What is Spam?

Vous ne pouvez pas utiliser cette URL.
Cette URL va à l’encontre de nos Standards de la communauté en matière de spam :
notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com
Pour protéger les utilisateurs de Facebook de tout contenu indésirable, nous n’autorisons pas les contenus comportant ce type d’URL.

It can be noted, this is exactly the blog on which I do general Christian Apologetics, and on which my previous to today's post was a defense of Holy Trinity.

It can also be noted, the FB team in France includes a Muslim of fairly rigorist type. If you add together rigorist attitudes against Christianity and an allowance for Taqqiyya in relation to other religions, you can get why such a man would want to stamp this blog as spam./HGL

PS:

Comment nous prenons des décisions
Nous appliquons les mêmes Standards de communauté dans le monde entier et pour tout le monde sur Facebook.
Nous avons recours à la technologie ou à une équipe d’examen pour supprimer le plus vite possible tout ce qui va à l’encontre de nos standards.
Chaque région du monde a ses propres équipes d’examen formées aux standards.

It just so happens that the French team includes a Muslim. And I don't mean the suave type./HGL

Nos Standards de la communauté
Nous n’autorisons pas la publication de liens trompeurs ou mensongers.
À savoir :
• les sites web adeptes du spam en pop-up ;
• les sites web se faisant passer pour des marques connues ;
• les sites web trompeurs ;
• les URL précédemment publiées par des comptes suspects.

A normal non-aligned, secular, in such a team would not consider Christian apologetics as a fraudulent or lying link.

When it comes to pop up, it is the mode of publication on FB which makes the link clicked pop up.

I do not pretend to be a known trade mark.

I do not cheat - but certain rabid Muslims might not get this when it comes to someone defending Holy Trinity.

My site certainly has already been published by a suspect account, namely my own, which has a few times over been "suspect", but that kind of procedure simply means "we silence whom we want to silence" - step one, make my account suspect, step two, stop me from publishing my own links because my account has been suspect, and probably step three, make my account suspect again, because I just tried to publish a link falling under this rule/HGL

Oh, when it comes to pop-ups, if it's pop-ups in a session of someone seeing the link, it is easy to hack a session with pop-ups so someone can pretend to have detected that my site spreads them./HGL

Four Corners and Firmament

From the group Catholic Cosmology and Geocentrism. Starting with my status on St. George's Day.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

status

April 23 2021

This has really nothing to do with Geocentrism per se, but with a very recurrent strawman. Like "are you flat earth too".

Now, one version of the strawman would be, "if you are geocentric bc of the Bible, you'd have to be flat earth bc of the Bible".

Now, one of the arguments about Bible being flat earth are two "four corners" passages in Apocalypse (7 and 20).

Now, the answer would be fairly obvious to someone having any familiarity with tsit-tsit. The things Pharisees were too long, but probably in the right place, the four corners of their clothing.

Clothes do not lie flat on the ground when you wear them, and they still have four corners. Ergo, the four corners are corners of something on an earth which very well may be (and according to Magellan, Elcano and some more is, I'd nearly forgot Mike Horn here too) a globe.

Since there is no actual argument from the Bible to Flat Earth, the arguments from the Bible to Geocentrism stand.

I

Mil Sneler

Four corners would denote square earth, because circle doesn’t have corners

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mil Sneler Or square or rectangular something else, like continents.

II

GB

The Flat Earth “movement” is a hoax intended to confuse the ignorant and discredit geocentrism by association.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

GB Possible.

Not all of them, though.

III

BRC

Have you read Genesis? Lol. Lots of Firmament and Flat Earth in just the first chapter. I’m not a FE proponent, but there is undeniable scripture support for FE.

Mil Sneler

BRC Do you have any examples?

BRC

Mil Sneler basically most of the first chapter is contrary to anything but a FE model- but this ones pretty good. And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters. Genesis 1:6 -

Alex Naszados

Admin

What Does the Bible Teach about The Flat Earth? | Robert Sungenis Live - Jan. 13, 2021
14.I.2021 | The Frontline TV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHX1NGnUFC8

Mil Sneler

BRC Why is that verse flat earth? I don’t see it. I understand it as creating dry land or what we would say continents.

BRC

Mil Sneler Ok. How about this then. And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so. Genesis 1:7 -

Mil Sneler

BRC Explain how is this talking about flat earth? Seems like there’s water above the ground and below the ground?

BRC

Mil Sneler the firmament is 100% not land. Thank you. God also said: Let the waters that are under the heaven, be gathered together into one place: and let the dry land appear. And it was so done. And God called the dry land, Earth; and the gathering together of the waters, he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. Genesis 1:9-10 -

Mil Sneler

BRC So what is firmament and how does it feature in flat earth? God created a man and he called him Adam.

Alex Naszados

Admin

Robert Sungenis' book on this includes an entire chapter on the firmament, along with his exhaustive biblical exegesis. You can get the PDF for only $10:

Dr. Robert Sungenis Theologian, Catholic Apologist, Scripture Scholar
https://www.robertsungenis.org/p/store.html?#!/Flat-Earth-Flat-Wrong-PDF-Download/p/155482001

GB

BRC Here the Haydock biblical commentary on what firmament means:
«Ver. 6. A firmament. By this name is here understood the whole space between the earth and the highest stars. The lower part of which divideth the waters that are upon the earth, from those that are above in the clouds. Ch. — The Heb. ‘Rokia’ is translated ‘stereoma,’ ‘solidity’ by the Sept., and ‘expansion’ by most of the moderns. The heavens are often represented as a tent spread out, Psalm. ciii. 3. C.
Ver. 7. Above the firmament and stars, according to some of the Fathers; or these waters were vapours and clouds arising from the earth, and really divided from the lower waters contained in the sea. C.»

