Sunday, June 16, 2024

One Remark Blew My Mind

Progressive Christianity's Goal isn't About Finding Truth.
Melissa Dougherty | 14 June 2024

7:04 w h a t ?

I think I heard someone say "she thinks that the essential belief of Christianity is child sacrifice"

Perhaps she meant God the Father sacrificing God the Son?

Reminds of my deconstructed grandma ... after a Salvation Army movie, when in a shock state she had misheard John 3:16

"Dad, you don't love me so much that you'll crucify me, will you?"
"Child, you can think ..."

My great-grand-father was already not a Christian, not sure if Atheist or Deist ... so, naturally he encouraged my future granny's deconstruction.

Granny had bad health after gramp died in 1976, and ma was not always around her to be her doctor (but when she was, she was good), so she hung around lots of Swedish med personnel, who are lots (except my ma) atheist / evolutionist, and well, none of those guys (I only know my granny's name) were happy about ma or me being Christian, still less about both of us being YEC and myself converting to Catholicism.

I have left Sweden in 2004, I sometimes think my deconstructed grandma is still haunting me via those medical networks. Could also be my (also med practictioner) dad, who, with his ma, my other granny, desconstructed from 7DA to more or less Modernist "Lutheran" ...

9:15 "deconstruction story, that's the testimony"

So, Deconstruction movement very rooted in Evangelicals ...

Wonder if Testimony comes from 1 Peter 3:15?

I think the correct reading is more about apologetics than testimony.

15:47 Obviously, "Lucy lived 2 million years ago" is very much mis-placed in "the lower storey" ...

16:54 Why are they putting "Earth rotates and circles the Sun" into the realm of objective reality everyone has access to?

Look at it historically, it is a matter of power.

1) The Catholic Church did not just shut Galileo down, but Riccioli did a great job or refuting him.
2) Riccioli's views involves many planets having orbits like spirograph patterns, if you abstract away the daily movement, and angels perform those.
3) Mainstream Protestantism (I don't mean Evangelicals) was at this point less happy about details about angels, and Newton showed Heliocentrism as roughly speaking working without them.
4) Benjamin Franklin thought and was thought to have disproven angelic beings being involved in lightnings.
5) The French Revolution, its precursor the Enlightenment, the outcome of the Napoleonic Wars pushed Protestantism into power. Franklin and Newton were the order of the day, and if Catholicism didn't formally retract 1616 and 1633 decisions (prior to 1992, and "John Paul II" was not fully Catholic), the Church was picking battles and not investing much in this one at all, since 1820.

It is a matter of power.

If you ask about objective truth, "how do you know the Solar System works with near Heliocentrism, including for Earth, and with Newtonian only physics (or Einsteinian, a little reshift of Newtonian), the answer will be:

  • the math works out
  • there is no need to pull in angels

But there are many versions of the universe where the math would work out, and it partly works out due to circularity (you can only derive masses of Sun and Jupiter from the orbits, supposing they reflect masses, you can't exactly derive masses in other ways).

And there is no need to push angels out either. Not epistemically, since Geocentrism allows the visual and equilibrial impression to be closely aligned with hard fact, rather than the inverse of it, which is a gain in epistemic simplicity well worth keepîng them in. Not physically, since the idea spirits can't influence matter would make nonsense of our daily experience as humans. Not theologically, since angelic movers of heavenly bodies (or heavenly bodies being visible bodies of angelic beings) is in the Bible if you accept some verses literally, and they were so accepted. Job 38:7 being one.

17:51 Theexact same guys who say "the Church invented X" (Hell, Christian sexual morals, proofs for God etc ...) "to control you" are often enough shrinks eager to control Christians and pro-aborts eager to control legislation.

In other words, Marxists. And yes, for all of my anti-Capitalism, I do think Wurmbrandt was right about Marx. He was a Satanist.

I also think José Antonio Primo de Rivera was right. In one speech he said "Marx was a talented Jew, who saw the problem of Capitalism, but not the solution to it" ...

Outside the video comments:

It would seem seemed to me, that he was not interested in allowing me a voice on a neutral historic-archaeological subject after I had posted a thread with YEC / archaeology on the "history / archaeology" forum ... he never answered what the right forum would have been.

He has allowed a new version of same thread, clarifying what my question was.

No comments: