E. Michel Jones Banned (sharing) and back (sharing too)

Banned:

BREAKING NEWS: E. MICHAEL JONES BANNED!
16.VIII.2019 | HolyFaith Media 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgytaGvquLU

Back:

BANNED! E. Michael Jones Books Removed
24.VI.2020 | E. Michael Jones
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFy2HBuXrOE

Conclusion : it is still possible to save free speech by protesting. Think of this before concluding you cannot print my stuff (Romanian* readers may note, not all countries have post-Communist lag of lingering Communist censorship)./HGL

* Romanian or Romania based readers read ten of my blogs this week, starting with this one, first among those where it was I = first of top ten:

23 juin 2020 18:00 – 30 juin 2020 17:00 (I get my interface in French).

I Roumanie 121 Roumanie 40 Roumanie 82 Roumanie 8

II Roumanie 40 Roumanie 179 Roumanie 49 (after États-Unis) Roumanie 79 (after Italie)

VI Roumanie 1

X Roumanie 3

One more thing, I have a childhood connexion to Romania, but not sufficient to grasp the language when spoken or more than half when written. Multumesc!

Logarithms and a mathematical day ...

Logarithms explained Bob Ross style
Tibees | 16.IX.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up21mvokyQ4

I

0:41 One can study logarithms for fun without testing.

Perhaps not so much in France. Slide rules are "règles à calculer" and the word "règles" evokes something somewhat unpleasant to many women.

I had inbibed a love for slide rules and logarithms before arriving ....

I also came across the question, "how do you raise a number to a fractional power?"

You don't. The fractions are algebra for something else.

X raised to a/b = Y
means
X raised to a = Y raised to b.

While a logarithm is never a fraction, it falls between two. E. g. 10 to the seventh is roughly equal to 2 to the tenth. Forgot whether that was upper or lower limit for logarithm, there is another one on the other side of it.

Sorry, make that ten to the third instead!

And it was lower limit, since it gives you 0.3 rather than 0.301 ...

II

8:22 Please, don't call it Euler's number - it's an irrational ratio, not a number, and Euler didn't call such things numbers, though he used quantitas indistinctly for numerus and ratio ... (for Zahl or arithmos, I'd disagree less, you can have such a thing that goes "1 + 1 = 2" and these are therefore not restricted to what's really numbers!)

III

8:40 I did. I just calculated that if sphere of fix stars is one light day up, which as a geocentric I think is the case, and God's heavenly court and Jerusalem above that, then the aberration so called corresponds to a proper movement of 0.13 sth light minutes.

(Took aberrational angle as 20 arc seconds from memory)

Debating for Creatio ex nihilo

Continued from here:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Defending Creatio ex Nihilo
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2019/08/defending-creatio-ex-nihilo.html

I'll invert the last two points I made since the latter one got a shorter response chain:

I

Hans Georg Lundahl

6:00 creatio ex nihilo does not mean matter or energy springing into existence without any cause, but with God being that cause.

Matter and energy can come into existence but not of their own previously non-extant causation, but an external one, not tied to matter and energy in order to work : God's.

Atheos Graham

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂

Hans Georg Lundahl

@Atheos Graham You are claiming thought came into existence, not caused by thought, but by matter and energy not tied to thought, don't you?

II

Hans Georg Lundahl

5:23 "this means the universe has always existed in one form or another"

There is actually scientific arguments against your conclusion too.

In stars, all over the universe (on standard view) or, in Sun and the stars at the edge of the universe (on my geocentric view), H is being fused into He.

No known reversal of this process, no known production of H from non-matter. Hence, a universe with H in it cannot be eternal from eternity.

And a universe without H in it is so unknown a factor, even God is less of a blind chance belief in "x of the gaps".

Atheos Graham

No your wrong. The big bang explains how our universe became at how it is now from a crunched denset smaller then an atom, so the universe was always just in another form

Hans Georg Lundahl

@Atheos Graham Was the crunched denset eternally such? Did it become crunched from a previous universe?

If A, unlike God who has will, there is a paradox about the changed behaviour of the denset.

If B, you are pleading serial multiverse, but what I stated remains true of each universe.

It is not from eternity, but from a point in time.

Atheos Graham

@Hans-Georg Lundahl we don't know if it was eternally such, but we know for sure that is was crunched, so what we know for sure is that the big bang explains only the expansion, we don't know how this crunched universe came to be or how it was before it expanded (big bang) , for anyone to come and to fill the gap with god it's just stupid and his commiting the god of the gap fallacy

Hans Georg Lundahl

@Atheos Graham My point is, first, no, we don't know that it was crunched that way.

Second, you can live with matter of all universe condensed in less space than an atom, but somehow not with creative processes crunched in shorter time than millions or billions of years.

Third, Atheism in its classic version from Democritus and Epicure on, including its revival in 18th C. Atheism, relied on Universe needing no creator since an Eternal Steady State Universe. My point was, this was disproven, and as to "before BB" except for just before, you don't know where to stand.

