Jael and Mary

Hans-Georg Lundahl

9.X.2025

Totus Catholica doesn't go far enough:

Mary in Judges? This Verse Makes Protestant Scholars SWEAT
Totus Catholica | 9 Oct. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coSHNPkUwWg

---

[My original comments under the video are also copied to under above FB status, and when a debate or start of it says "youtube" it means the debate took place on youtube, under the video. If comments turn up under mine, I'll mark that "FB"]

---

2:19 The angel had already called Mary Blessed among women before She was pregnant.

The parallel between Mary and Jael is even closer. We must ask, "who is Mary's Sisera" and if we also see a parallel in Judith to this wording "who is Mary's Holophernes" ... this must be exactly what She wondered "what kind of greeting this might be" ...

Given Luke 1:42 adding "and blessed is the fruit of thy womb" we have another echo clearing it up. Genesis 3:15. It wasn't a human person, but a serpent ... or fallen angel ... that She had "killed with a tent peg" ...

There is only one way for a human being to have basically killed Satan. Reversing the way in which Satan killed Adam and Eve. And that means, being without sin.

Youtube

arcadio jr. navarro

@arcadiojr.navarro8303

@hglundahl

In Genesis 3 God metes out various judgments against those who brought sin into His perfect world. Adam, Eve, and the serpent all hear of the consequences of their rebellion. To the serpent God says, in part, “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel” (Genesis 3:15, KJV).

@hglundahl

Even in this judgment, there is mercy. God’s curse on the serpent, in particular, was laced with words of hope. The woman mentioned in Genesis 3:15 is Eve. The serpent, addressed directly, is the animal that Satan used to deceive the woman. Some of the curse was directed at the animal (verse 14); at the same time, the curse of God falls upon Satan, who had taken the serpent’s form or body in Eden (cf. the dragon in Revelation 12:9).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@arcadiojr.navarro8303 "The woman mentioned in Genesis 3:15 is Eve."

No.

First, since all of the OT is about Christ, but not all of the OT has its Christological meaning stated in NT writings, we need the tradition of the Church to access what Jesus told the disciples of Emmaus in Luke 24. And the Church says Mary.

Second, "blessed among women" is in all of the Jewish-Protestant OT only said about Jael, and in the Catholic-Orthodox OT also about Judith. So, since the angel greeted Mary with these words, she wondered who Her Sisera and Holophernes was supposed to be. But when Elisabeth repeated and added "and blessed is the fruit of thy womb" She saw the parallel to Genesis 3:15 and knew Her "Sisera and Holophernes" was Satan and She therefore had to be without sin, since that was the only move by which a man could defeat the fallen angel.

arcadio jr. navarro

@hglundahl

In Genesis 3 God metes out various judgments against those who brought sin into His perfect world. Adam, Eve, and the serpent all hear of the consequences of their rebellion. To the serpent God says, in part, “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel” (Genesis 3:15, KJV).

@hglundahl

The woman mentioned in Genesis 3:15 is Eve. The serpent, addressed directly, is the animal that Satan used to deceive the woman. Some of the curse was directed at the animal (verse 14); at the same time, the curse of God falls upon Satan, who had taken the serpent’s form or body in Eden (cf. the dragon in Revelation 12:9).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@arcadiojr.navarro8303 It seems the Hebrew has "complete enmity" which is more appropriate about a sinless person against Satan than about Eve and her far of children against snakes.

Also, the Blessed Virgin Mary recognised the allusion, once St. Elizabeth greeted Her.

@arcadiojr.navarro8303 Btw, KJV is not a Bible.

Use Douay Rheims instead. Just a tip.

arcadio jr. navarro

@hglundahl

The gifts of the apostles and prophets were foundational and necessary in the early days of the church, but their purpose has been completed. There are no apostles or prophets today. Once the Holy Spirit had fulfilled His ministry of guiding the disciples into all the truth (John 16:13) and inspiring prophecy (2 Peter 1:20–21), He began using evangelists and pastors and teachers to accomplish the next stage of the building.

@hglundahl

Douay-Rheims Version - Translation method

The Douay-Rheims Bible is a translation into English of the Latin Vulgate Bible which St. Jerome (342-420) translated into Latin from the original languages. The Vulgate quickly became the Bible universally used in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. In their preface, the translators of the 1582 DRV New Testament gave 10 reasons for using the Vulgate as their primary text, rather than the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, stating that the Latin Vulgate "is not only better than all other Latin translations, but than the Greek text itself, in those places where they disagree."

@hglundahl

King James Version - Translation method

The King James translation was done by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England. In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from the Textus Receptus (Received Text) series of the Greek texts. The Old Testament was translated from the Masoretic Hebrew text, while the Apocrypha was translated from the Greek Septuagint (LXX), except for 2 Esdras, which was translated from the Latin Vulgate. In 1769, the Oxford edition, which excluded the Apocrypha, became the standard text and is the text which is reproduced almost unchanged in most current printings.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@arcadiojr.navarro8303 I'm sorry, but that's not how the NT portrays things.

Apostles insofar as having seen Jesus, and Prophets insofar as adding prophecy to Acts or Revelation (St. Paul being both), adding to the Deposit of faith, that no longer exists.

But they were also bishops, as you can see from Peter being able to lay hands on Simon Magus (and refusing) and Paul having been consecrated in this manner (Acts 13), consecrating St. Tim in this manner and telling him whom not to ordain priests and whom to ordain priests ... possibly even whom to consecrate bishop or not consecrate bishop (depending on whether 1st C terminology covers our own or not), shows there was a foreseen mechanism or strategy or plan to give successors to the Apostles in their capacity of bishops.

Matthew 28:16 to 20 shows the Eleven were meant to have successors to the end of time. You totally misrepresent the ecclesiology of the NT, you fail to account for typological questions existing as per Luke 24 and you pretend those following immediately after the Apostles for some reason got it wrong, but you or whoever more than a millennium and a half afterwards got it right. This is not even remotely credible.

The Holy Spirit certainly led the Apostles into all truth, meaning perhaps even things they had never understood while disciples, and this has ended, but they also got Him to remind them of all He had said, which the Holy Ghost is doing to this day and will continue doing to Doomsday.

@arcadiojr.navarro8303 As to Vulgate vs Manuscripts, unfortunately, KJV betrayed even manuscripts in Matthew 6:7 to fit Calvin's Geneva Bible and the Protestant disgust for Rosaries. Which is a very evil thing.

---

2:22 Not just the Church teaches that, but St. Luke in chapter 24.

And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the scriptures, the things that were concerning him
[Luke 24:27]

Did you note "all the prophets" and again "all the scriptures" ... exactly. Precisely all of the OT. Excellent proof text for tradition, since it's the Church that has the recollection of this typological teaching, only small bits of it are mentioned in the NT actual texts.

Youtube

arcadio jr. navarro

@hglundahl

Jesus shows up often in the Old Testament—not by that name, and not in the same form as we see Him in the New Testament, but He is there nonetheless. The theme of the entire Bible is Christ.

@hglundahl

Jesus Himself confirmed the fact that He is in the Old Testament. In John 5:46 He explained to some religious leaders who had challenged Him that the Old Testament was talking about Him: “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.” According to Jesus, God’s work with man since time began all pointed to Him. Another time when Jesus showed that He is in the Old Testament was on the day of His resurrection. Jesus was walking with two of His disciples, and “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (Luke 24:27). Earlier, before His crucifixion, Jesus had pointed to Isaiah 53:12 and said, “It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’ and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment” (Luke 22:37).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@arcadiojr.navarro8303 Indeed.

I had missed John 5:46 and Luke 22:37, but it's Luke 24:27 where it clearly says all the scriptures and prophets as well as Moses, i e all of the OT.

---

3:49 She had crushed the serpent even before the fiat mihi.

And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women
[Luke 1:28]

That's verse 28. In verse 31, Mary's pregnancy is said to be a future event. In verse 38, only, Mary answers:

And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her
[Luke 1:38]

So, while she arguably RE-crushed the serpent by that yes, or rather that yes resumed every crushing of the serpent she had ever done, she had been crushing the serpent for a long time. And that means sinlessness.

Youtube

arcadio jr. navarro

[4 comments which I'm not sharing.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@arcadiojr.navarro8303 Thank you, I think I'll leave it here.

You are just trying to promote the standard Protestant arguments against Catholic Mariology, without lifting one finger to deal with my arguments for Catholic Mariology.

I'm blocking you after this.

Shared: Against Abortion

Live Action News

Instead of the dead baby she expected to remove from the woman’s bed, she found a living 1 ½ pound child.

The story:

Nurse horrified as doctor orders abortion survivor to be taken to lab: ‘It won’t be breathing long’ | Live Action
https://www.liveaction.org/news/nurse-horrified-doctor-abortion-survivor-breathing

What an Occasion to Make Clarifications on Fascism

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"

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It is known I self describe as Fascist. Note, Fascist, not National Socialist.

Someone beside me in the cyber played a speech by you know who at a speech climax.

It's possibly unfair to a good painter.

It's also irrelevant for Fascism.

