Commenting on Schnoebelen's at al:s comments on HP

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Were the Inklings a Forbidden Society? No. · HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS : Craig Crawford's view on Harry Potter (feat. réprise of his view on Tolkien and CSL, feat. Dan Brown) · CSL Not Arian · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Commenting on Schnoebelen's at al:s comments on HP

Hidden Evil in Harry Potter - Bill Schnoebelen
BRMinistries | 21.I.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0k770S37Tk

I

Two questions:

• 1) Would you say the same things about Narnia or about LotR?
• 2) Do you think Rowling is a believing occultist planning this, or do you take her word for it, she doesn't believe it and that is why she thinks it is harmless, even if she is wrong?

One answer on my part: Ron Weasley in upper case in ASCII adds up to 777 - a number of perfection - and so much, of what I have heard about the books/films is about perfection being taken away from him, his being debased by sexual feelings misplaced due to coed teen school setting and some more bad stuff.

I think the "love triangle" in Harry, Hermione and Ron is somehow bad enough, even if there were no occultism or even if all occult was approached purely by ridicule (as in "magic school Abracadabra" which I think she used parts of, it's a comic book), and in ways which would not be instructive to the curious, that alone would be corrupting reading for the young.

The writer and book critic who warned me of Harry Potter back in the nineties, was a Catholic priest and a fan of both CSL and JRRT - he says Rowling is very different - learning "discretion" and keeping disobediences secret even by lying and so on was so much part of HP ethos.

I never read one, never borrowed one on the library.

Dan Brown, I read two, and I dislike his world view. Or the one voiced by Robert Langdon and masons. But it is arguably one he is himself promoting, especially as he is known to be an apostate. HP, not one. I read scraps on the internet or summaries, not one book.

As to HP, I think I was even allergic in advance after four years on a boarding school.

Before going to boarding school, I could read two novels from Austria about that kind of thing, after the four years, I have trouble rereading them.

19:56 HP being rebellious, liar and cheating is obviously one of the things the Catholic priest (it could have been Monsignor Williamson) brought up.

II

23:22 In this context, it is not just Harry Potter.

I saw one Pirates of the Caribbean and had enough. The solution to the curse was, a man holding a coin from cursed treasure was shot through the hand and his blood dripped over the gold, obviously first touching the coin he held.

And the beings that had cursed and then lifted the curse were - Aztek gods.

Greek gods make a certain point in the Psalms of David come home if you study them close enough ... when I was a child, I liked Poseidon or Apollo as imaginary figures. Then comes a day when I study their actions in Greek tragedy at University ... I came to conclude, Poseidon posing as father to Theseus and Apollo manipulating Laius, Oedipus, Iocasta into making that family a total misery of kinslaying and incest, yes, they were real and they were real demons, and that is how powerful demons were before Calvary and before the Catholic Church converted the nations.

III

25:40 Now, one could argue there is a difference between fantasising of kissing a cheek and fantasising of a fullblown visual coitus.

Similarily, one could argue there is a difference between fantasising unrealistic and non serious magic and fantasising of sth very close to the "real thing".

Obviously, one should distinguish if the thing envisaged is really magic (if Gandalf is supposed to be a spiritual being having taken body, he has powers of spiritual beings without compact with bad ones, and the one thing which looks like a spell is in fact looking for a password to a door opening automatically to that kind of thing).

And also if the magic envisaged is portrayed as attractive (Frodo's being drawn to the ring is not an attractive thing, it's porttrayed as a danger to the soul).

I think these criteria would come down fairly hard on HP.

IV

26:28 "he loves Jesus - he did, I mean he's dead now"

If he's in either Heaven or Purgatory, he still loves Jesus.

Only if he's in Hell has he ceased doing so ...

As he was not a Catholic, I put him in a category comparable to Terence (who died a Montanist, also a heresy), that is, not everything he said or wrote is good.

V

27:52 Correction : runes are not inherently pagan.

In early centuries of Christianity in Sweden, clerks wrote Latin in the Latin alphabet, but peasants or large farmers wrote rune Swedish in runes - with often Christian content, like recently they found the oldest Hail Mary, or when such and such a stone asks for prayers for a deceased one, or when it says such and such one died as a pilgrim or crusader.

VI

30:34 Nicholas Flamel being an alchemist in the Medieval sense doesn't make him an occultist in the modern sense.

He may well have been Christian, certainly professed it.

His birthday being 666 years before 1996 is a simple fact of history and mathematics, which probably drew Rowling to the occult as a subject matter - treating him as less Christian than he was, for instance.

He is in Europe sufficiently well known to be on wiki both French and English (but wiki is after that book was written) and arguably quite a few encyclopedias too.

30:43 Some overdo the extent of channeling, by ignoring the extent of humanly available learning.

Rowling needed no channeling to know about Nicolas Flamel, for instance.

(Some may have pretended either my language skills or my historic knowledge or my capacity to write music could be channeled, they are not, they are all within learning that was humanly available to me).

And some might also overdo channeling as opposed to simple creativity.

VII

30:54 How she knows the Scriptural part?

She's part of formerly Church of England, later Church of Scotland.

These British "communions" have a very modernist attitude as to actually believing Scripture, but they do know them.

Another "mystery" that can be solved without either conspiracies (more secret than British Liberal Theologian Protestantism, that is) or channeling.

Scandinavian Liberal Lutheranism is much the same, there is a reason why I had to leave it, becoming Catholic.

VIII

35:04 If everyone was reading HP anyway back then ("fortunately" not the case) Jesus would perhaps have made parables about situations in the books - but without actually endorsing them as such.