Atheos Graham

@Hans-Georg Lundahl of course we know that, we know for sure with science that it was crunched together, that's the big bang theory, the big bang theory and the cosmic background radiation proves that, you either accept this unanimously accepted theory or you don't, but for you to go and to refuse the first part (that it was crunched together with other words the universe was already there but in another form and state) and to accept the second part (that the universe that we know now came into existence by the big expansion FROM THAT CRUNCHED FORM) and then refuse the crunched part, that's just wishfull believing from your part and denying science

Hans Georg Lundahl

@Atheos Graham I am not accepting either part.

I am challenging EITHER alternative of what the denset was before being the pre-Big Bang denset just pre-Big Bang, as not just unproven, but a bad argument for atheism.

As to "we know for sure with science" I don't give even unanimously accepted theories (which this isn't, unless you wilfully exclude Creation scientists) the credit as unanimously accepted dogma, because God never gave scientists the promise He gave Catholic bishops.

Atheos Graham

@Hans-Georg Lundahl hahahahhahahahahahahahahhaa

Hans Georg Lundahl

@Atheos Graham Enjoy ... with your sense of humour, perhaps you should be rewatching Laurel and Hardy instead of discussing things ...?

Barron on Esty

Bishop Barron on Netflix’s “Unorthodox” and the Modern Myth of Origins
"Bishop" Robert Barron | 28.V.2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMGWuNxDOh0

I

How would you like to imagine Jews making reproaches to someone of a Nordic Marrano (Jewish Christian, as Anglo-Saxons and Scandinavians often say) background for wanting to R E M A I N the Catholic he converted to from, not Judaism, but Lutheranism, as if he were some kind of counterpart to Estie ...?

II

3:56 As to the other version of the Modern Myth of Modernity's Origin's, have you considered how much space opera there went into convincing people of Heliocentrism?

Galileo's Dialogo, Fontenelle (also promotong Old Age), Euler's Letters to a Prussian Princess - even in my childhood in Austria, midway through big child age, 10-11, I could ask, centuries after Euler "what if Earth really were the unmoved centre" and get an answer "to people on other planets, their planets would have just as much a right to be the centre".

I don't think he was referring to Henoch and Elijah living on Venus, since not yet dead, not yet eligible to pass through pearly gates, and still having some Apocalypse 11 work to do, I think he was referring to Tatooine and Simlane. And in earlier versions Jupiter and Mars as in Ellen G White and Swedenborg.

Adding two posts/links:

New blog on the kid : Rick DeLano
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2020/06/rick-delano.html

Creation vs. Evolution : No, Sibley, and thank you!
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/05/no-sibley-and-thank-you.html

The latter goes into the background in history of ideas, the former delves into some of the evidential questions too.

III

5:37 English was actually the last of the three languages I didn't chose.

• 1) Swedish, when gramp came from Sweden
• 2) German, as per Viennese surroundings
• 3) Ma told me, we are going over to the States and I am learning English "can't I take French instead?"

Since then I have chosen to learn a few other languages, like Danish, Dutch and French from age 13 (in school I had to chose between French and German, could have taken Spanish). And failed to learn some others.

For me, my religion was not given me, except some basics of Christianity by mother A F T E R I had already had a go at Evolution and Big Bang belief. I believed in Scooby Doo and no spirits before I believed in the existence of evil spirits and the necessity for sanctification to rely on the Holy Spirit.

IV

8:47 Between Judaism and Catholicism, where the balance tends to tip, Judaism stands for destiny and Catholicism for freedom. Escaping an unchosen marriage is part of what we honour Sts Barbara, Lucy, Agnes and Agatha for, not forgetting Cecily or Dorothy or Libussa.

There are Calvinists and Jews who argue Catholicism is corrupt B E C A U S E Sts Francis, Clare and Aquinas are canonised. They didn't obey their fathers, you know ...

I recall my second Father confessor (Anders Piltz, OP Tert, also my docent in Latin, teaching Medieval Latin and Virgil, notably) telling me to go and watch Dead Poets' society. My reaction was, the suicide was due to an oppressive Protestant Rich Father who could arrange for his sons plans to be thwarted. A certain nun in Sweden ... I looked her up, I think it was Catharina Bromée ... (Broomé if the wiki is correct), a dominican religious, wrote in Katolsk Kyrkotidning that the person played by Robin Williams, John Keating, was responsible, since he had given the youngsters too much freedom too fast.

I start getting concerned when I hear you taking the side of Destiny here too.

Let's suppose Esty were a real person, that kind of life (the one she got in Berlin), could have been the road to a Christian conversion, and even more or less monastic ones, like Eugene Rose, called Seraphim Rose, like Merton, Thomas, I think there may have been some nun too ...

Emptiness is a thing that can be discovered by those living it, whether libertinism or agnosticism. And therefore corrected.

As in a certain parable ... "why stand ye here idle?"

V

9:44 In Lund, a firmly Catholic position, whether at Classic or at Slavic/East European Institutes was not extremely welcome, confirmed.

I recall getting seated next to a girl on the first masquerade ball, before we danced, she had stated she was not against abortion, so at the slow I tried to keep some distance, I'd prefer the children I make not executed by that kind of lass, and I have a horror of condoms, and guess who got a reputation of perhaps even gay, certainly "got an issue" ...