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" ...

Jimmy Akin gets lots right, some wrong

Can Faith and Reason Coexist? w/ Jimmy Akin
Matt Fradd | 27.V.2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISO-Ch0uTHc

With my comments, in chronological order and numbered as to themes:

I

Faith may involve continuing to believe contrary to what for the moment seems to be good evidence.

Not all come into that situation, and it should ideally get cleared up by getting the evidence straightened out, but the case exists and it is featured as a recurring one in "Miracles" at the very end. Especially for beginners. (C. S. Lewis was no Catholic, but I think a moral theologian would also argue for instance you need to believe the Catholic truth that wine is innocent even when an AA club is telling you otherwise - I'd add not to join any AA clubs, btw).

2:01 "what you want is the evidence" - even as one's pre-Christian habits or habits taken over from non-Christian friends would distort what it should look like and how it looks to you right now? See example of a Catholic joining AA:ers, which alas happens (St Eustache in Paris hosts AA meetings certain evenings).

II

2:48 Jimmy, there is hope for you! Tell me when you converted to literal belief in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah!

III

3:16 I believe in miasma, they are what pestilence masks blocked out so physicians visiting plague patients didn't get all bubonic themselves... I believe in earth element being influenced by Mars for iron and Venus for attraction qualities, that's how Marco Polo's compass imported from China worked ... "blague à part" : electricity is a proven phenomenon, but electrons are to my mind a bit too specific a cause to be proven by it. A bit like deducing from the five ways of St. Thomas that God would die on a Cross and be named Jesus.

3:25 I do enough about the experiments to know that electrons as particles are deduced from cloud chambers. I also know I find the reasoning between the cloud chamber experiment, which I used to know details of, and that electrons are particles when in electron shells around a nucleus is not convincing. The evidence of chemistry and valencies, and molecule structures can be seen by electronic microscopy, suggest very clearly that the charges classed as negative are real, and quantified in discrete quantities, and layered into shells with different charge numbers for completion, the best I could do is Thomas Bradwardine who argued that if one aspect of reality is quantum, or atomic as they would have said, so are all, so if charges are quantum, on that idea, presumably so are what carries these as a quality. Interestingly, he argued against quantum and for Aristotelic continuum. The mere fact that electricity exists is neither sufficient to disprove him on that nor to show one needs to trust the experts. There is no general moral obligation to have a stance on what electricity is, as there is on believing the Blessed Trinity, once one knows how God in the Flesh revealed it.

3:29 "who do understand these things" - sufficient to provide electricity does not imply sufficient to analyse it correctly as to essence - "and can prove them" - within their charmed circle, as long as scholastics extend to them the favour St. Thomas did to geometricians about sum of angles (but when he said it was stupid not to believe them, he had presumably already seen a proof).

Proving a thing oneself in detail may not be necessary to believe a thing, but having a good idea about how the details should go, by sketching out a general proof, is normally a requirement for having any opinion.

IV

5:28 Excellent point about blind man holding up a number of fingers to prove sight exists in others ...

5:56 One point. It seems Karl May was born blind and gained sight by an eye operation - he actually did experience colour visions when people told him, especially the tales of his granny, before he could see. A bit like you can imagine a blue object that's not present if you close your eyes.

6:35 One moment, just for the fun of being a bit paranoid ... is there anyone pretending to test me if I am a prophet with supernatural awareness? I'm not, I'm a scholastic, but to some non-Catholics that looks at first like "prophet or fool" and then "fool" starts to edge out when I'm coherent. As a Catholic, you shouldn't believe those people. But obviously, such a test cannot be why you usually don't bother to answer my points, that would be ... "zu anmassend" as they say in German (forgot the English right now).

V

6:46 Above the sky would in fact be literally true, not of God's omnipresence, but of where He receives adoration from angels and from souls of saints and above all from the Blessed Virgin, who is there BODY AND soul. (You are aware bodies exist in space, right?)

