Spot the Moral Monster + Other Stuff

Spot the Moral Monster + Other Stuff · Karl Keating Disclaims Responsibility for Paris Archdiocese Having a Prejudice on YEC = Protestant, Claims he Never Said So

Is Psychiatry a Moral Monster?

Jewish Kirt Schneider was locked up by his own family, only because he said I believe in Jesus!
ONE FOR ISRAEL Ministry | 1.VIII.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dz2swDzMlU

Seems so.

Now some, including I presume some within this moral monster that psychiatry is, have asked "is God a moral monster" or "is the God of the Bible" (if they acknowledge there could be some god but hope it's someone else) "a moral monster".

Here is an answer to that one from CMI:

Is God a Moral Monster?
Creation Ministries International | 3.XII.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3pufFpDiF0

Three comments on it, from me:

I

7:22 The soldiers? Not camp guards, but common soldiers?

In the case of those shooting Jews on the East Front, how about the knowledge Trotsky recruited the Cheka mostly from Jews? A bit like those Poles who burned a synagogue in a barn after finding a bust of Lenin in it.

In the case of shooting every resistant caught on the West Front, how about taking a "code of war" from Coligny who had (prior to being killed at St. Bartholomew two years after the peace) executed 250 peasant resistants during the recent religious wars?

Berlin, like Belfast, was one of the main refuges of the Huguenots.

And some Calvinists had in fact compared Catholics to Canaanites. Check Oliver Cromwell.

As to camp guards, lao gais and abortion clinics have sufficient recruitment to this day ...

II

dialogue:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

8:18 Genesis 3 ... with a mere 2000 to 3000 years between Adam and birth of Abraham (depending on version) and with lots of people living into 900's in the first part, there is not much of a problem, is there, knowing about it?

Especially as the texts are short enough to learn by heart.

I just challenged two Catholics (a priest at a Paris parish and Karl Keating) how they, accepting evolution and deep time, account for us knowing the Genesis 3 events.

For a Catholic, the chapter is ultra important not just about the general condition of man prior to grace, but about the Blessed Virgin. I am not a Hebraist, but the impression I got from being around one is, "enmities" as plural of "enmity" would imply complete enmity.

And complete enmity with Satan would imply no sin. This is said of the woman, not just of her fruit or seed. In St. Luke 1, She doesn't completely get what's being said until Elisabeth basically identifies the fruit of Her womb with the Woman's Seed. Considering Jael and Judith, She must have been confused for a moment what enemy of Israel She had utterly defeated.

So, Genesis 3 being this important for Catholics, I wonder how Evolution believers among them account for us knowing it in detail, like knowing the exact words of God to the serpent.

One of them said "it was revealed" - but that is not how it has come to us, like a vision or anything reported as such. Tradition from the time of Adam and Eve is what makes sense.

Creation Ministries International

That is very interesting! Head over to creation.com and search our huge database of articles to see if you can learn more about what how catholics explain Genesis 3! Here is one article that might help! https://creation.com/the-gift-of-scripture-its-an-issue-of-authority

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Creation Ministries International The traditional view is God made the Jewish Church from Moses and Aaron up to Kaiaphas to safeguard His revelation (identify, copy, and authoritatively interpret the books of the Old Testament) and that God founded the Catholic Church with a similar mission from Pentecost day on, to Doomsday.

This means, Catholics, traditionally, have the same epistemology about Genesis as trad minded Jews or trad minded Protestants.

Now, you may have noticed I put Kaiaphas at the end of the Jewish Church. It did commit a treason at the very end. As you know from John 4, this doesn't mean Jesus sided with Samaritans as to where the authority was. It's just - Kaiaphas was not on par with his predecessors. Many believe while a true Pope cannot be the false prophet (worst case scenario : could be, like infallible on rare occasions of definitions, very errant on other occasions when not protected, like airport interviews), most certainly a fake pope, a non-Catholic anti-pope, could fill such a role.

In other words, much of what you are identifying as "Catholics" are to me an "end times counter Church". After the worship of Ceres of the Andes, aka as Pachamama, this view is gaining ground with some who would hitherto have been timid about going that far. Did you know that, like Pachamama is sometimes depicted as a woman, she is also sometimes depicted as a serpent or dragon? And that a Roman Pagan priest of Ceres actually summoned a dragon from Hell? It was St. Front of Perigueux who exorcised it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

[added]

On the precise epistemology of Genesis 1 to 11, or if 1:1 to 2:4 was a vision of Moses, 2:5 to 11, Haydock gives this account:

Concerning the transactions of these early times, parents would no doubt be careful to instruct their children, by word of mouth, before any of the Scriptures were written; and Moses might derive much information from the same source, as a very few persons formed the chain of tradition, when they lived so many hundred years. Adam would converse with Mathusalem, who knew Sem, as the latter lived in the days of Abram. Isaac, Joseph, and Amram, the father of Moses, were contemporaries: so that seven persons might keep up the memory of things which had happened 2500 years before. But to entitle these accounts to absolute authority, the inspiration of God intervenes; and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned. H.

E-Catholic 2000 : Haydock Comment : Genesis 3
https://www.ecatholic2000.com/haydock/untitled-05.shtml#navPoint_6

As I go by the LXX based (mostly so) chronology of the Roman Martyrology, I differ in detail, but not in principle. From Abraham on, too, written texts may well have been safeguarded by the beduin tribe that was heading for Goshen. And while a Pharao tried to kill their first born, he didn't try to burn their books.

Obviously, those who would like to put Adam at 90 000 BP could not make this work, especially as this would provide us with Genesis 5 and 11 as bungled transmission.

I made this challenge to Robert Barron:

Creation vs. Evolution : Length of Two Texts
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2019/11/length-of-two-texts.html

Hans-Georg Lundahl

[after looking up their article]

Reading from your article:

"This appears strange to those wedded to the concept of sola scriptura (the Bible alone). Even Catholic creationists, such as Fr David Becker, abhor evolution mainly because it constitutes a ‘departure from the Sacred Tradition of the Church’, rather than its opposition to Scripture. He rightly criticises theologians who imply that ‘no longer would Original Sin be an historic event, a real breach of holy obedience committed by two real people’, yet he places on the same level as his belief in creation that of ‘the infallibility of the Church and of the Pope.’"

Infallibility of the Church is in fact Biblical, so is papacy being its supreme judge under God, and infallibility of the pope is a conclusion from these two (whoever really is that, in my view definitely not "Pope Francis" or his predecessor, the very evolutionist "Benedict XVI") - so this is Gospel truth, is Biblical.

By contrast sola scriptura is not only non in scriptura but even contra scripturam. St. Paul's II Thess. 2:15.

"Ruth Gledhill says that ‘the document shows how far the Catholic Church has come since the 17th century, when Galileo was condemned as a heretic for flouting a near-universal belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible by advocating the Copernican view of the solar system’. This is historically inaccurate."

It's not. Galileo was the original proponent of NOMa.

"Galileo didn’t threaten Biblical ideas, but the Platonic world view that the Roman Church was tied to at the time.’"

Aristotelic? Platonic? Why not Confucian while you are at it? Ptolemy would be closest and in fact every contradiction between Ptolemy and Galileo was left alone, the charges were about where Galileo flouted the actual account of Joshua's long day and connected Scripture. Catholicism was no more tied to Ptolemy than being able to revise so much that all sense data given by Kepler's time to account for were in Riccioli's Almagestum Novum accounted for Geocentrically.

Ptolemy would have solid spheres? The Church was fine without solid spheres. Ptolemy would have perfect circles? Copernicus was more tied up with perfect circles than the judges of Galileo. And so on, you keep repeating a falsehood about history here.

As an overview : I believe the bishops or even laymen who issued The Gift of Scripture belong to the end times counterchurch. To me, they are not properly Catholic.

III

9:57 "it's actually our sin nature"

Being born with original sin will certainly damn until that is removed, but only to limbo.

To go to Hell, one needs to be in a state of personal mortal sin.

Those who don't receive grace sooner or later fall that way, due to original sin.

But Hell, with pains, is still about what we do, not just about what we are.

Until, in some cases, a mortal sin is forgiven after repentance.