Here is a speech by Mussolini who thought they were safeguarding international peace:

Mussolini Close Ups And Speech In German (1927)
British Pathé | 13 April 2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jgZijUobnY

The notice "1927" is obviously a typo, possibly for 1937. Not sure what year Mussolini visited Germany.

And here is one by Engelbert Dollfuss:

EXCLUSIVE ANNOUNCEMENT BY DOLLFUSS OF AUSTRIA - SOUND
British Movietone | 21 July 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yEXGxWcLnM

Hans-Georg Lundahl

[update]

Just in case some guys PERSIST to confuse Nazi and Fascist, here is a video on acceptance of versus discriminations against people with Downs:

How Were People With Down Syndrome Treated In History?
Disturban History | 25 April 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szQw2T8avRc

The Reich after Hitler's Machtübernahme is mentioned, so were states in the US, first of which Indiana, and every time I reflect on this, I'm so sad a certain guy didn't remain a painter and so happy for one change that Patton brought about.

In the Soviet Union, the project was studied under Lenin, but very fortunately cancelled by Stalin, however the mentality is widespread. In Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark, there was no Patton. Eugenics ended in the 1970's there.

In Mussolini's Italy, there was no such thing, at least before 1938. I have not read the leggi raciali, I don't know if that changed.

In Dollfuss' Austria, there was no such thing.

In Franco's Spain, I think Valleja Najera tried to push for it, but didn't quite succeed, so he had to claim some version of Child Protective Services as "eugenics" ... (in a different context, namely considering revolutionary spirit as a hereditary disease), but even that was pushed back through the Catholic Church.

I am not sure how much of this got introduced by Alexis Carrell, a Protestant, when he became a minister in the Vichy régime. I used to say the régime of Pétain Darlan was OK, that of Pétain Laval wasn't ... but Alexis Carrell got hired before Laval, so, I am not positive about the entire time of Darlan as PM either.

This article explores a new dimension in fascist studies, eugenic studies, and the more mainstream history of Italy, Europe, and modernity. It asks scholars to reconsider the centrality of race and biology to the political programme of Italian fascism in power. Fascism’s ‘binomial theorem’ of optimum population change was characterized as a commitment both to increase the ‘quantity’ (number) and improve the ‘quality’ (biology) of the Italian ‘race’. These twin objectives came to fruition in the new scientific and political paradigm known to contemporaries as ‘biological politics’ and to scholars today as ‘biopolitics’. Fascism, this article contends, attempted to utilize the full force of the new ‘biopower’ of reproductive and biogenetic medicine and science in order to realize the aims of its biopolitical agenda for racial betterment through fertility increase. In Italy, fascism encouraged science to tamper with the processes of human reproduction and to extend genetic understanding of diseases which were seen as ‘conquerable’ without sterilization and euthanasia. It began a biotechnological ‘revolution’ that historians often attribute to twenty-first-century science. By exploring the technical innovations in assisted conception which Italian fascism promoted, this article challenges the assumption in much of the scholarship that there was a huge divide between the ‘old’ eugenics of the interwar period and the ‘new’ genetics of recent decades.

Racial ‘Sterility’ and ‘Hyperfecundity’ in Fascist Italy. Biological Politics of Sex and Reproduction
https://brill.com/view/journals/fasc/1/2/article-p92_3.xml

Sharing Levi J. Pingleton / Robert Sungenis

Levi J. Pingleton

27.X.2024

Powerful arguments for Young Geostatic Earth Creation against Big Bang Cosmology, "dark energy", "dark matter", and Evolution...

Chapter 11: The Big Bang: Falling Under the Geocentric Weight
Chapter 11, from Geocentrism 101 by Dr. Robert Sungenis...
Levi Pingleton | Oct 22, 2024
https://robertsungenis.substack.com/p/chapter-11-the-big-bang-falling-under

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Shared!

Levi J. Pingleton

Hans-Georg Lundahl your rebuttal against Fr. Robinson was TOUGH.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thank you!

Sharing Lila Rose

Lila Rose

26.X.2024

If you think women need abortion while facing a cancer diagnosis, please read Jessica’s story.

There is always hope.

Pregnant while receiving treatment for terminal breast cancer, she refused abortion… and survived
By Cassy Fiano-Chesser | September 8, 2022, 12:47pm
https://www.liveaction.org/news/pregnant-terminal-breast-cancer-refused-abortion-survived/

Carbon Dating : A Creationist Expert, Myself

Pete F. Fiske

LD 21.IV.2024

What About Radioisotope Clocks?

Secularists claim that radioisotope ages “objectively and scientifically” confirm millions of years. But ICR scientists have carefully examined their claims and found flaws and holes in their processes. What do radioisotope clocks actually reveal about the age of rocks and, ultimately, the earth?

https://www.icr.org/article/what-about-radioisotope-clocks/

https://www.facebook.com/100076911390398/videos/963652068211482/

It can be mentioned

that the IRC professor's name is Dr. Timothy Clarey.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Principal contributeur

3:24 I believe accuracy can be pushed further back WITH a Biblical recalibration.

Genesis 14, Abraham was c. 80 (between his vocation in Genesis 12 at 75 and birth of Ishmael in Genesis 16, when he was 86).

So, whatever BC date you place his birth, deduct 80. For me that's 2015 - 80 = 1935. The thing is, he is contemporary to Amorrheans being attacked in En-Geddi, which is carbon dated to 3500 BC.

So, when you say "everyone is the same age" back in 1935 BC, everyone would have been 1565 years old. (3500 - 1935 = 1565).

This one is the absolutely clearest node that can be used to carbon date with a Biblical recalibration. I would say, the nodes apart from this that are "second cledarest" would be Kenyon carbon dating Jericho's fall to 1550 BC, compared to whatever date you allow for Exodus and then 40 years more recent. For me that would be 1550 - 1470 = 80.

Göbekli Tepe as candidate for Nimrod's original Babel is by now pretty solid, I've answered objection after objection over the years. The hardest one is bricks and bitumen for stones and mortar. You do find pavements in Jericho from this time (so, not everyone was in the Babel area) that include sth like broken ceramic bricks in a kind of mortar. You could also argue that the Hebrew terms from the etymology could describe sth else. If burned chalk is found inside the stomped earth, that would confirm that idea. 9500 to 8000 BC are then the carbon dates for beginning and end of Babel. To me, that's forty years within the 51 between Noah's death and Peleg's birth (LXX without the II Cainan), 350 and 401 after the Flood in 2957 BC, so, 9500 - 2607 = 6893 extra years, 8000 - 2556 = 5444 extra years. I have made previous tables where Göbekli Tepe lasts from 9600 to 8600 instead, depends on what online sources I access, a recent article gave 9500 to 8000 BC.

Finally, I take Joseph as Imhotep, so his pharao as Djoser, and Moses as temporarily Amenemhet IV (following David Down) so born under Senusret III. These two are very much disputed by many creationists who want an Exodus during the New Kingdom and the Israelites as Hyksos. But I think that would make a trainwreck of the carbon 14 rise from Genesis 14 to the fall of Jericho.

And Fall of Troy = carbon date = historic date, depends on what exact level of Troy you identify with the Trojan War.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Principal contributeur

4:21 I would say that the pre-Flood world ends in roughly 39 000 BP or 37 000 BC carbon date.

Tephra of Campi Flegrei.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Principal contributeur

4:41 Not just that. But if "floodgates of heaven were opened" describes a Brown's gas mixture of lower atmosphere Oxygen meeting higher atmosphere Hydrogen, then there was lots more Oxygen in the atmosphere too, which is now in the water cycle instead. This would mean that the Nitrogen was scarcer, so the Nitrogen 14 atoms that were hit by cosmic radiation were further apart, so, less Carbon 14 was being produced.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Principal contributeur

9:53 Quoting from AiG:

Yet diamonds have been tested and shown to contain radiocarbon equivalent to an “age” of 55,000 years. These results have been confirmed by other investigators.

Perfectly consistent with my carbon date of 39000 BP for the Flood, if the diamonds were from organisms with a few decades old carbon in medium.

This would mean a dino carbon dated to 20 000 BP would either have Carbon 12 turning into Carbon 14 by radioactive contamination. And Hell Creek and Morrisson Formations are Uranium territory. Or, they would be post-Flood, come from landslides.

The Quote

is from:

Answers in Genesis : Carbon-14 in Fossils and Diamonds
An Evolution Dilemma
by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling Featured in Answers Magazine
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/carbon-14-in-fossils-and-diamonds/

Footnotes 14, 15 and 16 are:

J. R. Baumgardner, “14C Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth,” in Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, eds. L. Vardiman, A. A. Snelling, and E. F. Chaffin (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, and Chino Valley, Arizona: Creation Research Society, 2005), pp. 587–630.

D. B. DeYoung, Thousands . . . Not Billions: Challenging an Icon of Evolution, Questioning the Age of the Earth (Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 2005), pp. 45–62.

R. E. Taylor and J. Southon, “Use of Natural Diamonds to Monitor 14C AMS Instrument Backgrounds,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 259 (2007): 282–287.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Principal contributeur

10:26 Here I sign off. The other dating methods are my non-expertise. One should know one's limits.