Suris Misrepresenting CMI and Climate Debate

Sarfati's GRIFT Could MELT the Icecaps! ATHEISM Causes Climate Change!?
Suris | 11.III.2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqwtXvZziK4

I

5:46 It would in fact be impossible to ruin the earth for a long time and thoroughly ... but it's not impossible to do things that would lead up to there unless for instance Doomsday intervenes.

Apocalypse 11:18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest render reward to thy servants the prophets and the saints, and to them that fear thy name, little and great, and shouldest destroy them who have corrupted the earth.

So, such and such a network, Capitalist, Communist, Gay Liberal, etc destroys or corrupt the earth, God will destroy them - before they completely destroy the earth.

Meaning, the non-intervention of God at such a point might lead to an earth that actually were destroyed. It's just that Doomsday would come first.

II

9:09 Apart from the sham medicine "psychiatry" where disbeliving evolution is a symptom, nothing in modern medicine comes from evolution.

Some things do come from observations about adaptation to environment, including observations on antibiotics resistent bacteria, but this is a very far cry from molecules to man evolution.

And when it comes to Adam, there is a very clear difference between maintaining he existed, was specially created and is in his generation unique with his wife Eve first and universal ancestor of men, including Homo erectus, Denisovans, Neanderthals, and maintaining man slowly evolved through these races and was perhaps not fully human before reaching Homo sapiens sapiens, and trying to combine these is easier given as a blanket statement than actually fleshed out into a credible scenario.

Haruhi Suzumiya

Psychiatry is medicine based
Psychologists can't prescribe pills
Psychiatrists can.
Medicine psychiatry is a oxymoron.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Haruhi Suzumiya Did you mean tautology?

I did not deny psychiatry counts as medicine, I am just pointing out it functions as a sham one.

Schizophrenia used to mean a process from hebephrenic, over paranoid, to catatonic.

To me, the only part of it that would have been there without psychiatry and psychiatrically minded non-specialists, is hebephrenic. "Not the paranoid type? That will come" - from a publicity for Stalk. Well, it comes to people exposed to stalking of psychiatry and its allies too.

III

14:13 Morris and Whitcombe were not first in the field.

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Les Prédécesseurs catholiques de Henry Morris (jusqu'à 1920)
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2019/11/les-predecesseurs-catholiques-de-henry.html

Mangenot enumerates these, dismisses them 26 years after the last he enumerates, and 26 years approximately to the first cases of clerical pedophilia in France.

Romans 1:[25] Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. [26] For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature.

IV

14:31 If you found a rabbit in precambrian strata, you would simply not classify them as precambrian ...

I can live with Permian creatures having different biotopes from Eocene ones in the years leading up to the Flood. And no, in land vertebrates, you never do find two fossil bearing strata one strictly on top of the other on the locations where they are fossil bearing.

In sea creatures, you do find whales over trilobites or elasmosaurs over trilobites ... for reasons perhaps easy to understand with some understanding of sea life (including the theory necessary for Flood Geology that the seas were shallower than now, since that is where the Flood water went when they deepened).

Creation vs. Evolution : Archaeology vs Vertabrate Palaeontology in Geology
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/06/archaeology-vs-vertabrate-palaeontology.html

14:55 The Flood was not an instantaneous event, during the Flood, there were plenty of occasions for layers to both form by sedimentation and then dissolve by erosion, very rapid such.

Like where there are lots of chalk and sandstone layers on top of each other.

When it comes to one layer of palaeontology in land vertebrates, we have so far one layer in each location. On locations where the pre-Flood world was land.

15:31 predictable?

Letter A
Alabama
Demopolis Formation, Alabama, US, Upper Cretaceous (Middle Campanian)
Alaska
Prince Creek Formation, Colville Group, Alaska, US, Upper Cretaceous (Upper Campanian)

Arizona

Black Prince Limestone Formation, Arizona, Upper Carboniferous (Westphalian A-B; Late Morrowan or earliest Derryan; Bashkirian)
Tecovas Formation, Chinle Group, Texas & Arizona, Upper Triassic (Carnian)
Chinle Formation, Arizona and New Mexico, Upper Triassic (Latest Carnian-Early Norian)
Moenave Formation, Arizona, Lower Jurassic (Hettangian?)
Kayenta Formation, Lower Jurassic [Hettangian-Sinemurian-Plienbaschian]
Navajo Sandstone Formation, Glen Canyon Group, Lower Jurassic [Plienbaschian-Toarcian]
Turney Ranch Formation, Arizona, Lower-Upper Cretaceous [Albian-Cenomanian]

Letter C
California

Vaqueros Formation, Early Miocene (Burdigalian)
Modelo Formation, Late Miocene (Tortonian)

Colorado

Harding Formation, Colorado, Middle-Late Ordovician (Caradoc)
Sangre de Cristo Formation, Colorado, US, Upper Carboniferous (Missourian, Kasimovian)
Morrison Formation, Colorado, Upper Jurassic (Kimmeridgian-Tithonian)
Purgatoire Formation, Colorado, Lower Cretaceous (Aptian-Albian)
Denver Formation, Colorado, Upper Cretaceous (Upper Maastrichtian)
Colorado, USA Eocene (Orellan)

Connecticut
Portland Fm, Lo. Jur. [Plienbasch-Toarc.]

Letters G to L
Georgia
Blue Buff Formation, Middle Eocene (Bartonian)

Illinois

Mazon Creek fauna, Illinois, US, Upper Carboniferous (Westphalian C-D) (Moscovian)
Modesto Formation, Illinois, Upper Carboniferous (Missourian, Kasimovian)

Kansas

Stanton Formation (formerly Admiral Formation), Kansas, Upper Pennsylvanian (Missourian)
Calhouns Shale Formation, Kansas, Upper Carboniferous (Virgilian, Gzhelian)
Niobrara Formation, Kansas, US, Upper Cretaceous (Upper Coniacian- Lower Campanian)

Louisiana

Cook Mountain Formation, Middle Eocene (Bartonian)
Yazoo Clay Formation, Upper Eocene (Priabonian)

Letter M, and here I stop:

Maryland

Arundel Clay Formation, Potomac Group, Maryland, Lower Cretaceous (Aptian)
Calvert Formation, Middle Miocene (Serravallian)
Saint Marys Formation, Late Miocene (Tortonian)

Massachusetts

Portland Formation, Massachusetts, US, Lower Jurassic (Hettangian-Plienbaschian)
Upper Portland Formation, Massachusetts & Connecticut, US, Lower Jurassic (Plienbaschian-Toarcian)

Montana

Heath Formation (Bear Gulch Limestone), Montana, Carboniferous, Mississippian, (Arnsbergian)
Morrison Formation, Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Montana, United States, Upper Jurassic (Kimmeridgian-Tithonian)
Cloverly Formation, Montana & Wyoming, Lower Cretaceous (Aptian-Albian)
Blackleaf Formation, Upper Cretaceous (Cenomanian) Montana
Judith River Formation, Montana Group, Montana, US, Upper Cretaceous (Upper Campanian)
Two Medicine Formation, Montana, US, Upper Cretaceous (Campanian)
Hell Creek Formation, Montana, US, Upper Cretaceous (Maastrichtian)
Tullock Formation, Montana, US, Early Paleocene
Montana, USA Eocene (Chadronian)

Source, Palaeocritti:
https://sites.google.com/site/palaeocritti/by-location/united-states

Would you mind telling me what is predictable about this hotchpotch?

V

dialogue

Hans-Georg Lundahl

15:18 Plate tectonic may have been inspired by an Old Earth hypothesis, but are definitely transposable to Universal Flood theory.

Haruhi Suzumiya

I mean the pre Triassic period had a flood where it was raining for 2 million years but something as a universal flood for 41 days that wouldn't even happen as told when a pre Triassic period rains are rarely acknowledged as occurring.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Haruhi Suzumiya First, I think you consider the Flood as only based on rain.

Reread these two verses of Genesis 7:11-12 In the six hundredth year of the life of Noe, in the second month, in the seventeenth day of the month, all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the flood gates of heaven were opened: And the rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

all the fountains of the great deep were broken up = sth a bit reminiscent of plate tectonics?

Second, you probably consider Flood as describing a process impossible since needing to go to Mount Everest heights. We usually consider it as possible and Mount Everest and a lot of other mountains to have reached their height by post-Flood fairly rapid plate tectonics.

Third, not sure what your scenario is supposed to mean. Permian is on the Evolutionist view before Triassic, and it's a bit hard imagining land animals of Permian, even any of them, to survive 2 million years of unrelenting rain. Did you mean pre-Cambrian?

Haruhi Suzumiya

@Hans-Georg Lundahl it leads to the age of dinosaurs.

Source Chonday [sharing next video*] That Time it Rained for Two Million Years
https://www.chonday.com/30854/raintwomil6/

Pangaea became very wet,

* [this video:

That Time It Rained for Two Million Years
PBS Eons | 22.V.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1LdMWlNYS4

which I have not seen yet. But yes, it is about beginning of Triassic or just before!]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Haruhi Suzumiya Thanks for link, but how is any animal supposed to have survived in that very wet time?

VI

15:47 It so happens, I have so far not been disappointed in the prediction that sea fauna may come in several layers in same place, land vertebrates in only one, and no mixing of sea fauna and land vertebrates, except very minor sea fauna, like one can imagine mussles or shrinmps coming with mud to bury some land vertebrates.

I recall there would have been a place in Mexico, California La Baja, where Cretaceous Ceratopsians lie under Palaeocene shrimps or crayfish.

But you might find an exception, take a look at this site:

Palaeocritti : By Location
https://sites.google.com/site/palaeocritti/by-location

And no, it is not a Creationist site!

Feel free to use this site in parallel:

Paleofieldguide : By Country
https://sites.google.com/site/paleofieldguide/by-country

VII

19:46 While Sarfati's explanation ultimately depends on the global flood, his closer explanation is an observed fact.

1200 the climate was so warm one could grow grapes in England, South of it.
5th–6th February 1658 the climate was so cold that Charles X Gustav of Sweden crossed Great Belt with an army on horseback riding over the ice.

Interesting that you are so much more interested in debating his ultimate principles which you dispute over debating his observations about known historic fact ...

VIII

20:01 Why are you not taking your tirade against the Flood on a video the CMI do about the Flood and its evidence?

Perhaps you don't care that they should be able to argue against you ...?

Or, since you would be doing it against them, arguing more effectively than you?

IX

22:14 I'd agree on your view on Greta's legitimacy, relative to that of her message.

"using a child for a political message"

First of all, at 17, Greta is legally a minor, and may not yet marry, which is a wrongdoing perpetrated in part in 1892 when the age was raised from 15 to 17, and in part 1915 when it was raised from 17 to 18. This does not make her a child.

Second, Jeanne d'Arc tried to reach the King of France at 16, and then tried again next year, after getting a refusal.

So, Puritanism on this front is Anti-French and ultimately probably indebted to an English view of St. Joan no longer held by Catholics.

X

24:46 Agreed.

In fact, some have considered the combustion engine a disaster for other reasons too ... like road kills. Hedgehogs squeezed to death under car wheels aren't pretty. Some stags have been as traumatised by cars as Bambi by a hunter, not to mention, the drivers have also not quite been in a good shape everytime.

Indeed, some people have even died in driving accidents.

Ross Hill comes to mind. Btw, he may be a saint, I think he interceded for me on an occasion, so no disrespect because he died in a car accident, please!

T H E N we have the question of what combustion engines do with trade and therefore also local production.

?

I think there was a comment where I commented on Suris presuming a viewpoint like that of a Southron Fundie as per Suris' known acquaintances.

I answered that CMI staff definitely were not rednecks, excepting the one Robert Carter.

I am not sure how it disappeared ...

• did I overlook it? or perhaps not get time to post it?
• did some internet admin imagine (or pretend to "imagine") I had gone bonkers when posting so much? (Bpi is a nice library, but librarians have some tendency to Commie leanings ...)
• or did Suris find this jarred too much with the misrepresentation he was, de facto, giving of CMI, so he removed it? That would imply the misrepresentation was intentional ...

Either way, here is the link to CMI's page

Who we are: the people involved
Australia | Canada | New Zealand | South Africa | UK/Europe | United States
https://creation.com/who-we-are

I am sad this involves not being able to give my personal assessments of some ... the main ones were Robert Carter (the one redneck) being my favourite enemy on CMI, and Russell Grigg unfortunately blocking their Catholic conversion, since he's too devoted to the Reformers.

XI

25:23 No, that is not hypocritical.

The founder of CMI is Dr Carl Wieland M.B., B.S.

Dr Carl Wieland M.B., B.S.
https://creation.com/dr-carl-wieland-cv

Here is an article from a medical perspective by him:

Your appendix … it’s there for a reason
by Ken Ham and Carl Wieland | This article is from
Creation 20(1):41–43, December 1997
https://creation.com/your-appendix-its-there-for-a-reason

Here is another article of his germain to your pov on the topic:

Algae to oil
by Jonathan O’Brien and Dr Carl Wieland | This article is from
Creation 37(3):55, July 2015
https://creation.com/algae-to-oil

XII

["it is thanks to the Industry / INdustrialism they hate"]

25:54 "that they exist in the first place"

Disagreeing with Sarfati.

It is because of Genesis 1:28 and of men and women obeying that, that they or anyone else exists.

Industry reducing child mortality by providing improved hygiene is an asset, but not the ultimate reason, and as humanity surviving in the Middle Ages proves, not a sine qua non.

"that they have a future"

In the Middle Ages, if you were willing to dig with a spade, you had a future.

In the 50's, if you were willing to stand at an assemblage line, you had a future.

Today, if you have extensive knowhow in computers, you have a future ... supposing there are too few others who have that.

XIII

27:43 Uranium is also limited quantity, much more than crude oil, if the algae experiment is correctly assessed, and on top of it, it is hasardous.

Harrisburg. Chernobyl. Fukushima.

And its byproducts are used to build Atomic bombs too.

XIV

28:03 Both are from Australia, and Australia uses Celsius.

So, assume they mean Celsius.

XV

32:13 The religious state of Soviet Union had sth to do with both economy and disasters.

They did not make Heaven their goal, they made progress their ULTIMATE goal, as Christians do with Heaven (or should).

They were too eager to get it, and this paid off in bad economic policies (Holodomor), bad manners to opponents (Katyn, and a massacre in East Carelia some are now trying to push responsibility to Finns for), and immature use of technology, specifically Uranium related one.

Soviet spies from the time when Harrisburg was being made came back with incomplete US technology with none of the safety measures, and ... well, you get the general picture. Soviets just couldn't allow US to have an upper hand in the race for nuclear progress. Obviously, where people are allowed to be Fundies, they cannot be good enough in science to compete with us true believers in Evolution, or sth like that.

XVI

32:38 That "Christian" perspective is actually not born out from Apocalypse 11:18 where the Twenty-Four ancients are adressing God "[thou] shouldest destroy them who have corrupted the earth"

On my view, part of the reason for the Flood was, nukings in the Mahabharata War had made earth uninhabitable, unless some parts sank into deep Oceanic basins and some other parts were covered in deep mud.

XVII

32:48 Stewardship thinking is common among:

• Catholics
• Orthodox
• Anglicans and Lutherans and Methodists
• Jews (Sarfati is, I have gathered, a Messianic Jew or sth?)