Mil Sneler

GB So nobody knows what firmament is? So many ideas about it. Which one is correct?

Alex Naszados

Admin

One of the most interesting and informative chapters of Dr Sungenis' book (which I link above) is the chapter on the firmament. He addresses literally all of the available commentaries and has the advantage of a full knowledge of the original Greek.
If cost is an issue, you can get the PDF for only $10.
Here is a small sample from the chapter in question (the whole chapter is 65 pages):
<<Since Genesis does not say the firmament is a dome above a flat earth, then what is it? This is actually easier to answer than it has been purported to be. We read in Genesis 1:6-9 that:
1. the firmament is synonymous with the heavens (Gn 1:8: “and God called the firmament heaven”);
2. that the sun, moon and stars are placed “in” the firmament; and
3. that birds fly “in” the firmament.
The only way for these three criteria to be fulfilled is to understand the firmament is simply the constitution of space. We look up and see that the heavens are filled with a lot of space. We see the celestial bodies reside in that space. Lower, towards the earth, we see the birds flying in the same space. There is nothing but space. As it stands, we do not see birds flying “in” a dome and we do not see celestial bodies “in” a dome. If one wants to use “dome” as the translation for the Hebrew raqiya, he can only say that birds and stars exist underneath a dome, but they are not, as the text of Genesis 1 specifies, “in” the raqiya (a very important point we will address later).
If one then argues that the raqiya also includes all the spatial area from the surface of the Earth to the outside layer of a dome a few thousand miles above the Earth, he has created two opposing definitions for the raqiya: (1) the raqiya is a hard and thin semispherical dome a few thousand miles above the Earth, yet (2) the raqiya is also the few thousand miles of space between Earth and the dome. This is a contradiction, and when there is a contradiction then at least one of the two premises are wrong. Either the raqiya is space or it is a dome, but it cannot be both.>>

Mil Sneler

Alex Naszados I have looked bunch of translations of where the birds are flying in relation to this firmament, some fly below the face of the firmament, some fly in the firmament, some fly under the firmament.

Alex Naszados I think firmament must be everything above the earth. Sky , space, heavens.

Alex Naszados

Admin

Mil Sneler Just like there are three heavens (sky, space and the Empyrean). So then it would be correct to say the birds fly in and under at the same time.

Mil Sneler

Alex Naszados I checked some other languages and firmament is translated in those as air space or expanse of space.

Alex Naszados We know the birds fly through the sky and we know there is water in the sky.

BRC

Mil Sneler not sure. Flat Earth people assert that it’s a dome.

Mil Sneler

BRC I don’t know why it has to be dome?

BRC

Mil Sneler me either.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

BRC "Firmament and Flat Earth"
Firmament, yes: http://drbo.org/chapter/01001.htm
[6] And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters. [7] And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so. [8] And God called the firmament, Heaven; and the evening and morning were the second day.
Flat Earth, didn't see any ...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mil Sneler Haydock comment:
"By this name is here understood the whole space between the earth and the highest stars. The lower part of which divideth the waters that are upon the earth, from those that are above in the clouds. Ch." = Challoner.
Not a flat earther.
Now, it so happens, I would agree on where the firmament is, and while I think aether is everywhere in all of the universe between atomic nuclei and as locus for both light and vectors, I also believe that the part between earth and fix stars including their level, but below the Empyraean heaven where God's throne is, in Heavenly Jerusalem, is "solidified" in so far as it turns _together,_ one full circle around earth every 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4 seconds. Lower heavenly bodies than the fix stars, like Sun, Moon and other planets are moved by angels backward through their (sometimes shifting since sunrelated) levels of the firmament, meaning they take longer each day and make some period longer than they day.

Multiverse - senseless, just erroneous, or possible under circumstances?

Alex Naszados

shared a link.

Admin

MIND MATTERS : WE DON’T LIVE IN A MULTIVERSE BECAUSE THE CONCEPT MAKES NO SENSE
https://mindmatters.ai/2021/02/we-dont-live-in-a-multiverse-because-the-concept-makes-no-sense/

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The concept actually does make sense, since bishop Tempier condemned the thesis that God could not create multiple words.

Rick DeLano

Bishop Tempier has not the faintest idea of what the multiverse is, and neither, apparently, do you, Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mil Sneler

Hans-Georg Lundahl Why not?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

• 1) I suppose that "multiverse" (modern sense) means that any given universe splits in two as soon as there is any actual binary choice, like one universe where I am now writing this and one where I didn't log in;
• 2) If God could handle any given number of universes, He could obviously handle this too.

I don't mean He would, I don't mean He does, but I do mean that while the concept is superbly superfluous, it is not something like circles not being round.

Rick DeLano

It also means that Jesus Christ did not go to the cross in an infinity of worlds.

It would have been better if you had remained ignorant,

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It is certainly false, but it is not senseless. There is a distinction between the two, you know.

The sentence is also ambiguous - there are infinite worlds of which it is true that Christ did not go to the cross in each of them (and also an infinity where He did) and ours is not one of them OR for each world what happened in it determines what is true for all worlds, so "an infinity of worlds in which Christ did not go to the cross in our world" would be very definitely false.

Rick DeLano

Every word you typed above is both false, and senseless.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I do not see the point of this animosity. If it is supposed to be about orthodoxy, first of all, I don't think you have any kind of doctrinal decision that the multiverse is impossible to God. It might be said you could have one against it being fact, in the decisions against Giordano Bruno.