Found on a Conlang Group on FB

Does Orkish Sound Evil? Perception of Fantasy Languages and Their Phonetic and Phonological Characteristics Christine Mooshammer, Dominique Bobeck, […], and Qiang Xia +4
First published online November 29, 2023
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00238309231202944

Ending Slavery

Link in my status:

Harriet Tubman: She Never Lost A Passenger
Friday, May 1, 2015 | Lawrence W. Reed
https://fee.org/articles/risking-life-and-limb-for-liberty/

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Partly wrong history:

"Slavery was once ubiquitous in the world — and even intellectually respectable. That began to change in the late 18th century, first in Britain, which ended its slave trade in 1807 and liberated the enslaved throughout its jurisdiction in 1834. Before the 13th Amendment abolished slavery in America in 1865, American blacks risked everything attempting to escape from their masters, who sometimes pursued them all the way to the Canadian border."

No, it was not ubiquitous in the world, nor intellectually respected by all.

Non-colonial countries did not have it.

In France, your slave could claim his freedom as soon as he set foot on the soil of European France, and probably Québec too.

In Spain, slave traders were not well respected in the colonies, where slavery was allowed (notably in Cuba), but slave markets had to take place outside cities in order to not scandalise the good Christians.

Austria, Prussia, Bavaria, Saxony and the rest of Germany, that is of Holy Roman Empire, had no colonies and no slaves.

Sweden and Denmark only had them short periods.

Mil Sneler

Hans-Georg Lundahl On the 27th of January 1416, Dubrovnik, then an autonomous republic (Ragusa) formally abolished slavery, the transportation of slaves and the idea of one person being able to own another, becoming one of the very first in Europe to do so after Venice in 960.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Actually, if it was 1416, it was one of the last.

Sweden, Denmark, England, all of Francia went before.

But it is obvously before England re-abolished slavery 1834.

Mil Sneler

Hans-Georg Lundahl Sweden made the slave trade illegal in 1813,

Hans-Georg Lundahl The Danish ban on the transatlantic slave trade in 1792 marked the beginning of the end of slavery. Fifty years later, in 1847, the state of Denmark ruled that slavery be phased out over a 12 year period, beginning with all new-born babies of enslaved women.

Hans-Georg Lundahl Slavery was first abolished by the French Republic in 1794, but Napoleon revoked that decree in 1802. In 1815, the Republic abolished the slave trade but the decree did not come into effect until 1826. France re-abolished slavery in her colonies in 1848 with a general and unconditional emancipation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Sweden made the slave trade illegal in 1813,"

That refers to the colonial slavery. In Sweden the white slavery had been abolished in 1341.

"The Danish ban on the transatlantic slave trade in 1792 marked the beginning of the end of slavery."

Also about colonial conditions.

"Slavery was first abolished by the French Republic in 1794, but Napoleon revoked that decree in 1802."

That is a slavery that only applied in Louisiana and the islands. Mainland France and Québec had no slavery. A slave who set his foot in mainland France could claim his freedom by just saying so.

Mark Shea's Post and My Comments + Debate

Creation vs. Evolution : Answering Mark Shea · HGL's F.B. writings : Mark Shea's Post and My Comments + Debate · New blog on the kid : Mark Hausam on Infallibility

Mark Shea

linked to his post

Hans-Georg Lundahl / HGL

linked to my answer

FT and HS

are two people who visited the FB page of Mark Shea and who commented under my link.

FT

Hans-Georg Lundahl You do know that a “Catholic Fundamentalist “ is a contemporary creative fiction, right? There is nothing in the catechism or Sacred Tradition that requires Catholics to be “fundamentalist.” Just like there is no doctrine that requires a belief in creationism.

HS

Hans-Georg Lundahl:
FT is correct, and so is Pope Francis. You put yourself outside Catholic Church teaching if you *require* a specific, literal reading of Genesis.

HGL

// There is nothing in the catechism or Sacred Tradition that requires Catholics to be “fundamentalist.” Just like there is no doctrine that requires a belief in creationism. //

If by "the Catechism" you refer to the non-Catholic work by Wojtyla / Ratzinger from the nineties, I couldn't care less.

If you look up Catechism of Pope St Pius X (including the short work "brief history of the sacred religion") or any older Catechisms and some somewhat younger, there clearly is.

Tradition means things like St Augstine and St Thomas Aquinas. The latter had sworn an oath on upholding three works - one of which is Historia Scholastica, which is a YEC work. De Civitate Dei is also a very clearly YEC work.

Doctrine, does Trent count?

New blog on the kid : Grammatica et Logica de Canone Celeberrimo Concilii Tridentini
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/07/grammatica-et-logica-de-canone.html

Plus, you are both very evasive of the Bible texts on which I commented in polemics to Mark Shea's spurious claim.

// You put yourself outside Catholic Church teaching if you *require* a specific, literal reading of Genesis. //

Very interesting idea on what it means to be Catholic, these days.

And isn't one or two prominent figures, like Mark Shea and "Pope Francis" actually requiring the avoidance of that literal one?

It so happens, I found the dialogue invisible when checking back and reposted the link under a previous, which I commented on in the PPS - and no dialogue there./HGL

Mark Shea has a Good Point in Article, a Less Good one Against me (though it's me saying so)

Mark Shea

28 juin, 10:48

How Monks Helped Invent Sign Language
JUNE 28, 2019 BY MARK SHEA
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2019/06/how-monks-helped-invent-sign-language.html

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"I wonder if anybody has ever undertaken to do an exhaustive catalogue of all the spinoffs and side-benefits the world owes to the Catholic tradition and the work of enterprising Catholics who were either just puzzling over the Tradition and stumbled on something cool, beautiful or useful or who were just trying to get stuff done (like teaching the deaf or teaching Slavs) and just cooked up sign language or the Cyrillic alphabet in order to get the job done? I wonder if such a project is even possible?"

To do, yes, as long as you don't hope for too exact comprehensiveness, it would always be updated.

To spread? Not by links when FB can block them as spam ... by the way, you weren't one of the guys helping to get my links marked as spam or whatever else incompatible with community standards, were you?

Mark Shea

No. I have better things to do. Stop being paranoid.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

With seven thousand plus articles on line, with FB blocking for no valid reason, when I link to them, with readers documented in my stats as very much from Russia and Ukraine, I don't think it paranoid to ask who's behind invalid blocking.

I did not flat out accuse you, I asked "you weren't one of ... were you?"

Also, marking a thing as spam is done quickly and often thoughtlessly when suppressing a comment.

I have other suspects, though.

Abusive Block on Φιλολoγικά/Philologica Blog

Abusive Block on Φιλολoγικά/Philologica Blog · FB's Definition of Spam

Here is how it looks:







And here is the link I tried to post:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Fable a7j sur les Albigeois
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2019/06/fable-a7j-sur-les-albigeois.html

FB Censors Links

Is AI a Threat to Man? · Still Censored (for Fast Typing?) · Well, I was after all ... · Zuckerberg's Vandalism Continues · Yes, as Said ... · Blockade Over After All? · Or Maybe Not? · Could not Post to Page Wall · OK, Not Over · Still Not Over · FB Censors Links

Trying to share this one on FB:

Creation vs. Evolution : Does Roger Pearlman Have a Wrong Take on Göbekli Tepe?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2019/04/does-roger-pearlman-have-wrong-take-on.html





And this one too:

Creation vs. Evolution : John Hartnett Pleads Operational Science
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2019/04/john-hartnett-pleads-operational-science.html





Trying to share this:



Update : and yes, the other censorship is still ongoing and still faking dialogues.

Carter's Tactics

Creation vs. Evolution : Responding to Dystopian Science · Part II of Dystopian Science, my answer part A · Part II, part B - CMI on Deeper Waters · HGL's F.B. writings : Carter's Tactics · Back to Creation vs. Evolution : Part III : On Bradley and Bessel · New blog on the kid : Do Lorentz Transformations Prove a Universal Inconditional Speed Limit? · Back to Creation vs. Evolution : John Hartnett Pleads Operational Science · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Steven Taylor on Lorentz Transformations, Speed of Light, Distant Starlight Problem, Creation Week, Miracles

Here is a former status on the wall of Carter.

It links to:

Dystopian science Part 1: Why the Bible enables science to work
by Lita Cosner, Robert Carter | Published: 28 March 2019
https://creation.com/dystopian-science-1

I link to my own answers, as far as they have gone.

Here is what happened, first showing page as clearly as possible, upper and lower part:





Then showing why the last of my comments is in red, that is impossible to add comment:



Was he simply replacing the old status with a status linking to part 2.

At first, it does not look like that:



I have just shown the upper part of his wall, to where he has his upper bar, so as to show that seven minutes later, the latest status is from 30th of March.

Now that it is fifteen minutes later (19:30, in the meantime I linked my three posts to each other, will link them here), I think I can assume he's not replacing the status, so publishing this is not maligning him.

I think I have shown him in action as avoiding debate, precisely as I told you in that passage here:

"We should all strive for consistency in the way we think."

