The Last Lesson from Church Militant and Michael Voris
Brian Holdsworth | 8 Dec. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ9FLoLf1FI
3:09 Please note:
- a) if I had very private or at least rather ill known information of Karol Wojtyla holding to:
The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: "It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements. . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me."
and I exposed this before Catholics, who, as normal, were holding to Young Earth Creationism or at least thought that was one of the options and Adam having biological ancestry not an option (after considering and duly rejecting a discussion topic mentioned in Humani Generis), that would be detraction, big time; - but b) since I share a very public knowledge of above text being §283 in the CCC he endorsed, it cannot be detraction to expose the falsity of that view, it's not unjust to alert Catholics who are flirting with what objectively is apostasy.
4:10 I am very much too little familiar with the Vortex to say that they were habitually exposing unknown lies to the curiosity of people rather than exposing well-known statements as the lies they are for instruction of people.
The latter obviously does not constitute any kind of detraction.
5:36 It very highly depends on what kind of standing the tall tales actually had among some other audience you legitimately care about.
Imagine the guy stretching the truth were universally unknown apart from a small circle, who were all scratching their heads, which by the way is not my case, if I was the guy you thought of ... 9 — 10.XII I had 385 page views and that was record low, and people certainly care to step up with encouring hints to me if they fear I'd need to defend myself before a Socialist minded shrink ... keeping him unknown might be a better medicine than making him known to expose him — unless by doing so you were depriving him of income and sustenance which may be involved in "your own" detractions or even calumnies (stated by or to you) depriving him of media income.
Imagine on the other hand, someone already has a very big standing, and has shown very bad judgement on a public issue. A Patriarch of Constantinople saying "we shouldn't call Her Theotokos" — does that ring a bell? No, the man who stepped up in the pew and shouted "heresy" or "heretic" was not engaging in calumny or detraction or insult, he was defending the faith.
5:55 Of that person's soul? What about the souls of other people threatened by the public bad behaviour of that person?
11:30 I definitely try to provide content that's good and true, without directly denouncing anyone.
As a Catholic and as a Young Earth Creationist, I provide solutions, notably to carbon 14 dates that taken at face value seem to contradict Biblical chronology (while there is not only one such, it is a thing, and pretending that the gold of Varna was 6000 BC, and that Neanderthals lived tens of thousands of years before that, is contrary to any Biblical chronology).
Some people notice only two things:
- when I explicitly attack CCC §283 for being misleading and Humani Generis for being overpermissive
- that even positive arguments can be taken as indirectly attacking this.
Again, some people who lose debates pretend it's calumny or detraction of me to take the debate out in the open. Supposing I had genuinely lost the debate, and had still taken it out, would they have been angry? No. What I am after in such cases is not the person x, y, z ... or rather a, b, c, ... z, aa, bb, cc ... zz, aaa, bbb, ccc ... zzz, but the fact that the arguments they were making and which are very commonly held were not strong enough in that debate, when they were tested against mine.
I'm very happy with allowing an opponent to hide his real person behind a pseudonym, as it's old earth arguments or evolution arguments I'm after.
But some people feel detracted when their arguments are exposed as weak.
12:02 Yes, you have exactly made my point. Some padres were in the 1940's and 50's and even more 60's and 70's doing the very public sin of taking a distance from Fundamentalism and pretending it's not Catholic.
In the 2010's finally we get a report in France saying the public commission (biassed as it was against Catholicism) was:
- finding complaints about a formerly hidden sin now somewhat overexposed back in the 40's
- not finding such complains from back in the 30's.
12:40 Did I just mention I thought one formerly hidden sin had been somewhat overexposed?
No comments:
Post a Comment