I think, for instance, Woden had practised witchcraft and drawn men like Tewe with him into posing as idols - and even so, Jesus seems to reference how they were maimed (Woden had pulled his right eye out, Tewe had sacrificed his right arm as hostage in the mouth of a wolf monster, according to the myths, now, I don't think Tewe had actually made such a deal with a person actually in the body of a wolf, but he would have lacked his right arm).

Btw, if you are uncertain of whom I am talking about, I hesitate between them being Druids and them actually being the Yeshu of the earlier parts of the carreer of the Talmudic Yeshu ("who" is if so a conflation between that man and Our Lord being compared to him, at least in Toledoth Yeshu literature - as to the Talmudic passages, they could be referring to two different men, with the execution passages taking notes from Crucifixion and martyrdoms of Apostles, but without the Romans).

Bonus : Thunor may have repented, gone back to Holy Land, settled as a fisherman. Boanerges in the vocative does not mean "you are sons of thunder" it means "you make moans like mooing oxen" and what would that have to do with "because sons of thunder" unless they were moaning about being teased on family history of the less reputable type?

IX

37:26 If you ask me, the Devil will not by himself retain that much power over them.

He'll try to take some back with Abaddon and Antichrist, but he is losing the powers he had.

Why?

New blog on the kid : Fatima in Portugal was 102 years ago
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2019/10/fatima-in-portugal-was-102-years-ago.html

X

40:20 Why would someone want to go to a school of witchcraft?

Two possibilities?

• 1) To learn witchcraft.
• 2) Or because they are basically taught witchcraft (abortion, contraception, psychiatry, psychology) anyway in most "normal" schools.

Part of the attraction may be less (to many school age readers) the witchcraft as such and more the satire it provides on ordinary modern school life and boarding school life, which many young people are exposed to unvoluntarily and without the fun. These may have been the readers Rowling herself had in mind.

Abortion, contraception, psychiatric medication = potion mixing, potion lore.
Psychiatry, psychology, the kind of forecasts by which abortion and contraception are recommended = divination.

XI

41:21 Unmet needs - some of them come with certain sacraments, like marriage.

You know, today's society are holding young adults unproductive, infertile and celibate longer than they would naturally need to, and both higher legal marriage ages and longer school compulsion (legal and practical) are part of that.

Now HP does not only talk of witchcraft, it also talks of love and friendship in a setting were three people old enough to be in love are considered as too young to marry. Rowling is preaching what you preach : let friendship prime over love, as long as society bans marriage. Only, she is showing what it takes - her Ron Weasley has more humility over not just the Dumbledores but also the Harry Potters when it comes to not marrying Hermione.

In the end, he does marry her after all - but Rowling after publishing the book said it was a mistake.

As said, I have not read HP. I know such details from second hand sources.

Some of the things that are wrong with Hogwarts are also so wrong with today's society.

Here are three posts featuring what's wrong with these things - from a not purely Christian pov:

25 Things That Are Wrong With Harry Potter (That We All Choose To Ignore)
BY ZOOEY NORMAN – ON MAR 10, 2018 IN LISTS
https://www.thegamer.com/things-that-are-wrong-with-harry-potter-that-we-all-choose-to-ignore/

Things we realised about Harry Potter when we became older and wiser
https://www.wizardingworld.com/features/things-we-realised-about-harry-potter-when-we-became-older-and-wiser

20 Things Wrong With Hogwarts We All Choose To Ignore
BY JORDAN PHILLIPS – ON MAR 06, 2019 IN LISTS
https://screenrant.com/hogwarts-everything-wrong-trivia/

These reactions could have been just as much Rowling's intention as the clearly disclaimed one of getting young into witchcraft. I'm not saying this as publicity for HP, I'm saying it as a defense of the person of the writer.

And examplifying that "unmet needs" may be driving readers, because they are unmet in Hogwarts as much as in mundane life, just in a funnier way.

XII

42:25 [Galatians chapter 5] [19] Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury, [20] Idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, sects, [21] Envies, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like. Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God.

Note St. Paul is talking of sexual immorality first.

And yet, so far, this Christian rant on HP has not mentioned how Ron, Hermione and Harry relate.

If Rowling takes it easy, perhaps that is because modern Protestant Christians do take it easy ... "they'll marry later and make it up with God then" - but what if they don't?

Cassie may have made up all her faults with God, when, famously, she said yes. I'm not sure all in her "Church" are going to Heaven - and the young people shot were more numerous than just a few Christian perhaps martyrs, that day when Klebold shot others and himself. How many of them are in Hell?

And how many ... well, there are arguably literature for young giving even worse advice in unhappy love than Rowling does. A certain Clinton was furious back in 1994 or 1995 because a 12 year old girl could legally quit school to marry an old man. What are you doing to reverse those policies?

43:35 As you mentioned hatred - how many young in schools are in situations when hatred is, barring very extreme heights of grace, impossible to avoid?

How many are, for instance, bullied? And not just a short while, but year after year?

Perhaps some parents who don't want their offspring to read HP should take a good look into the books to find out what they are already exposed to without HP. I am already aware of that, I don't really need HP to tell me that.

Modern education systems are damning young children by millions. Young adults (sorry) by millions.

XIII

46:58 I think this is the second time but it could be third or more this video Bill Schnoebelen uses the word "addicted".

It's a word based in a psychiatric world view, which is kind of ... divination.

The girl who had read the whole series in 12 months may need something even gorier and more witchcrafty next twelve months, but she may also have been studying the love triangle of Ron, Hermione and Harry, or how they defend themselves against the bullying of Malfoy, and she may also have been studying narrative structure ... it is obvious she loves the books, but we need not assume it is the witchcraft as such she is in love with.

If she then says she wants to be a witch and it's obvious she's serious, that is another matter, but just the twelve readings, not necessarily, no.