Sure.

And since one should try to make sure, one should also test one's consistency in debate.

I do that all the time.

Certain on CMI have avoided this when it comes to debating Geocentrics.

Comparing Inaccuracies : A. N. Wilson on CSL / Shrinks on Patients

Brenton Dickieson

shared a link

Hi folks, this is an old book, but I read it because people out in the public keep referencing it and it haunts beneath Lewis studies. There are A LOT of poor facts in this book, and an example of why Lewis gets bent in public. But he also gives another reason why Lewis is being misquoted: Because he is a legend that we shape. Intriguing to think about more this facebook site and William's work. Here are my thoughts about the book as a whole, but I will follow up next week with some more thoughts about Wilson's Lewis journey.

A Pilgrim in Narnia : A.N. Wilson’s C.S. Lewis: A Mythology
https://apilgriminnarnia.com/2019/02/11/a-n-wilsons-c-s-lewis-a-mythology/

GD

Good job. It annoys me that this biography is taken seriously as biography by anyone, with all the errors and sloppiness in it. Biographies like that always annoy me. No, we can't know everything about a person, but at least do your best to be honest!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Biographies like that always annoy me."

You hate psychiatry too?

"No, we can't know everything about a person, but at least do your best to be honest!"

You really hate psychiatry, don't you?

GD

No, why?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Bc their journals of a given patient are more often than not very fake biographies.

Like the level where A. N. Wilson will seem accurate about CSL by comparison, and that is how they earn lots of money (collectively) from tax payers on treating people often in no need of their services.

GD

I'm . . . not even gonna touch that one.

Brenton Dickieson

I have issues with the methods of some that do psychological shrinking of historical figures, but personally, I would love to have access to a psychiatrist or an informed spiritual director to help me order things. And as a pastor and teacher*, I cannot tell you how many times shrinks and psychologists have made critical interventions--some of them life-saving--in the lives of my parishioners and students.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Due to your sending them there?

How do you know they were in fact lifesaving?

Brenton Dickieson

Hans-Georg Lundahl Well, they didn't die. I mean, literally dozens of people who didn't commit suicide or die of anorexia or bulimia or addictions. Anyone with any experience working with mental health professionals can see the limitations and problems. But anyone who has tried to help people without the right tools can see what the help can do.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Well, they didn't die."

For an internvention to be lifesaving there are two criteria needed, that one, and "they would have died otherwise".

"literally dozens of people who didn't commit suicide"

How many had tried previous to shrink getting involved (btw, generally I think they are rather good with cases of depression, that's why depressed patients often become their poster children)?

"or die of anorexia"

How many were legitimately very starved?

"or bulimia"

How many were legitimately destroying their stomachs?

"or addictions"

How many of the addictions were lifethreatening? For instance, Amy Winehouse was arguably getting an earlier death, if she wasn't treated, but as it was, her treatment lowered her tolerance to alcohol and she died in ethylic coma when trying to drink as before, plus the treatment was imposed in such a manner that it arguably made her want to drink more.

"Anyone with any experience working with mental health professionals can see the limitations and problems."

Understatement of the year.

"But anyone who has tried to help people without the right tools can see what the help can do."

To or for some who chose that help.

For or to some who that "help" is imposed on.

How many would, for instance, have fared worse than dying at 65 from renal failure (sth CSL's lifestyle arguably had sth to do with and I don't mean he should be considered a suicide for that)?

With patients diagnosed with schizophrenia, these guys often make up biographies, as they don't see the patients' words as reliable, and one frequent thing is "observing" audible or other hallucinations simply from someone talking to non-present others.

Ben Gunn's syndrome, if you ask me.

That Long John Silver and a few others were not present while he dreamed of revenge doesn't mean they were not emotionally relevant to Ben Gunn (I trust anyone in our culture knows Treasure Island). So, that Ben Gunn spoke to them while absent (including threats) doesn't argue he hallucinated.

GD

All other considerations aside, this conversation is wildly off-topic.

Brenton Dickieson

GD I agree. I'll bow out.**

HGL (after adding link here)

False as hell biogaphy, item 1:

Therapeutic Superstition
by David Bentley Hart | November 2012
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/11/therapeutic-superstition

"There was a therapist at the funeral who had known Reuben for some time and who, in the course of lamenting Reuben’s death, remarked that he was at least glad that the psychiatrist in charge of the case had been able, in those last few years, to help Reuben get in touch with “reality.” There had been, he said, a marked improvement in Reuben’s state of mind under care, and there was some comfort to be taken from the knowledge that he had enjoyed a short period of stability and general sanity before the end."

False as hell biography, item 2:

Some guys think I am like Reuben, in the sense of living mainly in what is invisible to others.

When I talk to absent people, it's usually neither angels nor demons, nor fairies, it's people I engaged intellectually or morally with, and am shadow boxing, bc social defeats smart.

GD

Hans-Georg Lundahl Once again, this thread has gone OFF-TOPIC. This discussion is about Wilson and Lewis, not psychiatry.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

he point was, Wilson was doing a very psychiatry like (in places) false biography.

Some of the errata Kathryn Lindskog noted are like the ones mental patients can note in their journals, if accessed, or in stray remarks : Freudian analyses of some known fact, contradicting facts known to person himself or to those knowing him.

// Unlike the irritatingly tolerant Protestants, Wilson takes smoking and drinking so seriously that he claims against all evidence that Lewis disliked nonsmokers: "Lewis was impatient with puritanism and disliked non-smokers or teetotallers." (Lewis's good friends Roger Lancelyn Green and George Sayer were both nonsmokers, and Lewis tried hard to quit but couldn't.) //

Against all evidence?

Not as shrinks look at it. Eustace Clarence Scrubb's parents are non-smokers tee-totallers and wear special underwear (and obviously have more businessmanlike than chivalrous moral ideals, as reflected in their son's upbringing).

They were deluding ECS about life, so presumably Lewis didn't approve of them ... =========> Lewis was impatient with puritanism and disliked non-smokers and teetotallers.

More correctly, he didn't approve of puritanism as a cause or non-smoking and tee-totalling as causes. He would probably not have approved of signs saying "smoking forbidden" all over nearly every public place either, even if he didn't quite approve of his habit.

But not approving of a cause and hating all espousing it is precisely the kind of thing a shrink WILL NOT distinguish, if triggered, and they are often that.

// Third, Wilson attacks C. S. Lewis's own portrayal of himself as a reasonably heathy-minded Christian. Wilson reduces Lewis's evangelizing Christianity to a crippled way of coping with life. He claims that Lewis's account of his boyhood frustration with prayer can't be true. Then in one of the most amazing passages in his book (on page 162), Wilson claims to have been considering for twenty years a June 1938 letter from Lewis to Owen Barfield that shows how warped Lewis's thinking was when he began defending Christianity. At that time, Wilson says, Lewis turned against innocent pleasures such as feeling the wind in your hair, walking with bare feet on the grass, and swimming in the rain: Lewis decided these activities were Nazi or would lead to homosexuality. Thus "one must also view with ambivalence his excursion into the realm of religious apologetics." Wilson slays his third strawman with a flourish, and makes C. S. Lewis look silly. //

// But as anyone can see by reading the passage in Letters, Lewis was reporting an idiocy that he overheard from two undergraduates, and he was horrified by it. //

Deciding what a patient thinks, and then presenting any evidence to the contrary as efforts to rationalise, overlooking text passages ... (or conversation snippets) ... they thrive off that business.

// A.N. Wilson substitutes his own ideological Freudian view of C. S. Lewis. Thus the real C. S. Lewis, he claims, was not a perpetual virgin, not a nonsmoker and nondrinker, and not the genuine Christian believer he wanted to be. He was instead a terrified Oedipal neurotic and a closet misanthrope. The Narnian wardrobe is a symbol of Flora Lewis's private parts. Surely it is disingenuous for a biographer to psychoanalyze an author this way without telling readers what that author wrote about such psychoanalyzing. //

I think the same about psychoanalyzing.

// The hero of this book is A.N Wilson, who quickly and easily sees through everything, and who winks at his readers because they are now in on the joke also. //

The hero of a shrink's journal is the shrink. If you have had to do with them, you can't miss the parallel.

// He even recounts what the obnoxiously drunk Lewis allegedly said to one of his drunken students at a urinal fifty years ago, without explaining how he could know such details it if it were true. //

Shrinks also are shady on theory of knowledge.

GD

You are slandering an entire group of people, some of whom may be in this group and watching you do it. If you don't stop, I'm getting the moderator involved. It's up to you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Fine, my point is they are excellent slanderers themselves, I am the first slander victim here.

I am living on the street bc slandered as an alcoholic, shrinks (or addictologists) and Muslims seem to be both involved.

I am presumed to be suicidal, bc I threatened suicide when I was half as old as I am now, in an attempt to commit emotional extortion against the gal I loved and had a rival about. Sure, I worked myself up as to be actually planning (hypothetically, should she refuse me) suicide, so as not to lie to her.

But I didn't do it, am not suicidal etc.