In fact, with God as creator, God can chose between all the different universes in the multiverse, which He prefers to give actual reality to, leaving some of the others to poets and thinkers and most of a complete infinity to non-actualisation.

Without God, a multiverse would be an answer about freedom, as opposed to determinism, but will not serve the atheists as they like. A multiverse will not allow big bang cosmogeny, will not allow abiogenesis, will not allow apes evolving into men (even if it were otherwise remotely possible) to invent language.

None of the worlds would string together a sequence of events in which chemicals gave rise to life or in which creatures descended from apes and inheriting their way of communication would, if human, invent language.

But with God, there is a possibility of someone making an active choice between possible universes as He creates one, and the multiverse becomes, if considered as actual, superfluous.

However, if considered as only potential, an infinity of unrealised universes, it is obliging to the infinite knowledge of God, since what there is to know about the actual universe we live in is finite.

Do you receive your sacraments on FSSPX precincts? I used to be FSSPX, but they have now both seemed too keen on compromising with Evolutionism here in Paris, putting YEC down to Kent Hovind, and been too eager to show off orthodoxy by hasty condemnations without considering what is being said, at least if I am to go by how they have dealt with my writings.

Rick DeLano

To conflate the potential with the actual is the very essence of the multiverse error.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

In the case of a Theist, there is a God to make a choice.

For an atheist, this is not so, and it would seem to be an error preferrable to determinism within the one universe.

Rick DeLano

It is so whether the atheist believes it or not.

It is an error to conflate the potential with the actual whether one [is] an atheist or not.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

However, as God can create as many worlds as He likes, we cannot consider an actual multiverse for instance a contradiction in terms, unless you mean it to include things a good God could not allow.

We can consider it in fact a non-fact, but it is not senseless.

Rick DeLano

It is both a non-fact (it is a falsehood), and it is senseless, in that it consists precisely in the conflation of the potential with the actual.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Error and senselessness are not the same.

This conflation has worse results when it conflates potential, actual AND necessary and therefore actual and necessary, in the more classic version of Atheism.

We are not likely to see any more centuries, but if we did, multiverse would be the kind of bag end from which Atheists might start to slowly recover.

Multiverse at least admits that things in this world are not necessary single results of factors going back to the beginning of time.

Rick DeLano

The multiverse is a senseless error.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

How do you distinguish that from saying "that the first cause cannot make many worlds"?

As this is sentence 34 condemned by Bishop Tempier of Paris (where we have only had Archbishops since 1622) on Laetare Sunday early 1277 (later 1276, as they divided years).

Think about it to tomorrow!

Rick DeLano

I have many more important things to think about than the senseless error of the multiverse.

CW

Rick DeLano Hans-Georg Lundahl I’m not a deep thinker and at all well versed in any of this. Sometimes I read quickly through a thread wishing I knew what certain terms meant.

I s add les us wish I could add something and I’ll add my commoner maintenance mechanic grease-monkey 2 cents: for me the idea of multiple universes would be impossible for God because it seems almost “deceptive”.

It would shake my Faith.

My understanding is that it isn’t just “life on other planets”, it’s a or some “whole other separate universes”. I know this isn’t based on any philosophical equation. Maybe too « emotional ».

Off topic...

Hans, have you always lived in France? I tried my vocation with the Dominicans of Avrillé, at La Haye aux Bonshommes in 1988/89. One of the best years of my life. J’aime la langue française. I learned and have kept with me soooo many great French Catholic hymns. The new recordings videos by the military chaplain group « Les Padres » are inspiring beyond comprehension. I hope they become as traditional as possible. Have you seen their videos ?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Multiverse is indeed something other than humanities starting elsewhere on the globe or life on other planets.

Let me break it down.

This specific item says "every time a binary choice is possible, the universe splits in two, one for each option". Schrödinger's cat died in one universe and survived in the other.

Not just an infinity of universes in which God did not walk to Calvary and another infinity in which He did, but even same amount to three times as frequent infinite universes in which Adam didn't sin in the first place.

I am not here to argue it could very well as far as we know be factual, I think indeed the best options are, it isn't. More like God overviews a purely potential multiverse and from an infinity of universes chose to create ours. But the idea does not come from the Christian side, but from atheists.

Here is the point : they are starting to see how immense certain odds are against such and such a thing just emerging by chance.

Their solution (or one of them, but the one we here discuss) : multiverse. We do not live in the likeliest universe or one of medium probability, we live in a highly unlikely one compared to most others.

Now, this is an error and it will also not help their strivings. However, would it be only an error, or would it be also senseless?

It's not senseless to say God created a heliocentric world and made it look geocentric, our opponents are saying that, even if that involves some degree of deception on God's part, and it is even not senseless to say He created a parallel universe which is in fact geocentric but looks heliocentric. We know from Urban VIII God could, and this does not apply to senseless propositions.

In claiming the error is senseless, one is actually claiming it is worse than the classical atheist error of one strictly predestined universe, and that one the only one and therefore the one we live in. It may involve senselessness as overall philosophy, since if the man thinking this is right, his thoughts are predestined by initial conditions at Big Bang, but the idea as such is wrong, it is not senseless, one proof that it has sense is, I can deduce from it "if it is true, it is unknowable".

The multiverse would also involve an "if it is true, it is unknowable" part, but as said that does not make it a senseless proposition. If it were, it would be false that God could make any number of universes, and proposition 34 of those condemned by Stephen Tempier would be true.

Also, it leaves some more freedom.