The power of magicians, once you imagine having or being able to easily gain it, may be very addictive. So is the power of psychiatrists, including addictologists. To my mind, that is divination way beyond the dabbling level.

XIV

47:40 When I was in preparatory year of IB, unless it was already ninth grade, I was around a cabbalist who definitely was into kabbalah and using hypnosis for séances, perhaps including Ouija boards.

I don't say I participated, but he and his pals made fun of me for not participating.

I was an outcast for other things (like one of the fattest and worst cases of pimples) and became an outcast for that refusal too. HP at least shows clearly, boarding schools can be schools of wizardry. Again, not saying young should read it, saying you should read it again from the angle "what if this is a way too realistic lampoon on what the young are going through anyway?"

XV

50:00 I notice, the video is from 2019, but the show was from back when HP was just four books, not all seven.

That makes it between 8 July 2000 and 21 June 2003.

No, I don't have this from channeling, I used wikipedia. And, as obviously mentioned, also not into Potter geekdom (beyond details that now or then catch my eye, like a post "16 things that are so wrong in Harry Potter" which I didn't find again, but was by a young lady).

50:11 When it comes to the modern school system, I think there is other light needing to come on too.

51:06 It seems HP like Daniel portrays "Voldemort" (alias Assyrian) as one armed (and one eyed).

As you mentioned.

So, she provides some literacy, roundabout way.

Patrick Coffin on James Martin "SJ"

Papal Support for Fr. James Martin, SJ
PatrickCoffin.media | 5.X.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwad37-9s2E

2:47 Where is there any "teaching that LGBT people must be celibate all their lives"?

NOT in tradition, and also NOT in Mgr Chaput. Hopefully.

He did mention people with that orientation can live married lives according to the ordinary norms of Christian marriage - obvously with someone of the opposite sex.

That Josh Weed recently divorced to grant his wife the "right" to a heterosexual capable of loving her better doesn't mean that they weren't lawfully married (either sacramentally or naturally, depending on validity or not of Mormon baptisms).

It means over expectations on what you have a right to in marriage are encroaching on Mormons' marital moral theology - at least Josh Weed's and his wife's.

Yes, a woman has a prior right to marry a heterosexual as well as marrying a homosexual (if she dares that, which she did), and she has the right to marry a tall guy or a shorty, an athlete or a geek and so on ... once a choice is made, some of these rights have been wavered in favour of fidelity.

Too bad they didn't get that, hope some married (lawfully) homosexuals do.

So, what is James Martin talking about? Perhaps an ambiguity in a statement by "Paul VI" antipope of ill memory.

3:04 Homosexual is not primarily a moral term about a behaviour (the behaviour is called "sodomy" about the act and "sodomite" about the perpetrator). It's a psychological term about a mental predisposition.

Robert Barron and his path

On the note of "born pre-1918" · Robert Barron and his path

Bishop Barron on His Theological Path
Bishop Barron / Bishop Robert Barron | 3.X.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QB6w4miLEc8

I

Speaking of Lubac ... how could he write Medieval Exegesis, first chapter dedicated to the Four Senses, and miss that each of the four is obliging - the literal as well as the anagogic, moral and allegoric ones.

Bc, some seem to have this idea that it's obliging to believe any Scripture passage in at least one of them, but you needn't believe all of them. You do.

And he died on the day of St. Moses!

Arguably the Prophet and Godseer either came to assist at his judgement to Hell, or told him "I have a few things to tell you which you might want to revise while you do Purgatory"

II

2:58 Didn't one ex-Fascist also work on GaSp?

I mean some of the things in it read much better in a local and temporal context from back when Dom Helder Camara was a you Integralista. Some could have been penned - without absurdity, as long as it's about the then Brazil - by Plinio Salgado himself.

But they are rubbish if extended to all space and all time or even all time remaining since then and all space - like Church sharing all the concerns of everyone especially the poorest.

You can say that when many poor fathers are asking "will I be able to revise catechism with the children after Mass on Sunday", but hardly when they are asking "will he drop out from school, my boy?" You see, catechism is salvific, school isn't.

Or was Dom Helder Camara on another "document" of that "council"?

Note very well, Camara is one man I mostly respect in the Vatican II sect - and Salgado too.

III

4:59 Wait, you said Lubac was silenced "in the fifties"?

After Pius XII had made his arguably Honorius like move with Humani Generis not condemning outright the idea of non-human ancestors to Adam's body? Or, not fully human ones etc?

7:19 "rather a kind of Middle Path between the two"

Wouldn't he have rationally speaking preferred being more conservative than Pius XII?

And I think you answered the query on how he stood to literalism in Genesis (very clearly demanded by more than one of "his" heroes) by stating he was with Ratzinger on the review "communio". Ratzinger famously in 1990's full out helped Wojtyla betray this. CCC - first all Church Catechism from Rome which is NOT Young Earth Creationist and at least compatible (Pius X) with Geocentrism. Work of Ratzinger under Wojtyla.

IV

9:35 communio - comparable to Stalin : neither Czarist nor faithful to all of Leninism (not saying strict Leninism and concilium aren't worse than communio and Stalin).

V

10:15 Considering "communio" was nothing like YEC or Geocentric, it's wishful thinking to imagine it was not caving in to contemporary culture.

If you want a conversation without concession, don't look on Lubac, look on Chesterton, or to some extent Tolkien. But note, they were overtly scathing about aspects of it.

For that matter CSL, but making allowance for his errors as an Anglican (his at least initial rejection of YEC position is arguably due to "bishop" Gore). And for needing to reject them, as you reject the Montanism of Terence (not Hill, the early patristic era writer).