I defended myself against the slave hunt they commit by shooting at a policeman who was (against his better judgement, or what he had expressed as such) delivering me to them. This was 21 years ago. I already did time, for mistreatment alternatively attempt of unpremeditated manslaughter.

People are still poisoning my life about how I must have been unstable and they are waiting for me to become stable - with the criteria of shrinks.

I was yesterday given food I didn't need, while already enjoying a light supper, and the guy who gave it said "bon rétablissement", which I think is synonym for "bonne amélioration" or "get well soon" - supposing I had been ill.

As a consequence, when I was stopped from going back to sleep at before 2am, in the bank automat space, I stayed awake till past (I think) 4am.

My blogs are being read more in Ukraine (where men analysing CSL as Wilson did, or actually using Wilson, abound), than in Paris, where I am making publicity for my blogs as the busking.

And someone is telling people "ssshh" and "don't tell him, but don't read his blogs, you might get an unfavourable impression, he sometimes writes when he's in a bad mood" (a damned lie and complete literal truth at the same time, I am in a bad mood right now), or "we are studying his blogs as symptoms" or "in his own head he is a writer" (with 7000 articles on my blogs which are publilcly accessible, why shouldn't I be?)

So you tell ME that I am slandering MY SLANDERERS?

Just because the lines I just gave were realistic second guessing and not always overheard or directly told?

If I were for instance speaking on a FB back in the time of Wilberforce, would I be slandering slave traders?

* "And as a pastor and teacher, I cannot tell you how many times ..." => Brenton Dickieson is a pastor and teacher => not anonymised. ** This is where I made the post. The next comment of mine on that subthread (there are others) is the link to this post.

Mark Shea : For Kaepernick AND For Tebow

New blog on the kid : Citing Mark Shea on the Prejudice of Certain People he Considers as Racist · HGL's F.B. writings : Mark Shea : For Kaepernick AND For Tebow

Ty Barker

Admin

Shared:

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Not all of them.

I really don't think Mark Shea was against Tebowing.

I added

a link to the article On the Dumb Nike Flap

Ty Barker

Your comment has been removed because it violates Facebook’s Community Standards.

https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/integrity_authenticity/?hc_location=ufi

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Nous travaillons sans relâche pour limiter la diffusion de contenu commercial indésirable en vue d’éviter les publicités mensongères, les fraudes et les failles de sécurité qui empêchent les utilisateurs d’interagir et de partager l’esprit tranquille. Nous n’autorisons pas les utilisateurs à utiliser des informations trompeuses ou incorrectes en vue de recueillir des mentions J’aime, des abonnés ou des partages."

It was NOT a commercial.

NOR a fraud.

Your removal of it on that pretense was fraudulent.

II

Martin Brown

I've never even heard of this Tim bloke

Ty Barker

Tim Tebow is a Christian who used to play in the NFL. Liberals hated him, because he had a habit of taking a knee to give thanks to God for his success on the field. He wasn't protesting anything, he was simply expressing his faith. The same people who vilified him for expressing his faith by taking a knee to show respect for God are the same people who now lionize Kaepernick for taking a knee to disrespect police officers, the military and America in general.

Martin Brown

Ty Barker can we verifiably state "the same people"?

Ty Barker

Martin Brown Yes we can.

NewsBusters : Flashback: When Tebow Knelt
By Corinne Weaver | September 25, 2017 12:06 PM EDT
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/culture/corinne-weaver/2017/09/25/flashback-when-tebow-knelt

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"While the NFL outrage poured in on all fronts over the weekend, resulting in mass protests among football players that were heavily encouraged by both the media and liberal celebrities, it’s interesting to note that about six years ago, these same outlets bashed quarterback Tim Tebow for kneeling on the field in prayer."

You have NOT verified "the same people" since "these same outlets" in article refer to some media, which are not exhautsive of the ones who are for Kaepernick.

As I showed with the link to a Catholic blogger which Ty Barker FRAUDULENTLY pretended to remove in "obedience" to FB standards.

Mark Shea was certainly for Kaepernick, as shown by the article, but as certainly, since Catholic, for the right of Tebow to bow.

Unless you can show on Mark Shea's blog that he was not so.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Afterthought

I actually searched it, and found he was FOR Tebow:

Catholic and Enjoying It : What is “Christianism”?
December 13, 2011 By Mark Shea
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2011/12/what-is-christianism.html

"Those sorts of things (and similarly politicized stuff) could arguably be called “Christianism”: the conflation of a peculiar political agenda with the gospel. But Sullivan’s reason for seeing the telltale traits of Christianism in Tebow? He prays publicly. He’s overt about his faith. This discomfits Sullivan, whose own Irish Catholic pieties see this as Not the Done Thing. So Tebow is consigned to the circle of the Christianists. What then, is “Christianism”? Whatever a conservative Christian does, says, or thinks that Andrew Sullivan doesn’t like. Mystery solved."

AND HERE:

Jewish Writer Labors to Dispel Anti-Semitic Myth…
December 14, 2011 By Mark Shea
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2011/12/jewish-writer-labels-to-dispel-anti-semitic-myth.html

…that Jews are smarter than the rest of us; goes into full panic mode about Tim Tebow:

If Tebow wins the Super Bowl, against all odds, it will buoy his faithful, and emboldened faithful can do insane things, like burning mosques, bashing gays and indiscriminately banishing immigrants. While America has become more inclusive since Jerry Falwell​’s first political forays, a Tebow triumph could set those efforts back considerably.

What’s particularly delectable about this snobbish rant is that the author, apparently noticing the gales of laughter greeting him in this most Judeophilic nation of Gentiles on planet earth, has gone back and quietly excised this lunatic paranoid remark from his original piece. Unfortunately, he didn’t excise the whole piece.

In other words, Mark Shea, just shown to be for Kaepernick was also FOR Tebow, not against him.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

2 More Afterthoughts

i

On top of that, your article on Flasback was from September 25, 2017 - well before the Kaepernick affair, as far as I get it.

ij

Sorry, I seem to be wrong - in fact the Kaepernick affair was 2016 - and that was under Obama's mandate.

So, he was even protesting things which happened under Obama.

Ty Barker

Hans-Georg Lundahl Your link was removed because it said Trump had mocked a reporter for his disability. THAT IS FAKE NEWS.

Hans-Georg Lundahl Don't pick a fight with me Hans. First off, you’re not even an American, which means you’re not familiar enough with the Kaepernick controversy to give an informed opinion. Second, the same networks that eviscerated Tebow are indeed the same networks that are now praising Kaepernick. I never pretended to offer an “exhaustive” list, nor did I need too.

Tell you what Hans, I don’t make a habit of getting involved in the affairs of other countries, so why don’t you do Americans a favor and keep your uninformed opinions about what’s going on in our country to yourself? America is already being ripped apart by fascists like Kaepernick, so we don’t need outside help to make a bad situation worse.

Hans-Georg Lundahl On top of that, your article on Flasback was from September 25, 2017 - well before the Kaepernick affair, as far as I get it.

-----

And thank you for making my point that you’re not informed enough about this controversy to comment. Kaepernick first started protesting in August 14, 2017 and that article I referenced was published on September 25, 2017. Of course if you had taken time to read the article, you would know that the entire reason for the article was to contrast how leftist hypocrites in the media reacted to Tebow with how they reacted to Kaepernick.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

And if YOU had read my comment, you would have known I took issue with exactly one phrase of yours.

"are the same ones" - stated in a way not limited to leftist media.

Ergo, exactly ONE counterexample is enough to prove you wrong, and I provided one with Mark Shea.

Regardless of how little I could be informed about it in other respects.

"America is already being ripped apart by fascists like Kaepernick,"

That's meddling in Italian business.

Il Duce would be rolling over in his grave if he had overheard you comparing him to Kaepernick - since I just found out Kaepernick donated to a "pro-choice" (pro-death) so called "charity".

In his Italy, abortion with medical assistance was 2 to 5 years prison for both aborting mother and assisting medical personnel. Abortion wiithout that was 1 to 4 years.

I think you would owe Il Duce an apology for calling Kaepernick a fascist.

Ty Barker "Your link was removed because it said Trump had mocked a reporter for his disability. THAT IS FAKE NEWS."

Possible. If so, would you mind explaining the gif.

Also, while this might be fake news, it was a side issue on Mark Shea's rant against those who boycott Nike now.

Ty Barker "I don’t make a habit of getting involved in the affairs of other countries, so why don’t you do Americans a favor and keep your uninformed opinions about what’s going on in our country to yourself?"

You were a bit less eager to say things like that when I campaigned for releasing Kent Hovind, when he was still in prison, or when I supported NoBama.

Ty Barker

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Investors : Fake News: Trump Did Not Mock Disabled Reporter And Other Lies From The Left
KERRY JACKSON 1/17/2017
https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/fake-news-trump-did-not-mock-disabled-reporter-and-other-lies-from-the-left/

Hans-Georg Lundahl BTW even though that is a "side issue," if a site is spreading fake news like that about Trump, nothing it says can be trusted. Especially when it comes to defending anti-American communists like Kaepernick.