If our behaviour is strictly univocally predetermined by initial conditions at Big Bang, as atheists used to say, when Rick DeLano came across my material it was predetermined he would not use it but prefer leaving me in poverty, though I am arguably a better scholastic than he is.

But if every binary choice splits the universe in two, it's a curious and not a necessary fact that we live in the one where he didn't and in which I remained in poverty.

This means, the idea of a multiverse is if not compatible with Christianity as it originally stands (God would not allow certain universes, since these would be against His goodness and truthfulness), at least a sign of recovery, atheism is abandoning determinism. Or, this strand of atheism is.

What's their next move? Considering miracles? Becoming Christians?

CW "have you always lived in France?"

No, I am in France since 2005.

Note well, while I love the liturgy of Le Barroux, I left the idea of a monastic vocation behind in 2000. This means, the question of my livelihood is not superfluous and it is irksome that some are like cornering the market for geocentrism and pushing my writings out of it, on several false pretenses, like here pretending I am defending the supposely senseless error of multiverse.

Even if it were just a question of apologetics facing atheists, leaving me out, understanding an error (if multiverse is such) is a better position for arguing against it or against its supposed benefits for the main erroneous position over pretending to find it impossible to understand (as senseless actually means).

Rick DeLano

The multiverse is senseless- that is, it is impossible to understand- because there is no explanation (not even an attempt at an explanation) for how the universe splits itself off into copies every time a quantum system comes into contact with- what?

They cannot say what.

Or why coming into contact with what they do not specify splits the universe.

It is a senseless proposition.

Hans-Georg Lundahl. I am astonished to learn that you apparently harbor some sort of claim against me involving a deprivation of your rightful "place"; a "cornering of the market for geocentrism"; a "pushing of (your) writings out of it".

These accusations are so ridiculous, so unfounded, so unjust that they would amount to calumniation..

Except they are not sensible enough to rise to that level.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"there is no explanation (not even an attempt at an explanation) for how the universe splits itself off into copies every time a quantum system comes into contact with"

A binary choice.

"Or why coming into contact with what they do not specify splits the universe."

If they don't have any fair proposal, I as a Christian do, which is why it is not a senseless proposal.

These accusation are baseless?

I recall a time when you clearly didn't want any use for my insight on parallax being moot with geocentrism, and here is a record of it:

HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS : Internet Trouble and Pontifical Malfaisance, plus a Trap in Discussion
https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2014/05/internet-trouble-and-pontifical.html

You believe parallax, you believe stellar sizes in main series correspond to the size of the sun, how many light years or thousands of light years away do you propose that heaven is?

Plus it leaves you with an unsolved Distant Starlight Problem, adding up to denial of Mark 10:6 and universe being created if not at same moment at least very little before the first married couple.

Plus it involves denying angelic movers that are Biblically as well as scholastically well motivated, and pretending this makes sense because scholastic philosophy is *a n o t h e r* field than natural science, rather than as is the fact actually back then and de jure to this day involving natural science.

Not a good start for someone who is making it his business to combat modern errors, and especially not if he's also (I think there was one token link on your blog magisterial fundies as exception) clearly not promoting when he could someone who was into geocentrism before him but who is less known.

By the way, chronology, I am into geocentrism since 24.VIII.2001, I think that is a bit earlier than you were, and it definitely is earlier than I recall Sungenis was, by two years or so, since I recall reading he is in the business since 2003.

Just before you ask what my qualifications are in scholastic philosophy and so, no, I don't pretend to have been to seminary, but I read a lot St. Thomas Aquinas back in the 90's. You are aware, back then there were Trads who were willing to promote St. Thomas Aquinas ...

By the way, I also involved an allegation about FSSPX (and sorry if you do not adher to them, in that case it was a mix up bc of Fatima Center or something), and to people reading French there is now a little documentation on how things went when people so friendly when giving 2, 5, 10, 20, at some Easters 50 € were suddenly very much less enthusiastic when it came to helping me to actually live of my trade of writing in a more stable and dignified manner:

Correspondence de / of / van Hans Georg Lundahl : À SSPX News
https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2020/01/a-sspx-news.html

There was another post with my interactions with the claimed King of Araucania which disappeared ... HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS rather than Correspondence de / of / van Hans Georg Lundahl, I'd say.*

Rick DeLano

So.

Having lied that I persecuted you, you substitute evidence that I disagreed with you.

As to the second charge, I enthusiastically plead guilty.

Since you- what astonishing dishonesty!- reiterate the first, I bid you farewell.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

There is a disagreement for the sake of devalorising. Making that point is not dishonest.

Oh, if you think Heaven is more than 2.5 mega light years away, take care God doesn't send you there instead of one light day up!

* Two exchanges are missing : one with BTL where he directed me to the King of Araucania (a title going back to Orélie Antoine de Tounens, who actually helped Indians fight the post-colonial Spaniards trying to wipe them out, unlike the present one), and one with that person himself. SAR le Prince Stanislas d'Araucanie et de Patagonie. Either I put both on a single post on this blog or one with BTL, possibly on correspondence blog and one with Prince Stanislas. No, I did not myself take them away. Hacked, I think, since, if blogger had removed after abuse rport, I would have been notified.

What Creationism Believes about Evolutionists (and vice versa)

BC

There's a certain amount of irony in claiming that the mere perception of what de facto *is* a conspiracy theory.

Don't forget Hans-Georg, a basic premise of Creationism us that large numbers of scientists are coordinating to try and undermine Creationism by publishing papers full of lies (and not letting Creationists publish simply because they're Creationists, speaking at seminars, in interviews and in documentaries, and setting and maintaining museum displays.