Bishop Robert Barron

Tell me precisely where you think Henri de Lubac "caved in" to the culture?! I would like specific books and citations.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Bishop Robert Barron I think diocese of Paris, Ratzinger, Wojtyla are three instances who are sufficiently loyal to his positions for "guilt by association" to somewhat work. Though the procedure is obviously normally very risky.

Take Ratzinger's involvement in a document on Bible exegesis, condemning Fundamentalism in the timespan 1992 - 1994, take the new Christmas proclamation ("unknown ages after" for "2957 after" Creation), take his and obviously Wojtyla's involvement in CCC, and both, like Lubac, "communio" men, and take the allergia Paris archdiocese with suffragan dioceses surrounding it has shown to my Young Earth Creationist work, on this basis I think one can safely presume Lubac was no YEC or Geocentric.

You tell me where he wrote and spoke about how to interpret Genesis now as opposed to how the Medievals did, I'll find a quotation if I can access the text.

If I am wrong, you tell me a text or quote, in which Lubac advocated Young Earth Creationism as a position that can be held now.

Obviously, as all this happened 92-94 after he died in 91, I could be wrong.

I do not quite think I am so. I do not think his friends waited till his death to betray his positions.

Plus, confer the comment of mine which starts:

// 2:58 Didn't one ex-Fascist also work on GaSp? //

Meaning Dom Helder Camara (who considered his erstwhile Integralismo a "péché de jeunesse" / "ungdomssynd" however you say that in English) having lived in Brazil, before the telenovelas, had excuses which Lubac did not have for claiming the Church shares the joy and sorrow, hopes and fears of people, especially the poorest.

While Latin doesn't have definite article for the title words, vernacular translations arguably have.

"Les joies et les espoirs, les tristesses et les angoisses des hommes de ce temps,"

Definite article. In Lubac's language.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_fr.html

Same text:

"57.5. Certes, le progrès actuel des sciences et des techniques qui, en vertu de leur méthode, ne sauraient parvenir jusqu’aux profondeurs de la réalité, peut avantager un certain phénoménisme et un certain agnosticisme, lorsque les méthodes de recherche propres à ces disciplines sont prises, à tort, comme règle suprême pour la découverte de toute vérité. Et même on peut craindre que l’homme se fiant trop aux découvertes actuelles, en vienne à penser qu’il se suffit à lui-même et qu’il n’a plus à chercher de valeurs plus hautes.

"6. Cependant ces conséquences fâcheuses ne découlent pas nécessairement de la culture moderne et de doivent pas nous exposer à la tentation de méconnaître ses valeurs positives. Parmi celles-ci, il convient de signaler : le goût des sciences et la fidélité sans défaillance à la vérité dans les recherches scientifiques, la nécessité de travailler en équipe dans des groupes spécialisés, le sens de la solidarité internationale, la conscience de plus en plus nette de la responsabilité que les savants ont d’aider et même de protéger les hommes, la volonté de procurer à tous des conditions de vie plus favorables, à ceux-là surtout qui sont privés de responsabilité ou qui souffrent d’indigence culturelle. Dans toutes ces valeurs, l’accueil du message évangélique pourra trouver une sorte de préparation, et la charité divine de celui qui est venu pour sauver le monde la fera aboutir."

So, the text is proning, basically "Rohan needs Orthanc" ... I suppose you are sufficiently aware of LotR to see what I am hinting at.

No, that is really and truly giving modern science to much credit, both as to its finding of factual truth and as to its beneficence in moral truth.

Example:

What if your child's school made a life altering decision for your child without your input?
Alliance Defending Freedom | 7.X.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQGDAhJoDkw

What's behind that? The progress of human sciences!

"31.1. Pour que chacun soit mieux armé pour faire face à ses responsabilités, tant envers lui-même qu’envers les différents groupes dont il fait partie, on aura soin d’assurer un plus large développement culturel, en utilisant les moyens considérables dont le genre humain dispose aujourd’hui. Avant tout, *l’éducation des jeunes, quelle que soit leur origine sociale, doit être ordonnée de telle façon qu’elle puisse susciter des hommes et des femmes qui ne soient pas seulement cultivés, mais qui aient aussi une forte personnalité,* car notre temps en a le plus grand besoin."

This education equality and the supposed needs to forge a personality among age peers (lots of them, like in a class room) is obviously one obstacle to parental liberties.

In other words, Lubac and Dom Helder don't seem too fond of parental liberties in education. This was more like what I was looking for.

Jackson Crawford on the Dating of Old Norse Poems

Dating of Old Norse Poems
Jackson Crawford | 2.X.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjVqubkpTTU

1:02 I am not a botanist either, but as tree ring dating has come as one challenge to Young Earth Creationism, I have obviously dealt with it.

Oldest living trees, or recently dead ones, by tree ring dating have been tied to sprouting from the ground after a LXX date for the Flood. Not before it.

When it comes to compounding tree rings over different samples, this is another aspect of the method, I have heard both 10 000 and 20 000 years as citations for how old that could go. There is another lignine based method, namely historic dating, sometimes leather will do for lignine though, and there is a similarity: the further back you go studying out of context samples not directly tied to the present, the less reliable the method becomes.

5:53 Speaking of precise dating .... as Snorre lived before Turks conquered Constantinople and Troad right next, how do you feel on the extant text of his prologue to the Edda placing Trojaborg in Tyrkjaland?

12:11 Ah, first part of Havamal is after all convertible to Proto-Norse and still metric!

So, it could be by Odin (who- or whatever is behind the tradition of a "god" appearing in Uppsala region)!

subtitles show "a dolphin rain tested this"

So much for computer linguistics, what is the real spelling of "a dolphin rain"?

Dialogues with Sungenis, Mainly

Einstein: The Closet Geocentrist
Robert Sungenis |26.VIII.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKCO-TeVEgM

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

History .... "a hundred years after them" ...

1642 + 100 = 1742.

Lots of Catholic countries still had perfect freedom to stay Geocentric, though some Freemasons were hush hushing about Newton having proven otherwise, besides, the aliens on a planet round Sirius would have equal right or non right to consider their planet the centre.

In Protestant countries, this argument was a hit, openly, for instance in Euler's letters to a Prussian Princess (he also referred to Newton).

Robert Sungenis

I believe I says "a hundred or so years after them." All times in the film are approximate.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Robert Sungenis OK, just a quibble anyway.

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Copernicus, did he even have any physical arguments for Heliocentrism?

As far as I can see, his argument boils down to "Tychonic orbits are inexplicable spirograph patterns, and God wouldn't do such an ugly thing" (and he had never seen a spirograph pattern for real either, as we have, many of us).

(I was using anachronistic terminology)

Robert Sungenis

Copernicus was deluded by thinking the planets had to travel in perfect circles. But after he worked on this for the next 30 years, he ended up with more "spirographic patterns" than Ptolemy or Tycho. Copernicus was enamored with the Greeks and their sun worship. He was also an immoral man, as he lived with a concubine even after his bishop told him to terminate the relationship.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Robert Sungenis Greeks worshipping the Sun may have inspired his Heliocentrism, but usually were themselves Geocentrics.

"was deluded by thinking the planets had to travel in perfect circles."

He had it from Aristotle, whose observation is fairly correct if you take the full concrete movement as observed from earth each day. Unfortunately, he - Copernicus - applied it to longer periodic movements.

I think it was also a question of aesthetics, and as he had not seen spirograph patterns, he thought they would be ugly. As I have seen them, I disagree. On one youth group (for Social Democrats, before ma made me a Christian, grandparents being SD), I was extensively playing with the spirograph, as one of the cooler things around.

"as he lived with a concubine even after his bishop told him to terminate the relationship."

Did not know that.

[added after checking on internet:]

@Robert Sungenis "He was also an immoral man, as he lived with a concubine"

According to John Freely, the word in question, "focaria," could either mean housekeeper or concubine.

Copernicus could have been immoral while the bishop was moral, or comfortable, while the bishop was on the lookout for avoiding scandal, even seeming such.

Robert Sungenis

@Hans-Georg Lundahl : The Greeks were divided on the issue, but the best and popular "sun-worshipers" were the heliocentrists. The geocentrist Greeks considered all celestial bodies as purer than the Earth, and thus were not discriminate.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Perhaps, but the point at issue is that the bishop told Copernicus to get rid of her, and Copernicus refused. Not exactly a model of obedience for someone who was a Canon of the Catholic Church, even in the best case scenario.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Immoral and not very obedient are two different connotations.

"the best and popular "sun-worshipers" were the heliocentrists."

Certainly not the popular ones. Pythagoreans were hermetic. Not mainstream. And not all Pythagoreans even were Heliocentric.

III

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I think this open letter to Lita Cosner can adequately be shared here too:

Creation vs. Evolution : Lita, did ANY OT Hagiographer Believe Geocentrism?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2019/08/lita-did-any-ot-hagiographer-believe.html

IV

Hans-Georg Lundahl

40:18 Time dilation vs affected counting mechanisms ...

If time delation occurs, wouldn't any clock moved to a certain place slow down or speed up to same speed?

If counting mechanisms are affected, wouldn't cesium clocks and pendulums be affected differently?

What does one find?

Robert Sungenis

Any clock that is moved in a gravitational potential will have its counting mechanism affected so that it will count either faster or slower depending on the strength of the potential. Each clock may be affected differently, but they will be affected universally. But the real time never changes.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Robert Sungenis Are there not also atomic clocks? Are they also moved by gravitational potential? Cesium rings a bell somewhere?

Not saying you are wrong, just curious on how you are right.

Robert Sungenis

@Hans-Georg Lundahl :Yes, there are atomic clocks, and they are definitely affected by gravitational potentials, just like any other clock with moving parts.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I'd like to know the details on how.

V

Hans-Georg Lundahl

46:33 Here is the discord between me and Sungenis, a few years ago.

I do not believe stars orbit the Sun, so I do not believe there is "Tychonic parallax".

Rather, I think angelic movers are performing a kind of dance or ceremony, and that "aberration", "parallax" and "proper movement" are all of them proper movement.

Corrolary : one cannot deduce how big a movement the star does from how big a movement the Sun does.

Corrolary : one has for this type of movement, or classification of movements, as for any other : one angle and no known side.

Corrolary : no parallactic trigonometry possible.

Corrolary : stellar statistics working from "parallax" of "near" stars give no real clue of typical size or sizes of stars.

Corrolary : astronomic distances outside "solar system" are unknown, apart from the fact of being outside it.

Robert Sungenis

As you know, I fold that your "angelic movers" are not supported by Scripture or any Church doctrine or any Tradition. Angels are messengers for salvation, not celestial bodies. Also, your corollaries are illogical, since parallax and aberration can easily show stellar distances.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Robert Sungenis "not supported by Scripture"

St. Thomas Aquinas disagrees on Job 38:7, and you may have a hard time to show a better explanation for Deborah's song of praise ...

"or any Church doctrine or any Tradition."

Riccioli disagreed about tradition, giving of all explanations for movement of heavenly bodies the best traditional support is angelic movers, over God directly, over celestial bodies being alive and over mechanic causes. Best traditional support as in most theologians supporting it, including but not limited to St. Thomas.

"Angels are messengers for salvation, not celestial bodies."

Who claimed they are celestial bodies? I certainly did not.

As to messengers, that is one function of some angels, not the sole of all of them, and also those moving celestial bodies do at least once show sth for our salvation, like when falling (Matthew 24) or when acting out Apocalypse 12.