Hans-Georg Lundahl You were a bit less eager to say things like that when I campaigned for releasing Kent Hovind, when he was still in prison, or when I supported NoBama.

-----

There’s a difference between Christians supporting a fellow Christian who is being persecuted and getting involved in the politics of other countries. I may have opinions about Canada’s Prime Minister or Great Britain’s royal family, but I keep those opinions to myself and I wish people from other countries would show Americans the same courtesy. As a Christian, though, I would have definitely appreciated your prayers and support for Kent Hovind.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"The truth is, Trump has often used those same convulsive gestures to mimic the mannerisms of people, including himself, who are rattled and exasperated."

Noted.

"And here's another point: Why have we seen no images of Kovaleski moving the way Trump is moving? In every video and photograph of Kovaleski we've seen, he is calmly standing still with his right arm held firm against his chest. He's not waving his arms uncontrollably.

"Why would Trump imitate a man who has difficulty moving at least one of his limbs by madly thrashing his own?"

Noted.

Mark Shea, while not a liberal, is a bit too eager to find fault with Trump, so he could be a sucker for this kind of disinformation.

"if a site is spreading fake news like that about Trump, nothing it says can be trusted."

Mark Shea is a blogger. One man can have an error of judgement without being completely unreliable on all issues.

"There’s a difference between Christians supporting a fellow Christian who is being persecuted and getting involved in the politics of other countries. I may have opinions about Canada’s Prime Minister or Great Britain’s royal family, but I keep those opinions to myself and I wish people from other countries would show Americans the same courtesy. As a Christian, though, I would have definitely appreciated your prayers and support for Kent Hovind."

Well, I did.

Not so much praying, my prayer life is a bit lame, but writing in his favour.

As for Canada's prime minister, I happen to read one Canadian blogger, who called Trudeau a "fascist" and noted that was not quite correct with Mussolini's memory.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

(starting new thread)

If you have a real issue with Kaepernick, it should be this one:

LifeNews : Former NFL Player Colin Kaepernick Donates Thousands to Radical Pro-Abortion Group
Opinion Ryan Bomberger Sep 10, 2018 | 9:20AM Washington, DC
https://www.lifenews.com/2018/09/10/former-nfl-player-colin-kaepernick-donates-thousands-to-radical-pro-abortion-group/

Samuel Rivera

Is incredible. Individuals like that, (Mr. Kaepernick), are the "heroes or role model" of today's society. Some even wants to compare Mr. Kaepernick and his cause and values, with Mr.Tim Tebow...NO WAY...no way.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am sorry, but the comparison is over the right to be public, not over each stance each makes.

Ty Barker

Hans-Georg Lundahl Actually the point of this thread is that liberals are rank hypocrites. No one is saying a communist like Kaepernick doesn't have the right to make millions of dollars from America's capitalist system and then trash the system that has blessed him so much. We're just saying he, and the liberals who defend him after they eviscerated Tebow, are hypocrites.

Samuel Rivera

Hans-Georg Lundahl Mr. Kaepernick action, is like the "pandora box"...will open in minds the "van wagon effect" We do not need to disrespect our nation "soul".... And that is just reality 101. 🤔

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK, the point is a bit different from the wording.

Mark Shea is not democrat, he voted third party.

Samuel Rivera - I do not say his choice was necessarily good, but as far as Mark Shea's article is concerned, unlike the donation to some pro-death "charity", he had a point.

X had been charged with a crime he could not possibly have committed. Perhaps bc X was black. This is not quite what police are supposed to be doing. Kaepernick had some point in that.

Btw, the Pandora's box comparison is exactly what a liberal Jew made about Tebow, and what Mark Shea found exasperatingly dumb.

Stray comments on an article from Mises

Here is a link to the article:

Mises : Messianic Communism in the Protestant Reformation
10/30/2017 · Murray N. Rothbard
https://mises.org/library/messianic-communism-protestant-reformation

My comments after a friend posted the text on my wall:

Obviously, Munzer was a heretic as much as Luther.

Also, technically, this is not Medieval, but Early Modern Age (except by some fringe settings of limit).

[My friend had spoken about "Medieval Communism"]

"Most Anabaptists, like the Mennonites or Amish, became virtual anarchists. They tried to separate themselves as much as possible from a necessarily sinful state and society, and engaged in nonviolent resistance to the state’s decrees. The other route, taken by another wing of Anabaptists, was to try to seize power in the state and to shape up the majority by extreme coercion: in short, ultratheocracy."

Münzer came a few decades before Menno, precisely as the violent followers of Ziska came before the Moravian Brethren.

Pacifism and withdrawal were reactings to failure of revolution (as with Mormons who had a Califat like state in Utah, before it was beaten).

Kudos to Rothbart for citing Mgr Knox! [Later on]

"Müntzer was converted by the weaver and adept Niklas Storch, who had been in Bohemia, to the old Taborite doctrine that had flourished in Bohemia a century earlier."

Did not know this connection.

Taborites = followers of Ziska.

So Hus is not just responsible for Moravians and Methodists, but also for Mennonites and Amish - did not know.

"Furthermore, marriage was to be prohibited, and each man was to be able to have any woman at his will."

Reminds me both of feminism (which rules in Sweden) and of 1 Tim 4:1-3!

Debate with a Pyrrhonist (part I?)

Adam Joseph

[excerpt from :
http://www.ldolphin.org/geocentricity/Aspects.pdf
and from http://www.freelists.org/post/geocentrism/more-to-reflect-on-2,
I am sure he intended no plagiarism. In the following, GEO and AC refer to debaters Geocentric and A-Centric. I presume first debater is GEO, but do not add it.]

Attempts to provide scientific proof that Earth rotates &-or orbits

Some basic physics

What is the Sagnac effect? It is the result of an experiment that showed the earth to be in some type of movement against another substance. The “movement” is termed “rotation” and the substance is some aether-type medium that scientists had discarded when Einstein developed his Relativity in 1905. (Thus, we can see why Einstein would have ignored Sagnac’s results). But although Einstein neglected its results, other scientists did not, including the author of the article in Physics Today (May 2002). How does the author account for the Sagnac effect? By using the same Relativistic “transformations” that he told us he wasn’t going to use in a previous paragraph! This is what he writes:

The Sagnac effect also occurs if an atomic clock is moved slowly from one reference station on the ground to another...Observers at rest on the ground, seeing these same asymmetric effects, attribute them instead to gravitomagnetic effects – that is to say, the warping of space-time due to spacetime terms in the general-relativistic metric tensor... (Ibid., p. 44).

Clear as mud, right? This is the kind of ‘begging the question’ mumbo-jumbo you see often in theoretical physics of the Relativity variety. What he just said, in case you missed it is, although Relativity cannot account for the Sagnac effect, we are still going to attribute the discrepancies in GPS calculations to Relativistic effects, namely, the warping of “spacetime due to spacetime terms in the general-relativistic metric tensor.” You see, he is locked into a system that doesn’t give him the answers he needs, but since he doesn’t want to admit that they could all be answered by assuming a stationary earth and a revolving aether-type medium, then he will continue to push Relativity as the answer; and all his readers will bob their heads up and down and confirm his gospel, as they have done since 1905.

The author more or less admits the effects of these unanswered questions when in one of his final paragraphs he writes: “Historically, there has been much confusion about properly accounting for relativistic effects. And it is almost impossible to discover how different manufacturers go about it!”

Ah, yes, and now we can see why there is so much confusion, because no one knows what the heck they are doing! They know their Relativity equations are just fudge factors to explain the things they simply cannot understand under the scenario of a moving earth. Yet they have the audacity to borrow non-moving or “Earth-fixed” equations in order to give the appearance that an Earth in Relativity works! Now you wonder why I’m on the warpath with Geocentricity?

One more thing before I leave this topic. The difference between the Geocentric and Heliocentric concept is important, for one of the major flaws in modern heliocentric theory is the failure to account for the effect of the stars on all the motions we see. Modern science has virtually dismissed the effect of forces from the stars, and instead has based its solar cosmology almost entirely on the so-called “centrifugal effects” created by the planets in motion. But this is inevitable, since once you posit that the stars are “fixed” (as modern cosmology does) then the only thing you have left to determine why solar and terrestrial objects move in the rotational paths they do is by the supposed centrifugal effect. And thus, all of the modern heliocentric physics seeking to understand rotational motion is based on a fictitious force, which is not very comforting for anyone wishing to have solid answers for why things work the way they do.

Proof lacking for rotation & orbiting

AC

Assume that the Earth does not rotate about its own axis. (This is the assertion to be disproved.) Since the Earth does not rotate about its own axis, and since we see the heavenly bodies traversing the sky each night, we therefore conclude that the heavenly bodies rotate about the earth.