How one cannot consider that a conspiracy theory is beyond me.

HGL

"a basic premise of Creationism us that large numbers of scientists are coordinating to try and undermine Creationism by publishing papers full of lies"

No, it's not.

We do NOT think it is necessarily a question of dishonesty, more like incompetence. If you ask me.

"and not letting Creationists publish simply because they're Creationists"

That part is fairly well shown up by facts (unless it's extended to not letting them publish anything unconnected with creationism either).

While BC was wrong on how I perceive Evolution believers, I think he speaks for himself on how Evolution believers, of a certain type, perceive Young Earth Creationists.

JH thereon precisely totally ignores what I just said:

JH

Hans-Georg Lundahl creationism, in particular YEC is animated by subjective absolutes that cannot be mitigated by objective evidence, FACTS. The loyslity oaths the creationist groups demand solidify them as religious, and not scientific groups, then they complain they are not included? They are religious institutions, therefore as such are included . Claiming "persecution"- is inane

Hans-Georg Lundahl the INDEPENDENT scientific methodologies be they paleontology, botney, geology, etc. are all in a secret cabal , meeting together to get creationists, " Soviet style" -? Such a allacious analogy is too inane to respond to .

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"the INDEPENDENT scientific methodologies be they paleontology, botney, geology, etc. are all in a secret cabal , meeting together to get creationists, " Soviet style" -?"

Sorry, your links* were not to palaeontologists, botanists, geologists, but to shrinks.

I very much did not pretend that the bona fide scientists (as opposed to shrinks) were in a cabal.

But neither do I pretend they are all strictly outside one. Since 80 or 90 something, shrinks have gone into discounselling debates on palaeontology, botany and geology related to Creation / Evolution, and some have turned to shrinks instead of turning to their best evidences, that is NOT being strictly outside the cabal either.

The other rant is precisely hypocritic, since the paleontologists, botanists and geologists and a few more very often do have subjective absolutes that cannot be mitigated by objective facts

As I said, incompetence, not cabal. Or conspiracy.

* On to Panda's Thumb and two to The Conversation.

Pope or Not, After All?

Two FB profiles:
David Bawden (Pope Michael)
https://www.facebook.com/PopeMichael1

David Bawden
https://www.facebook.com/george.doit

Different people (uncle / nephew)?
Double life?
or
Papacy was an internet stunt?

I don't know./HGL

Drew Gasaway Attacking QAnon - and Himself

HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS : Drew Gasaway Attacking QAnon - and Himself · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Art of Interpretation

Drew Gasaway

I had to delete a political video oddly posted by a church.

I hope you people know that Qanon is politics. It is also such a badly produced hoax that no matter what side you're on it sounds like a kids cartoon.
Q is a Department of Energy clearance and your "Q" started it on 4chan stating it was a Department of Defense clearance. That clearance mostly pertains to nuclear reactor information and has limited nuclear weapons applications. I had a Q certificate and you know it is DOE, not DOD.

People are so gullible believing what they want to these days that they don't even Google basic words and terms before believing in them. They don't research platforms something was put on or the background of the people who them. This goes for both sides in the US and to people around the world.
Our churches are like this church A will say church B is the good guys but B is the bad guys. It won't matter if one said is right on the issue tribalism will lead them to back it. We see this in the history posts in the group. Some spend all their time attacking the other group instead of being productive.
Jesus warned about people who spend all their time accusing people and at one point spoke about them have a log in their own eye. Nothing is perfect and at this point everyone sucks. They all accuse the other side of doing what they do or plan to do.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"It is also so such a badly produced hoax that no matter what side you're on it sounds like a kids cartoon."

Ah?

"Q is a Department of Energy clearance and your "Q" started it on 4chan stating it was Department of Defense clearance. That clearance mostly pertains to nuclear reactor information and has limited nuclear weapons applications."

Sure that was hoax rather than tongue in cheek?

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl I just got up but the whole hoax is rather to build a persona around being a part of the CIA. Overtime the spin has reduced to nonsense, not just lies. So many predictions like setting a point and time when someone was going to be arrested and it never took place. I think this was designed to hurt the person they think it backs just like all the other activist stuff.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

QAnon pretended to be part of CIA?

I have not been on 4chan, I have only seen William Tapley give QAnon credits ...

What if, ironically, he was and was an agent to lead conservatives on into ridiculous positions (about my assessment of John Todd)?

(Like, whatever credit one may give to John Todd's general description of Illuminati, pretending ALL record companies by the fact of being so are dependent on Druids or that JT had time to give payments to CSL before the latter died fairly clearly is ridiculous).

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl Q sold itself as a senior national security official. The NSA doesn't some of the stuff they talked about but honestly, none of it matched how things worked. I would be shocked if it was an American or even one person.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Q sold itself as a senior national security official."

You have that from exactly where?

"I would be shocked if it was an American or even one person."

What about an American teen or tween out of work, or in studies, and with parents as conservative but less into internet than he?

William Tapley appreciated Q Anon, so, if Q Anon had (at least consistently) made such a claim, I think William Tapley would have known.

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl it was on 4chan and then on FB. I saw but I believe it has been removed. The content of the posts still sell the idea mentioned.
The style of posts in Qanon is the kind fed by a government to cause issues. Governments do use proxies as they did with PACs and in the lockdown, protests to stir people up. Boy they went silent after the election fast the cash all stopped coming in. They wanted to defeat the person they that was being helped by making them like bad.

Qanon folks don't share all of it but there are different phases and there is a lot of inconsistency.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Wasn't his general style posing questions?

Was he ever affirming with full stop rather than asking with Q[uestion] M[ark]?

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl that is not all he did. He made a lot of predictions like he promised that Hillary was going to be arrested for running a pedo ring and set a date. That never occurred. Q also said that COVID 19 was a hoax and there was no virus. Note that since the polls closed in the US our misinformation ceased. Some of these things were run through a Russian money train in Europe. I think they liked the orange one's ideas but wanted to use his implosion to their advantage. They want chaos either way after the election and for their movement to believe the "deep state" robbed them. Hitler used this kind of tactic first by burning down parliament and then stage fake crimes that his brown shirts came to the rescue for.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

A bit like Guy Fawkes' background.

" I had a Q certificate and you know it is DOE, not DOD. "

I suppose this was before getting into theology?

You have just basically admitted that your competence in theology is that of an amateur (to which I count also those doing a new line of study when already settled adults).

Plus, D and E are close on a keyboard and DOD could be a typo.

"Some of these things were run through a Russian money train in Europe."

Possible - but do you have evidence, or do you like throwing around allegations about as much as QAnon did?

"They want chaos either way after the election and for their movement to believe the "deep state" robbed them."

I saw allegations that sacks of mail had not been opened strategically as they came from "circumscriptions" (not sure English uses this word) previously clearly pro-Trump - can that be traced to him?

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl I was in the military for a couple of years. I have a blacked-out DD214 if you if you would like to see it. I went to undergraduate school and after college, I went into the military but didn't do ROTC. I then went back to school toward the end and finished after. I got tired of doing adjunct bible college classes and went back to school. I was sick of lying for a living.

Hans-Georg Lundahl if just want to argue okay but he said Department of Defense. Q has nothing to do with the stuff they talks about.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK, in other words, you are not a competent theologian.

Intro to Raqia debate with Drew Gasaway
https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2020/01/intro-to-raqia-debate-with-drew-gasaway.html

Your opinion on raqia is in fact as little worth as anyone else's, you are an amateur.

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl a theologian is someone who has a doctorate in theology and has made a new contribution to the field. However, your own tribalism from a traditionalist point of view has jaded your perspective on this. There is no ancient source to justify your position and it can only be reasoned using anachronistic thinking. It like most things from its sphere is a product of polarization. My view is the consensus of mainstream academic thought. That by itself is a fallacy but with the support we have is well-founded.

Hans-Georg Lundahl I should note that your position on "raqia" began with people who basically have no education in either science or Hebrew. Their arguments formed mainly out of it the whole it can't be and then developed from there eventually getting some traction from ideologues.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I did not claim I was an expert myself.

"There is no ancient source to justify your position"

Neither one that actually justifies yours, as pointed out.

Science education is in fact not a requisite for giving a witness on the tradition on what translations of raqia mean.

It is however a rival in attention to paying attention to fine shades in written and therefore languaged sources.

The point I am now making is, you have paid so much attention to this rival, your position on original meaning of raqia is not worth more than mine, rather somewhat less. I did not do Hebrew, but I did do some other ancient languages, like Latin and Greek.

LIke Latin and GReek = actually only those ...

If by "your position" you mean my full position, namely raqia being aether, this is in part making a harmonisation between my view on science and my respect for the text (like "waters above the raqia" = H2 throughout the universe, including in stars going toward He by way of D, by now, since day 4).

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl the Septuagint doesn't actually help but if you want to go there it is a translation and no text today is perfect. As for the Latin most modern Catholic theologians don't claim the Vulgate is perfect.

Hans-Georg Lundahl why didn't he say that it was a universe? This is double talk God gave perfect science in one sense and another he didn't. Remember that Philo who Jerome often revered said the firmament was a hard surface in Greek texts that qouted the LXX>

Hans-Georg Lundahl

My point is, regardless of your arguments, you have forfeited authority of expert status in the question.

You are a military, not a theologian, and the tone you sometimes took was more appropriate to a recrute than to a discussion partner on an internet forum.

If you want to resume the discussion, I'm fine with that, but in that case I'd like you to invite someone, if he has time. He will be soon, if nothing unexpected happens, "dekan" - I think dean is not just same Latin word but also used same way - of the Faculty of Theology at Lund University.

He definitely did contribute, not just to theology in general, but to Christian History and in some sense even archaeology. He made an assessment of antiquity of now preserved texts about St. Helen's archaeology on Calvary.

Would you like?

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl theologians study God. Linguistics is a side issue. However, I do have an MDiv. and I have studied Greek since I was in middle school and Hebrew since I was in High School. You really have no argument here other than the feelings from my background convict me. Philo was an ancient Jew who read both the Greek and the Hebrew.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Yeah and Philo lived c. 1500 years after Moses.

In fact, his comment in itself doesn't support you.

He was content with raqia being a threedimensional body to call it firm.

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl wrong! Philo of Alexandria said, "The incorporeal world then was already completed, having its seat in the Divine Reason; and the world, perceptible by the external senses, was made on the model of it; and the first portion of it, being also the most excellent of all made by the Creator, was the heaven, which he truly called the firmament, as being corporeal; for the body is by nature firm, inasmuch as it is divisible into three parts; and what other idea of solidity and of body can there be, except that it is something which may be measured in every direction? therefore he, very naturally contrasting that which was perceptible to the external senses, and corporeal with that which was perceptible only by the intellect and incorporeal, called this the firmament." (On The Creation, chapter 10 [A.D. 50])

Hans-Georg Lundahl the fact is all we have is Philo, Josephus, and the Talmud to understand Hebrew here. Not a shred of evidence there supports your idea.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You really don't like parsing sentences, do you?

"which he truly called the firmament, as being corporeal;"

Opposite : pure spirit.

"for the body is by nature firm, inasmuch as it is divisible into three parts;"

He clearly means three dimensions. To his view here, water and air are "firm" since bodies and such since threedimensional.

Since my aether is threedimensional (a globe, stretching up to the stars one light day up and involving them), he would count it as a body and hence firm.

"and what other idea of solidity and of body can there be, except that it is something which may be measured in every direction?"

Where he confirms what I just attributed to him.

Linguistics may be a sideline, but it gives more important methodological habits than dealing with nuclear stuff. Especially the linguistics of old languages known by old texts, the one called philology.

"all we have is Philo, Josephus, and the Talmud to understand Hebrew here."

Philo, Josephus and their contemporaries were c. 1500 years after Moses, contemporary to NT writings and c. 500 years before completion of Talmud - why would they be our only clue to exclusion of Christian Fathers?

Even if they could read the word "raqia" - what does that change? Words can change meaning over time.

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl okay who do you have writing from then to demonstrate the language then? We don't even have the text in the style it is in. In the DSS alone there are 3 versions of Genesis. We know Hebrew solely because of the sources mentioned. You just don't seem to know how this works or care it is all "we are right" or war. It is people like you who make anachronisms commonplace and your investment in them. Culture and language change greatly.

Hans-Georg Lundahl the mix of proto-sinaitic and Hebrew in our current texts shows they were updated to Hebrew just like parts in the Hebrew were Aramaic. This language bridge is kind of a myth.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

My point is, from back then you do NOT have any extra-Biblical sources like Philo.

The fact that you know (if so) the language to be a mix of Proto-Sinaic and Hebrew in our current sense, the fact you know language was updated, fine, I can buy that. B U T it does not give you one single extra-Biblical text from back in Moses' time to prove raqia means a solid object.

Once you get extra-Biblical writers like Josephus (influenced by Ptolemy's solid spheres) and Philo, you also get, well before Talmud, early Church Fathers.

Why exclude them, and why impose the least probable reading possible on Philo?

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl okay I guess we don't have a Bible then because we can't read it with any certainty. However, we do have related languages like Ugaritic Hittite and we know all the views of civilizations around the Israelites to the said word.

The use of extra-Biblical sources is how we can read a single word in the Bible or know what things even were. This is one of many reasons why the Bible alone is an indefensible position. Unless you concede so kind of extra-Biblical source even your English reading is invalid.

This is the most probable reading because there is no source until you get very late otherwise. The original sources with your view were the least learned sources on Hebrew. You can show many examples beyond their background in their writings of mistakes in this area.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"okay I guess we don't have a Bible then because we can't read it with any certainty."

You omit the Catholic criterium of certainty. Tradition.

"However, we do have related languages like Ugaritic Hittite"

First, Hittite is normally used for Nesili, like Hattic for Hattili, while these parts of Syria spoke yet another language, under Hittite rule, so you would be better off to say Ugaritic in Hittite empire. Then we have when it is from:

"xve au xiie siècle av. J.-C."
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ougaritique

Probably spoken by some not yet enemies of Israel who lived by modern car routes 648 km north of, not Jerusalem, but Dan (I took Lattakie to Tel Aviv, since Lattakie is 11 km from Ras Shamra).

Note, these centuries are probably carbon dated, and carbon date for XVth C. carbon dated is probably still inflated.

In other words, Ugaritic is after Moses wrote Genesis around and Exodus starting with 1510 BC, the real time date for the Exodus from Egypt.

"and we know all the views of civilizations around the Israelites to the said word."

Probably not. You can know what Danes, Swedes, Germans, Russians, Poles, Italians, Spaniards of 19th C. meant by "civilisation" (the cognate exists in all of these languages), but you have a L O T more literature from Danes and Poles, Italians and Germans of the 19th C. left than you have of Ras Shamra speakers of Ugaritic or Pharaonic speakers of "very early Coptic" or indigenous speakers of eme-g̃ir (aka Sumerian). Also, I very much doubt you have any straight off cosmological works in Ugaritic, and Baal Cyclus in Ugaritic would typically make only passing mention of anything like "raqia" if it occurs at all. Unless Baal - like Hercules according to his bragging on eleventh and also twelfth work - is supposed to have held heaven like a physical burden on his shoulder, you cannot prove Ugaritic writers considered it as a solid.

But supposing you did, this does not mean you know the Hebrew meaning - as encyclopedic, not just roughly lexical meaning - from sources outside the tradition. Note very well, I consider Church Fathers to represent the tradition better, not less, than Talmud.

"The use of extra-Biblical sources is how we can read a single word in the Bible or know what things even were."

Not universally, unless by extra-Biblical you mean simple lexica or grammars.

You want to know what exactly a word means in LXX OT or in NT? Perhaps you go to Suidas. Now, the problem is, Suidas might consider that "artos" means leavened bread and that unleavened things are called "azymoi" without any other qualification, least of all bread. That is at least what Michael Caerularius considered about 1 Corinthians 11:23. He may have had encylopedic support in entries of Suidas, who lived before his time. In other words, unless you go to sources of the tradition - the Latin part of which is very solidly pro-azymite - and go just to any sources outside both Bible and tradition, simply secular, you can be wrong on what the full understandable meaning of a word is. But using Suidas for NT is a thousand times better than using Baal Cyclus of Ugarit for raqia.