You cannot extrapolate one phrase from a catechism to refute sth on a topic it was not speaking of.

Remember, as fallen, we need help of good angels in a way we would not have otherwise. And angels were created before us. Ergo, all angels need not be doing that.

"Also, your corollaries are illogical, since parallax and aberration can easily show stellar distances."

Aberration as such can't. Parallax can only do so if it is parallax - that is if the movement of such and such a star is same as movement of sun.

If not - not. Simple geometry, if you don't know how much alpha Centauri moves each year, in time with the Sun, you also can't decide how far it is. You cited a source which held showing stellar distances as a desideratum and gratuitously satisfied it by assuming, without evidence, alpha Centauri's movement is tied to the Sun's in same distance. If alpha Centauri rather moves half as far as the Sun, the distance would only be 2 light years, and if alpha Centauri moves even less than that, the distance from us to it would be even less than that.

Since we do not know how far alpha Centauri moves, nothing prevents it from being only a light day up.

It can't be just half a light day up, or rather the stars in the direction where Voyager I and II are going can't, since Voyager I and II are both around 18 light hours up and have not yet reached the fix stars.

Robert Sungenis

@Hans-Georg Lundahl --St. Thomas Aquinas disagrees on Job 38:7, and you may have a hard time to show a better explanation for Deborah's song of praise ...
RS: When the morning stars praised me together, and all the sons of God made a joyful melody? (Job 38:7 DRA). But this is only a metaphor. Angels are often represented by stars in Scripture (cf. Jg 5:20; Jb 38:7; 25:5; 4:18; Hb 1:7; Is 14:13; Dn 8:10; 12:3; Ap 1:16, 20; 2:1; 3:1; 8:10-11; 9:1; 12:4; Br 3:34-35). But it doesn’t mean an angel IS a star.

--"or any Church doctrine or any Tradition." Riccioli disagreed about tradition, giving of all explanations for movement of heavenly bodies the best traditional support is angelic movers, over God directly, over celestial bodies being alive and over mechanic causes. Best traditional support as in most theologians supporting it, including but not limited to St. Thomas.

RS: I don’t see any such tradition in the Fathers or medievals, and lone suggestions by Riccioli (need reference for that, btw) or Aquinas don’t fill the bill.

--"Angels are messengers for salvation, not celestial bodies." Who claimed they are celestial bodies? I certainly did not.

RS: Petitio principii violation. You can’t use as proof that which you are trying to prove. The fact remains, they are “celestial” because they are in the second heavens, and they are “bodies” because we see them as round objects with violent reactions. No one has seen them as angels, especially since angels are spirits, not bodies.

--As to messengers, that is one function of some angels, not the sole of all of them,

RS: What other function are they given in Scripture?

--and also those moving celestial bodies do at least once show sth for our salvation, like when falling (Matthew 24) or when acting out Apocalypse 12.

RS: Again, these are metaphors, since the whole of the Apocalypse is symbolic. That’s why we have frogs pictured as false prophets (Ap 16:13).

--You cannot extrapolate one phrase from a catechism to refute sth on a topic it was not speaking of.

RS: Correct, but I didn’t do so.

--Remember, as fallen, we need help of good angels in a way we would not have otherwise. And angels were created before us. Ergo, all angels need not be doing that.

RS: Of course, but that doesn’t mean that the ARE doing that. You need proof, not speculation, especially since you ignore the obvious metaphors.

--"Also, your corollaries are illogical, since parallax and aberration can easily show stellar distances." Aberration as such can't.

RS: Yes, good catch on aberration. Since all the ellipses are the same size, distance cannot be determined by aberration. Thank you.

--Parallax can only do so if it is parallax - that is if the movement of such and such a star is same as movement of sun. If not - not. Simple geometry, if you don't know how much alpha Centauri moves each year, in time with the Sun, you also can't decide how far it is. You cited a source which held showing stellar distances as a desideratum and gratuitously satisfied it by assuming, without evidence, alpha Centauri's movement is tied to the Sun's in same distance. If alpha Centauri rather moves half as far as the Sun, the distance would only be 2 light years, and if alpha Centauri moves even less than that, the distance from us to it would be even less than that. Since we do not know how far alpha Centauri moves, nothing prevents it from being only a light day up. It can't be just half a light day up, or rather the stars in the direction where Voyager I and II are going can't, since Voyager I and II are both around 18 light hours up and have not yet reached the fix stars.

RS: It appears you are confusing the proper motion of a star (Alpha Centauri) with the universal circular movement of all the stars, including Alpha Centauri’s daily circular movement. What we know of Alpha Centauri is that it stays in the same place, relative to the sun and stars, year after year. It is the same reason we see the constellation Orion in the same shape year after year, since there is very little proper motion between its stars. Thus we can predict where each of the stars will be year after year. Parallax is based on this consistent movement of the stars.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"But this is only a metaphor."

St. Thomas mentioned it could be so, but then went on to mention metonymy : angels are called stars insofar as they are moving stars. See his Commentaria in Hiob.

"RS: I don’t see any such tradition in the Fathers or medievals, and lone suggestions by Riccioli (need reference for that, btw) or Aquinas don’t fill the bill."

Riccioli actually gives a whole list of medievals and early moderns, including Aquinas.

And reference, well, here is my little essay on it, which links to his Almagestum Novum on appropriate page:

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

Linking to:

https://www.e-rara.ch/zut/content/pageview/194748

In early moderns, the Coimbra Jesuits are included. In late medievals, both Nicolas of Cusa and Nicolas of Lyra.