Since we see the heavenly bodies in roughly the same positions from night to night (e.g. at 10 PM Jupiter is at about the same place as it was last night at 10 PM.) we therefore conclude that the heavenly bodies rotate about the Earth with a period of roughly twenty-four hours. (Here – in order to keep the math simple – we assume a circular orbit for the heavenly bodies and a period of exactly twenty-four hours.) Since any given heavenly body traverses a circle about the Earth in twenty-four hours, and since the circumference of that circle is 2*pi*r (r being the distance from Earth to the body) the velocity of the body will be (2*pi*r)/(24 hours). It can be shown (You’ll trust me on the math, I hope. I’ll submit it if you insist.) that any body orbiting the Earth at a distance of more than 4.125x10^12 metres (a couple AU less than the distance between here & Neptune) must be travelling at more than 3.0x10^8 metres per second.

Since Neptune & the further bodies can be shown to be traveling at more than 3.0x10^8 metres per second, and since 3.0x10^8 metres per second is the speed of light in a vacuum, and since no material body may travel at or above the speed of light in a vacuum we are faced with an absurdity. And we can therefore conclude that our initial assertion is false.

Since we have shown it to be false that the Earth does not rotate about its own axis, we can infer that it does.

Much to my horror I have discovered that I have left a clarifying point out of my proof; i.e. my proof – at least the way I’ve worded it – applies only to those heavenly bodies in the Zodiac. Those would be the sun, the planets, with the exception of Pluto, and the fixed stars in the Zodiac. The same argument could be applied to the other stars in the sky, but the math would be different, so I won’t include them here.

GEO

What you postulate as proof of a rotating and revolving earth does not prove it at all. First, you assume a few things as proven which have not in fact been proven. One is your assumption that the speed of light (I assume in a vacuum) is constant, either here or anywhere else in the universe.

Second, you assume that the planets (and in your second letter, the stars) themselves travel at or beyond the conventional speed of light in order to complete their journey. Let me explain both of these issues by starting with a little history of physics.

In 1887, Michelson and Morley did an experiment to detect any difference in the speed of light between north-south travel and east-west travel. A difference in speed was expected because they assumed that the Earth was orbiting the Sun in a stationary aether. From our perspective on Earth, the aether would blow past us like a wind in an east-west direction. Michelson and Morley reasoned that we should notice changes in the speed of light in east-west travel, but fixed speed in north-south travel. The experiment failed to measure any difference in speed, no matter when and where they tried it. Scientists were baffled.

Rather than admitting the possibility that the earth was stationary with respect to the aether, scientists dispensed with aether and claimed that the speed of light was constant. In fact, the speed of light was claimed to be the only constant in the universe, whereas mass, length, distance, time, and anything else became relative. This became know as the Relativity theory. But all the Michelson-Morley experiment showed was that aether wind was either too small to measure or was non-existent. Michelson and Morley, however, demonstrated nothing about the constancy of the speed of light through space.

Added to this is the experiment performed by Georges Sagnac. A writer for Physics Today writes:

“One of the most confusing relativistic effects – the Sagnac effect – appears in rotating reference frames. (See Physics Today, October 1981, page 20) … Observers in the non-rotating ECI inertial frame would not see a Sagnac effect. Instead, they would see that receivers are moving while a signal is propagating ... Correcting for the Sagnac effect in the Earth-fixed frame is equivalent to correcting for such receiver motion in the ECI frame...”

Yes, the author is right. It is “confusing.” Unfortunately for him, the reason it is “confusing” is that Relativity has never explained the Sagnac effect, found by Georges Sagnac in 1913, nor its follow-up experimental verification performed by Michelson-Gale-Pearson in 1925. In fact, according to Dean Turner in The Einstein Myth and the Ives Papers, he writes:

I pause to note that one may scan Einstein’s writings in vain to find mention of the Sagnac or Michelson-Gale experiments. The same can be said of general physics textbooks and of the 1971 McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology... Such an oversight in these distinguished encyclopedias constitutes a stinging indictment of professional scientific reporting. (p. 44).

Why were they not mentioned in Einstein’s writings? Simple. Because they give experimental evidence for the falsity of Relativity theory. Einstein not only did this with Sagnac and Michelson-Gale, he also did it with Joos, Ives, Miller, Kennedy-Thorndike, and many other scientists who questioned or rejected his theory based on the results of their verified experiments.

What is the Sagnac effect? It is the result of an experiment that showed the earth to be in some type of movement against another substance. The “movement” is termed “rotation” and the substance is some aether-type medium that scientists had discarded when Einstein developed his Relativity in 1905. (Thus, we can see why Einstein would have ignored Sagnac’s results). But although Einstein neglected its results, other scientists did not, including the author of the article in Physics Today (May 2002).

The Michelson-Gale experiment of 1925 [A. A. Michelson and H. Gale, “The effect of the Earth’s Rotation on the Velocity of Light,” The Astrophysical Journal, Vol LXI, No. 3, April 1925, pp. 137-145] measured a difference in the speed of light at two different latitudes. He concluded that the aether-wind speed changed with latitude due to the rotation of the Earth in a stationary aether. (This is because the radius of rotation decreases with increasing latitude). This experiment disproves the constancy of the speed of light assumption and provides adequate evidence for the existence of the aether, just as Georges Sagnac found. Dalton Miller did even more comprehensive studies to confirm these results. There is quite a collection of letters between Einstein and Miller in which the former is trying to persuade the latter not to put credit in the results.

Heliocentrists might be tempted to say that Michelson-Gale provides “proof” of the rotation of the Earth, but that would be presumptuous. The only thing Michelson-Gale provided for us is that either the Earth is moving with respect to an aether, or the aether is moving against a stationary Earth.

Not only did Sagnac and Michelson-Gale show the possibility of aether, but an experiment performed by Carl Anderson in 1932 showed another anomaly to Relativity theory. Relativity theory postulated that space was a vacuum – nothing existed between the heavenly bodies. But Carl Anderson showed that a 1.02 million electron volt charge distributed anywhere in space produced a free positron and electron. When the 1.02 Mev was reapplied, the positron and electron disappeared. Einstein’s explanation of this phenomenon was that matter was created and then annihilated. (This may have been where today’s scientists postulate that the universe began from the singularity [“nothingness”] of the Big Bang). Rather than reason that space was filled with positron-electron pairs, in order to save his Relativity theory, Einstein maintained that matter was created and destroyed.

So how could the planets and stars revolve around the Earth each day if the Earth is fixed in space? One of the more cogent explanations is that the planets, sun and stars themselves are not moving; rather, they are all embedded in a medium that itself rotates once every 24 hours. This medium would contain the so-called aether or even the Anderson positron-electron pairs, and as some rightly hold, particles in the Planck dimensions. In fact, Hans Thirring, famous for the Lense-Thirring effect, found that for a rotating shell of matter, the interior field of the shell is similar to the field in a rotating system of coordinates, leading to gravitational forces similar to the centrifugal and Coriolis effects in the Heliocentric system.

The constitution of the rotating medium would be that coincident with the Planck dimensions found in black holes. Modern science is familiar with such mediums. For example, in The Very Early Universe (Gibbons, et al, 1983) astrophysicist Markov defines the particle he calls the “maximon,” which possesses the 10 to the 94th grams per cubic centimeter associated with Planck dimensions.

Also noteworthy in this respect is the work of Dr. Robert Moon, Chicago University physicist, who in his article “Space Must Be Quantized,” shows that the prevailing theory that space is a vacuum is not supported by the evidence. The reason? Because space has an impedance of at least 376 ohms, something not predicted or accounted for in conventional science, but coincident with the spatial mediums of Geocentric understanding. Princeton’s John Wheeler is credited with being the first to describe what is now called “spacetime foam.” This is Wheeler’s theory that space is occupied by ultra-dense particles. Stephen Hawking has postulated something similar. Both Wheeler’s and Hawking’s “foam” reasons that the particles are at Planck dimensions. Thus, this is not something confined only to Geocentric scientists. In an article by J. P. Vigier, “De Broglie Waves on Dirac Aether” in 1980, he writes: “Since Dirac’s pioneer work it has been known that Einstein’s relativity theory (and Michelson’s experiment) are perfectly compatible with an underlying relativistic stochastic [read aether] model.”

In fact, the 3 degree Kelvin radiation discovered by Pensias and Wilson is not the remnants of the Big Bang at all, but is more likely the subatomic vibration inherent in this Dirac aether or Wheeler-Hawking “foam.”

Moreover, Vigier’s work, along with colleague Petroni, published “Causal Superluminal Interpretation of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox” in Physical Review Letters in 1981. He reports the existence of faster-than-light interactions between an atomic beam of calcium and krypton ion laser, and shows that these are best explained by the stochastic model of space (i.e., aether) rather than the vacuum of conventional physics. There are many other scientists and experiments that could be mentioned to support these findings. Just recently (2001), Princeton scientists showed that a pulse of laser light traveled through cesium vapor at 310 times the distance it traveled in a vacuum.

To rotate this spherical body within 24 hours, we can suppose that there is a massive shell at the outer limits providing sufficient gravity to pull the Sun and the stars in their orbits. The aether, like water in a spinning bucket, would rotate along with the universe. Hence, to those inside the shell, there would be no way to measure the rotation; the entire frame of reference would be pulled around by the rotating shell. This concept is not a novelty. It is known in conventional physics as “frame pulling” or “frame dragging,” and was discovered by Einstein, Lense and Thirring, and remains an area of active research. A rotating inertial frame of reference would abide by Kepler’s laws of planetary motion, as well as explain the rotating Foucault pendulum, centrifugal and Coriolis forces.