The thing is, neither Hebrew, nor Aramaic, nor Koiné Greek were ever lost. The kind of check you mean (and it is not a simple check with your teacher in Greek or Hebrew and the grammar) is NOT how we learn these languages in the first place. You are wrong about methodology.

It is true that double checks with such indirect methods have their uses, but it is definitely a thing which is a side issue to understanding either words or meaning of the Bible.

"This is one of many reasons why the Bible alone is an indefensible position."

We have opposite reasons to reject it. I stand with Bible, Tradition, Magisterium.

"Unless you concede so kind of extra-Biblical source even your English reading is invalid."

Yes, some kind of. But this does not mean I look up in New York Times what "mankind" means in relation to 1 Corinthians 6:10. "Liers with mankind? You mean only bestiality is allowed or you mean the guys who have sex with all 7 billions alive - how do you do that?" Any priest or even Protestant clergy can tell you from TRADITION that "mankind" in this context means sth else, namely the male gender, and "lier" is (obviously not liar or lyre) in the Greek in the masculine, so it means someone committing the sin of sodomy. And I think that's a fair parallel for going to Ras Shamra Baal Cycle instead of to Patristic tradition to look up what raqia means ...

"This is the most probable reading because there is no source until you get very late otherwise."

It's a very improbable reading, since it makes the text a lie about the physical world. Sure, God did not intend to make lessons about the physical world, but neither did he allow hagiographers to lie about it by a slip of the tongue. Just as a definition of Nicaea cannot lie about the metaphysics of Trinity and Christology. Or those of Trent about the metaphysics of the Eucharist and some other subjects.

I don't mind getting late within tradition. I feel no need to get a confirmation as early as possible even outside tradition. Why? Bc I don't think God would allow the tradition of revealed truth to die out. Check Matthew 28:16-20 on that issue. And use the Greek : "pasais tais hemerais" or "pasas tas hemeras" (forget if it is accusative or dative of time) is not a vague "always" since that is "aei".

"The original sources with your view were the least learned sources on Hebrew."

Do you take that from the Tamud or from a normal Hebrew lexicon?

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl that is the description in my textbooks but it is actually Amorite.

Hans-Georg Lundahl the patristics were not experts on the ancient near east or science they were experts on spirituality. All the patristics agreed that the periodic table was just earth, air, fire, and water. Do we see those as a dogma?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"All the patristics agreed that the periodic table was just earth, air, fire, and water."

Do they?

All nations? Not just Greek and Latin but also Syriac and Coptic?

More to the point : are they all actively using this in exposing the Bible?

Bc some Father may have agreed with your assessment (not sure it is really all that correct a rendering of "four elements") in private but may have thought it totally irrelevant to exposing for instance Genesis 1 - or Genesis 2:7.

My point is, we don't have all fathers agreeing the firmament is a solid body. Indeed, Philo as being pre-Talmudic is sometimes counted with Josephus as honorary father, and you don't get to tie down Philo to "solid body" notion, unless three dimensions are enough for solidity.

Point on your textbook / wiki, noted.

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl that is a dumb argument against mine. You're asking a lot citations. A textbook in the sense of what you want wouldn't be valid since they can't source that many in one book. This is how the world was seen and is alluded to in my places.

Hans-Georg Lundahl we show it over and over with Basil and others. Even Luther using the common Catholic belief then said it was in his day. Telescopes changed this thought.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I note you did not say "Basil and ALL others".

"This is how the world was seen and is alluded to in m[an]y places."

It is how the world was seen by some.

Among Church Fathers it seems many (including St. Basil) were round earth but not all.

St. Basil indeed endorsed Ptolemaic chrystalline spheres astronomy - the standard in Greek / Western up to Tycho Brahe. As you mention, observations changed this, not sure if Tycho needed a telescope to verify that the comet was indeed passing through where a chrystalline sphere would otherwise presumably have blocked it.

However, not being obliged to chrystalline spheres, I thank Fathers of a less Western / Hellenistic bent. This means, whether Round Earth, chrystalline spheres, solid-body-nature of raqia, some views were common but not universal. Your citing Philo shows a clear reserve with directly and without qualification calling raqia a solid. "Yes ... it definitely is f i r m, since f i r m doesn't mean anything else than it being measurable in three dimensions". But as you are a military and not a theologian in your basic outline of thought and method, you miss it.

Luther is highly irrelevant.

Your overall view is too bent on seing past views of nature as being equally uniform as you would like heliocentrism and evolutionism to be. Back in those days, there was no compulsory school to push single views to the masses.

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl there were few people who didn't see the earth as having a hard dome above. It was how the world looked and it is how the authors of the Bible saw it. Basil didn't think it was a sphere btw. A number of the fathers were flat earthers because they saw Greek philosophy in some areas diminishing God. The fathers didn't know all things. The timeline in the fathers for the return of Christ would have already occurred.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"there were few people who didn't see the earth as having a hard dome above."

You get your Gallup polls from back then from?

"Basil didn't think it was a sphere btw"

I seem to recall a passage where he says he didn't care less. He was not a flat earther either.

"A number of the fathers were flat earthers because they saw Greek philosophy in some areas diminishing God."

Exactly, so they didn't believe Ptolemy's chrystalline spheres. Prove *those* specific fathers believed the raqia to be strictly a solid!

"The timeline in the fathers for the return of Christ would have already occurred."

I think St. Augustine entered an escape clause in commenting on Apocalypse 20 in De Civitate ...

Turkiska Muslimer som bor i Dalby

Rosor och texten:

Vår kondoleans till de nära och kära av dem som förlorade sina liv i attackerna i Paris och Wien.
Turkisk muslimer som bor i Dalby.