Like stating clearly there is an extremity of the universe, and of the visible universe, so allowing us to state with confidence where Jesus went.

Creation vs. Evolution : Where Did Jesus Go?
search for "creavsevolu" and then search in the blog, FB censors by treating the blog as "contrary to community standards"

[Creation vs. Evolution : Where Did Jesus Go?
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2023/05/where-did-jesus-go.html]

A priest from St. Nicolas tried to answer this by stating the outer limit of Heaven is the glorious body of Christ, which is arguably heretical. Yes, I mean "Saint Nic" in Paris.

Où se trouve le ciel ? - Abbé A. Rampon - 18/05/2023
Eglise Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet | 18 mai 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDc6v6Je1aY

Matthew Myers

Ron Eclavea like 7th day Adventist invented by Ellen that couldn’t figure out or abide by the simplest things in the New Testament? That’s even worse! Far worse!

[I'm leaving out, for now, the ensuiting debate on 7 or 8 day day of rest, and going directly to my answer on following, after it.]

Matthew Myers

Hans-Georg Lundahl again. Reading comprehension.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Matthew Myers You are not exactly qualified to speak of reading comprehension, if you take Young Earth Creationism as invented by Ellen White.

Perhaps my reading comprehension (as patience after some 1.5 weeks in North Germany, back in Paris now) was wrong, but you seem to take it the Apostles were as open to old earth as they were celebrating on Sunday.

"Inspiring Philosophy" pretends to trace YEC to Ellen White
New blog on the kid, Monday, 27 March 2023, Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 18:37
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2023/03/inspiring-philosophy-pretends-to-trace.html

Or you are simply ignorant of the Church Fathers.

Matthew Myers

Hans-Georg Lundahl wring again.

Hans-Georg Lundahl actual photo from the edge of the flat earth. I thought that you would like this as well.

[leaving out, but looks more like a duck near a waterfall]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Matthew Myers I have already debunked the idea that a literal reading of the Bible would support a flat earth, so much for YOUR reading comprehension.

Est-ce que la Bible dit que la Terre est plate?
Φιλολoγικά/Philologica, Wednesday, July 17, 2019, Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 2:12 PM
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2019/07/est-ce-que-la-bible-dit-que-la-terre.html

With James Hannam on Whether Bible and Fathers Agree or Not on Shape of Earth
Correspondence de / of / van Hans Georg Lundahl, Thursday, 23 April 2015, Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 03:31
https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2015/04/with-james-hannam-on-whether-bible-and.html

The French one is fairly exhaustive in a short space.

If your French is as lousy as your reading comprehension, go to the English link.

[Between his comment and my answer, it seems Johnny Proctor already excluded him. Er, no, just reprimanded, he's still there.]

Matthew Myers

Hans-Georg Lundahl calm down. I’m just making fun of your silly position. It’s not reading comprehension, but if you need that to be a victory, go ahead.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Matthew Myers it's nice to know your sense of humour is well and alive.

Your sense of debate isn't, you never provide arguments.

VI

Johnny Proctor

Admin

The case is presented in rock solid manner by a Doctor of the Church:

<< Second, I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits interpreting Scripture against the common consensus of the Holy Fathers; and if Your Paternity wants to read not only the Holy Fathers, but also the modern commentaries on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will find all agreeing in the literal interpretation that the sun is in heaven and turns around the earth with great speed, and that the earth is very far from heaven and sits motionless at the center of the world. Consider now, with your sense of prudence, whether the church can tolerate giving Scripture a meaning contrary to the Holy Fathers and to all the Greek and Latin commentators. Nor can one answer that this is not a matter of faith, since it is not a matter of faith “as regards the topic”, it is a matter of faith “as regards the speaker”; and so it would be heretical to say that Abraham did not have two children and Jacob twelve, as well as to say that Christ was not born of a virgin, because both are said by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of the prophets and the apostles. >>

St. Robert Bellarmine, Letter to Foscarini, 1615

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Johnny Proctor What St. Robert Bellarmine calls "modern" being of course not Rahner or Schillebeeckx but Aquinas, Cusanus, Suarez, Coimbra Jesuits etc ...

Johnny Proctor

Admin

Hans-Georg Lundahl - ah, yes! The days when a modern theologian could actually contribute to the Traditional theology of the Church rather than stake his reputation on how far he is willing to go to tear it down.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Indeed.

* It says 1564, about Trent Session IV, but I think it is 1546! ** The idea of relativity will make for equivalence only in an infinite universe, in a finite one, whether space is absolute or relative, there is a geometrical centre. Hence, the idea of Ratzinger is highly inadequate. *** Not sure if something was erased, but I was looking for the previous occurrence of "one can suppose" and did not find any. W a i t ... there is an insert in the part III! See insert α