In fact, a rotating universe would explain something that conventional science cannot explain. It is known by scientists that, in order to account for the so-called expanding universe theory, sufficient matter is needed. But scientists have found only 1% of the matter needed. To compensate for this, Einstein (again to save Relativity theory) created his “Cosmological Constant” – a fudge factor to allow the universe to keep expanding. Today scientists account for the missing matter by referring to it as Dark Matter, but they haven’t found it yet. I guess it must really be “dark.” :) The concept of a rotating universe deals quite nicely with this issue. The less mass the better. And the mass that is present does not collapse in on itself because the centrifugal force (which is a real force in a Geocentric model) causes the heavenly bodies to move outward in just the right balance to compensate for the pull of gravity inward. Hence the mass of the universe (the “1%” conventional science has found) and the spin of the universe (24 hour cycle) is enough to achieve equilibrium.

As for faster-than-light action, the rotating universe would have stars traveling in excess of the speed of light, since with respect to the rotating aether, the stars are not moving and there is no difficulty of exceeding the local speed of light.

Moreover, in 1955, the astronomer Van de Hulst writes: “In 1930, astronomers discovered with some shock that as the light of stars passes through certain regions of interstellar space it is dimmed and scattered in various directions... If there was indeed an interstellar haze which dimmed the light of distant stars or made them altogether invisible, then many of their calculations of star distances were wrong. Further studies proved that the fear was justified. Starlight passing through the crowded regions of our galaxy loses roughly half its energy by absorption and scattering in every two thousand light years of travel. As a result, even with our most powerful telescopes, we cannot see the center of our galaxy...Beyond about six thousand light years from our observing station most or our studies of the galaxy are literally lost in the fog.” In 1981, the astronomer Baugher wrote: “Much of the galaxy is...hidden from our view, making the study of its structure quite difficult.” There are many other statements like these from astronomers. I think it is also noteworthy to point out that conventional physics and astronomy also have problems with the speed of light. For example, Hubble’s Constant was formulated (H = 100 km/s/mega-parsec) based on the proportionality of the red-shift to the distance of the star. The problem, of course, came in when telescopes were able to see beyond 50 giga-parsecs, which would require the galaxies to be receding at many times the speed of light. Then when telescopes were able to see to 500 gigaparsecs, this means that the galaxies would have to be receding at hundreds of times the speed of light. Thus, something is obviously wrong with the whole concept. This evidence certainly doesn’t lend itself to making the conventional wisdom of Heliocentrism sacrosanct by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, things work much better in the Geocentric model.

End of

Status of Adam Joseph

Berj Manoushagian

All motion is relative.

Any insistence on absolute motion is evidence that the nature of motion has not been understood.

The fact is that we do not even know what the word 'motion' means except in relative terms.

Why are we looking for absolutes in a universe that is nothing but relative in its nature?

In the future please be kind to your readers when posting such a long and technical post to remove unnecessary line returns and add appropriate spaces between paragraphs.

You cannot expect your post to be read when you are torturing your readers.

[The excerpt looked less nice on FB, with too many line breaks.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"All motion is relative."

Say you.

"Any insistence on absolute motion is evidence that the nature of motion has not been understood."

Say you.

"The fact is that we do not even know what the word 'motion' means except in relative terms."

In terms that are indeed relative, but refer to absolutes like place and time.

"Why are we looking for absolutes in a universe that is nothing but relative in its nature?"

That is a very vast assessment of the universe. In fact, unless you state "relative to the true absolute God" even false.

...

"In the future please be kind to your readers when posting such a long and technical post to remove unnecessary line returns and add appropriate spaces between paragraphs. ... You cannot expect your post to be read when you are torturing your readers."

Adam Joseph, in order to edit, you can first click edit, of course, then click caps+return at same time (since "return" only gives "end of edit" instead).

Meanwhile, I will copy onto a notepad, and think that Berj could have done so too.

Berj Manoushagian

[first gives three quotes with sources like AUTHORITY on philosophy.]

Quote I

- "Our primitive notion may have been that to know absolutely where we are, and in what direction we are going, are essential elements of our knowledge as conscious beings.

But this notion, though undoubtedly held by many wise men in ancient times, has been gradually dispelled from the minds of students of physics.

There are no landmarks in space; one portion of space is exactly like every other portion, so that we cannot tell where we are. We are, as it were, on an unruffled sea, without stars, compass, soundings, wind, or tide, and we cannot tell in what direction we are going. We have no log which we can cast out to take a dead reckoning by; we may compute our rate of motion with respect to the neighbouring bodies, but we do not know how these bodies may be moving in space."

Source

James Clerk Maxwell; (1831-1879); Matter and Motion; 1877/1920; p81

Quote II

"… relative to the earth the stars are in motion. We therefore need to know first of all what is meant by ‘real motion’… it turns out that we cannot quite say what is meant by it… the question whether the earth is really moving but not the stars or the other way around does not make any sense…"

Source

Hans Hahn; (1879-1934); Empiricism, Logic and Mathematics; 1933/1980; p48

[Also cited in his own highly Pyrrhonistic web cite.]

Quote III

"… the problem of motion remains unsolved.

The reason is that we do not know what motion is. We have no concept of motion. We have nothing clearly in mind when we use the word. We simply do not know what we are talking about.

Perhaps motion, and science along with it, is just nonsense."

Source

Gordon Clark; (1902-1985); The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God; 1966; p19

Berj Manoushagian

[in his own words again]

If you try to philosophize about science without knowing anything about the philosophy of science, you are going to fail.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The problem is that the philosophy of science is wrong, and you have JUST right now shown how James Clerk Maxwell, Hans Hahn and Gordon Clark bungle it, due to a false philosophy, which is largely due to Heliocentrism or rather Acentrism.

The quotes are not completely useless.

If we accept Geocentrism, which makes sense since it is a prima facie view of the universe, as long as this is not positively disproven, there is indeed a landmark, and we are standing on it (in my case in front of the computer, sitting).

Berj Manoushagian

Hans-Georg, when you insist on 'centrism' you make yourself less and less relevant.

To be able to tell where the center of a three-dimensional object is, we need to know the shape of that object.

No one knows the shape of the universe. We do not even know if 'shape' has any meaning when applied to the universe.

You have dismissed philosophy as useless, but you have not given a reason in support of your view. You need to study philosophy of science, because that is what you are trying to tackle, but you do not realize it.

[I have not dismissed "philosophy" as useless, but "the philosophy of science". One philosophy among many, and not the best one.]

GC can be used as a working model, but when you insist that it is the only correct view and that HC is somehow false, you have shown that you do not understand the nature of motion.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

First off, I don't care about your ideas about how to be relevant. Next, some argumental points:

"To be able to tell where the center of a three-dimensional object is, we need to know the shape of that object."

With Geocentrism, Universe needs to be a globe, whether flattened or drawn out towards poles of heaven. At least it must look that way in the rotation, whether a still would make it a globe or not.

The actual point of "Geocentrism" is not "knowing where the centre of the universe is", but simply to take what looks like being still as still, what looks like moving as moving.

"No one knows the shape of the universe. We do not even know if 'shape' has any meaning when applied to the universe."

That is what you conclude as an atheistic Acentric.

"GC can be used as a working model, but when you insist that it is the only correct view and that HC is somehow false, you have shown that you do not understand the nature of motion."

Or that I consider your understanding as a false one, which I refuse to share however well I should ever understand it.

You promote a site which says this, right?

// 1- The Triumvirate of human wisdom has been found wanting:

a- There is no truth in Mathematics
b- There is no truth in Science
c- There is no truth in Logic //

False on all three counts and Kantian heresy (or errors or apostasy or whatever the canonical qualification), and probably also directly condemned as heresy in Vatican Council of 1869 / 1870.

Berj Manoushagian

"With Geocentrism, Universe needs to be a globe, "

This says it all Hans-Georg.

Your cosmology is based on wishful thinking.

You do nothing but dismiss valid criticism, because you have nothing in support of your fantasy.

"condemned as heresy in Vatican Council of 1869 / 1870."

That is your source of certainty???

Are you kidding me??

You need to get a basic philosophy book and start at the beginning.

You are wasting your time and efforts on a useless topic.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Berj Manoushagian "You do nothing but dismiss valid criticism, because you have nothing in support of your fantasy."

Except of course the universal testimony of human senses, with very few exceptions that were sent into space.

You have done nothing to show your criticism in any way "valid".

"That is your source of certainty???"

I am a Catholic. Not a Pagan. Not a Jew. Not a Heretic.

"You need to get a basic philosophy book and start at the beginning."

If you mean Kant or Descartes, I consider their philosophy deeply flawed, especially Kant.

If you mean schoolbooks, they owe way too much to Kant and Descartes, and not nearly enough to St Thomas Aquinas.

"You are wasting your time and efforts on a useless topic."

I have not asked YOUR advise on how to spend my life.