"RS: Petitio principii violation. You can’t use as proof that which you are trying to prove. The fact remains, they are “celestial” because they are in the second heavens, and they are “bodies” because we see them as round objects with violent reactions. No one has seen them as angels, especially since angels are spirits, not bodies."

Sorry, but how I would be guilty of petitio principii when I was explaining what I meant is unclear, you look a bit like AronRa eager to shout out all the fallacies he knows about, whether appropriate or not.

I was saying, for my part I agree angels are spirits, not bodies, and so does Riccioli, so does St Thomas, so do the Coimbra Jesuits. It is one thing to claim angels are celestial bodies and another to claim the move these. I am claiming the latter, not the former. And explaining that is not trying to prove anything beyond removing your misunderstanding, so there was no petitio principii.

"RS: What other function are they given in Scripture?"

Praising God (crying Holy, Holy, Holy). And being called "stars" as you mention. The latter being to the point for our topic.

"RS: Of course, but that doesn’t mean that the ARE doing that. You need proof, not speculation, especially since you ignore the obvious metaphors"

It is by no means obvious they are only metaphors, since clearly St. Thomas and quite a few others don't take them that way.

"RS: It appears you are confusing the proper motion of a star (Alpha Centauri) with the universal circular movement of all the stars, including Alpha Centauri’s daily circular movement. What we know of Alpha Centauri is that it stays in the same place, relative to the sun and stars, year after year."

No, I did not confuse the proper motion with the universal circular movement each day of all the stars, thank you, nor is it clear how my wording provoked that misunderstanding.

And we do not know alpha Centauri stays exactly same position in relation to Sun.

We do know it stays same general position ... but we are discussing whether the annual movement of 0.76 arc seconds is only relative to us, with the Sun, or if it also involves a displacement of relative position to the Sun.

Since you are the one claiming its stays exactly the same in relation to the Sun, without which we have no parallax measure, would you mind telling us how you know that? Because it is moved by the same gravitational field as the Sun? Sorry, but that brings us back to "mechanical causes only" being a position you share with Kepler, but neither with Riccioli nor with St. Thomas, nor with quite a few others.

Because the angel moving alpha Centauri (if you enter into my view for a moment) would be obliged to show a correct parallax so as not to fool mankind via scientists? Sorry, God might not have such a high opinion of scientists or of mankind's duty to listen to them, the angel may instead be under orders to make fun of scientists, leading them on to conclusions like "13 billion light years away" and all of Heaven has a nice guffaw at them. (I think God laughing is mentioned in Quare fremunt gentes psalm).

Mephilis 78

@Robert Sungenis Angels are not messengers, according to scripture, they are soldiers.

Robert Sungenis

@Mephilis 78 They are both (cf. Lk 1:19; Rev 12:7). What Scripture does not say is that angels push planets around the sun.

Mephilis 78

@Robert Sungenis They deliver messages, as soldiers sometimes do. That doesn't mean they're purpose isn't soldiering. No one wants an army of paperboys. lol

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"What Scripture does not say is that angels push planets around the sun."

Taking Scripture with total literality tends to more like considering planets and other stars as personally living beings, a part of the angelic - agreeing with Mephilis 78 here - army.

But if that is excluded, second best is angels moving celestial bodies.

We are not sola scriptura and so this is not really a problem.

By the way, why would you use the already used by others phrase "pushing planets"?

Did I inadvertently mention "push" or is there some discussion about my position where "angels pushing planets" is used to ridicule it?

Did you have problems opening the links I gave?

If in adress bar you see some funny characters after html, remove them, as to my own post.

[click to see all of the url with extra characters added without my doing]

As to reference in it, the library in Zurich seems to have some problems when showing the picture, so the text reference is:

Liber nonus. De Mundi Systemate Sectio secunda de motibus caelorum
CAPVT I. An Caeli aut Sidera Moueantur ab Intelligentijs, An verò ab intrinsecò à propria Forma vel Natura. Pp. 247 - 248

It's the edition from Bologna, 1651 - 1665

Three Secret Societies and Catholicism their Enemy Misrepresented

Refuting Gene Kim on Slow Apostasy and Perhaps More · What About Bad Popes? · McCullough on France · Three Secret Societies and Catholicism their Enemy Misrepresented

Top 5 Most Mysterious and Powerful Secret Societies
Origins Explained | 25.V.2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Lu4Uvc5EhA

Notice, I have very little to say about Skull and Bones or Bilderbergs.

Freemasons

0:58 "oldest and largest"?

As in 1717 is older than "fama fraternitatis"? First printed edition 1614?

No, don't think so, Rosicrucians may be smaller, but they are older.

1:29 No, freemasons are not the unlocal guilds known as free masons.

Freemasonry is not operative masonry. Freemasonry is not Medieval.

Operative masonry was fully accepted by the Catholic Church. While freemasonry took on some of their ritual, it's not the same fraternity, it changed meaning and therefore identity drastically when first accepted masons need not be stone masons, second these could involve Rosicrucians and third in 1717 confessionality was replaced by "the religion in which all honourable men agree".

2:31 1738 is not "a long time ago" historically speaking. It is, by the way 21 years after 1717.

Clement XII was not the first to forbid masonry, this had already been done ... "So war die Maurerei in Neapel 1731, in Polen 1734, in Holland 1735, in Frankreich 1737, in Genf, in Hamburg, in Schweden und von Kaiser Karl VI. in den österreichischen Niederlanden 1738 sowie in Florenz 1739 untersagt." - and untersagt means forbidden.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geschichte_der_Freimaurerei#Antimasonismus

Also, the problem was not their ambition of providing education, it was providing education of a certain type - unconfessional, sharply critical of monarchic and Catholic status quo (Lutheran too in Sweden and Hamburg, Calvinist too in "Genf"=Geneva, even Netherlands with mixed confessionality were against it).

Illustration:

German wiki

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_eminenti_apostolatus_specula

enumerates five points given by Pope Clement XII:

Der Anstoß an der religiösen Toleranz der Freimaurerei, der die Aufnahme von „Menschen aller Religionen und Sekten“ erlaubte;
The impetus to religious tolerance of Freemasonry which permitted reception of "people of all religions and sects"

Das unverbrüchliche Stillschweigen;
The strict secrecy

Dass diese geheime Gesellschaft die Ruhe des Gemeinwesens störe;
This secret society disturbs the peace of the society.

Dass die Freimaurerei der Häresie verdächtigt sei und
Freemasonry is suspect of heresy (later, when more of its doctrine was known, arguably not just suspicion)

„aus anderen der Kirche bekannten, gerechten Ursachen“
from other just reasons, known to the Church.

Providing knowledge is not one of these five. Did the presenter or journalist simply accept the Mason's version of what In eminenti apostolatus specula was?

Rosicrucians

7:36 - The image shown id definitely NOT Christian Rosencreutz.

1) Christian Rosencreutz is very arguably a fiction by a Calvinist clergyman:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Valentin_Andreae

2) if real, in 1614 he would not have been wearing what looks like clothes from 1750.

8:25 No, Medieval Europeans did not despise Medicine, specifically Medicine of the Moors, and did also not consider bathing an act of heresy.

AND they didn't burn people before asking questions either. Before they burnt anyone, they certainly HAD asked questions.

So, the knowledge they couldn't handle is simply Anti-Catholic propaganda.

And the guys who consider Francis Bacon wrote Shakespear's works are guys who think riches make you talented and poverty stupid.

Which is not the case.

AMORC claim Napoleon was serving as a Rosicrucian ceremonial master.

AMORC is a recent sect within Rosicrucianism. It started 1909.

That Disney belonged to it is possible, but as far as I know speculation.

It is very possible the Rosicrucian claim of secretly knowing better than Catholics has been operative in certain Evangelical retellings of Church History with Culdees operating as "a secret society". They were simply Irish type monks.

Illuminati

13:35 You really suck at accuracy about Catholics.

Several Popes have spoken out against Masons, the one you showed was Clement XII, who died in 1740.

He can hardly have disbanded anything or anyone in 1776. Or after that.

"Im selben Jahr erklärte auch Papst Pius VI. in zwei Briefen (vom 18. Juni und 12. November) an den Bischof von Freising die Mitgliedschaft im Orden als unvereinbar mit dem katholischen Glauben."

So, it was Pius VI who reacted against them from papacy, that is the Pope who was imprisoned by Napoleon.

So if Napoleon was a Rosicrucian fighting Illuminati and if Pius VI also fought them, why did Napoleon imprison him?

Here is Pius VI:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_VI

Btw, the year was 1785.

As for me, I think Illuminati got a hype by Dan Brown's Angels and Demons.

I also think, unlike Christianity, such things can be totally absent and come back and fulfil their mission (stated as revenge on Catholicism in the novel).

I also think, much of what has been attributed to Illuminati really is about other groups, like a certain culture current among Rotschilds and Rockefellers (respectively of Jewish and Calvinist origin) and among non-Catholic near-Abrahamic (most would say Abrahamic) confessions.

Plus some Evangelicals started demonising certain entertainment industries as not just sinful in typical output, but also entirely controlled by them. Their hype of the John Todd "testimony" (which included accusations against CSL, dead since 1963, and JRRT, dying when John Todd came out or dead, not sure about exact month of John Todd accusing these two).

Note, Dan Brown in 2000, in Angels and Demons, painted Illuminati as basically benevolent, but capable of great cruelty in their hatred of Catholicism.

It came obviously before certain events claimed to have been arranged by Illuminati, so he could be responsible, with Jack Chick / John Todd, for painting a devil on the wall ... and there may be people who dream of entering that role, who have been or will be inspired by this.

To return to Dan Brown, his depiction of their revenge is inconsistent : one moment the Assassin is portrayed as lamenting Crusaders trampling on "our gods" (polytheism) and another he is portrayed as an Arab (Islam).

MrAnonimak

Good apologetics

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@MrAnonimak Thank you, that is my ambition.

On Possibility of Ongoing C14 Increase, as per Morris et al.

Quora : Is carbon-14 still increasing in the atmosphere?
https://www.quora.com/Is-carbon-14-still-increasing-in-the-atmosphere

Omitting some answers and going to the one I commented, now twice:

Edgar Korteweg,

studied Chemistry at University of Groningen

Answered Jul 4

yes sure thing

since the magnetic fielsd of earth is declining over time. and there has never been an equilibrium reached. that is why C14 dating is very unreliable.

to reach an equilibrium it would take about 30.000 years. and the fact that C14 has not reached am equilibrium shows us that earths age has not reached 30.000 yrs. which matches the biblical age of the earth.

God bless

Edgar

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thu

This is an answer I have heard from other Creationists, but being one myself and more exposed to adversaries, I had to check this matter closely.

If carbon 14 started building up around the Flood, with the present input (equal over time to decay), we would now be at 45 pmC, and carbon level growing.

However, this would have certain by-effects, such as taking the 45 pmC for 100 pmC, but also inability to get a consistent halflife from there, and all halflives gotten from comparing objects with known age over last 2000 years with typical carbon 14 remains would give very much shorter halflives than the actual one, plus, as said, not one like the other.

I wondered if the “higher input than output” has to do with the Libby halflife, but probably the Cambridge halflife would make it worse if so.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

Mathematical details on previous reasoning:

Examinons une hypothèse qui se trouve contrefactuelle un peu de près
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/examinons-une-hypothese-qui-se-trouve.html