It is also often though not as universally seen among:

• Calvinists
• Baptists

It is also quasi universally practised by:

• Mennonites
• Amish

You know, some of the good guys in Terence Hill's They Call Me Renegade.

The other perspective you refer to is rather minoritarian.

XVIII

33:12 The nickname "Communism" usually refers to a Marxist society of the type Marxists themselves would call "Dictatorship of the Proletariat".

Marxism is pretty well devoted to Evolution and Big Bang belief (historically usually with atheism), about as much as Spain has Catholicism (or had) as state religion.

Luther and Canonicity of Maccabees (quora)

Q

Why do people such as James Hough keep telling the falsehood that Martin Luther "threw out" some books of the Bible, when in fact Luther translated them all, including the "Apocrypha"?
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-such-as-James-Hough-keep-telling-the-falsehood-that-Martin-Luther-threw-out-some-books-of-the-Bible-when-in-fact-Luther-translated-them-all-including-the-Apocrypha/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Roy Wilson

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered 1m ago

I would second Seth Pace : Luther denied them status of canon.

I will cite a comment by Roy Wilson:

"Luther didn’t designate them as “Apocrypha”, St. Jerome did, and Luther just followed that. Until the Council of Trent, that was how they were viewed."

No, St. Jerome in his own day was a minority of one man. St. Augustine insisted, on behalf of all bishops he knew, that St. Jerome include these books. The man from Stridon had been unduly impressed by their absence from Masoretic, sorry, pre-Masoretic Jewish canon.

Updated

for some debate.

Roy Wilson

12h ago

Jerome was definitely not “a minority of one man”; scholars in both the east and west agreed with him, something the Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges, and a situation which continued right down to Trent. Both St. Athanasius and Cyril of Jerusalem held the same view as Jerome: Athanasius does not include them in his list of what comprises the Old Testament, and Cyril counts the Old Testament books the same way the Jews did.

For that matter, Jesus explicitly references the Jewish canon with the description “from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah”, indicating events in the first and last books of the Jewish canon — a list that matched the books written in Hebrew and did not include those written in Greek.

So Jerome was in very good company in his defining the Hebrew canon as the proper Old Testament. The real disagreement was in his use of the term “apocrypha”, as it was used in different ways by different writers. Other terms were “ecclesiastical” and “intertestamental”; “deuterocanonical” is a much later invention.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Original Author

1m ago

St. Athanasius is in the Church of Alexandria and Cyril as the name implies of Jerusalem.

Also, St. Athanasius’ presumed support for Jewish / Protestant canon is moot, since he debated at least the idea of not counting Esther as canon.

I seem to recall that St. Athanasius uses the Jewish phrase “22 books” and that is the main argument for his not accepting “apocrypha” as canon. In fact “22 books” had become a stereotyped phrase meaning Old Testament.

“Athanasius does not include them in his list of what comprises the Old Testament”

Does he give one? Where?

“and Cyril counts the Old Testament books the same way the Jews did.”

Lists them or merely counts the number to 22 books? See above for that. If he gives a list, show where.

“For that matter, Jesus explicitly references the Jewish canon with the description”

Unless the murder of Zechariah refers to some more recent event, like murdering the father of St. John the Baptist.

Or Jesus could have been aware of His speaking to Pharisees, and being aware of their more restricted canon, while disagreeing, if the Temple had (after Ezra) a wider one.

“So Jerome was in very good company in his defining the Hebrew canon as the proper Old Testament.”

Except that St. Augustine in correspondence with him references the bishops - plural -as disagreeing on the sentiment.

At least the Churches of Africa (not Egypt) and Rome would clearly have been preferring the OT canon we now have, and St. Jerome belonged to the Roman patriarchy. Unless you want to say that the lists of councils of Rome and Carthage call “I and II Maccabees” what we now call “I+II and III+IV Maccabees” (agreeing with Romanian and Greek Bibles) and “I and II Ezra” not what we now call “I and II Ezra” or “Ezra and Nehemiah” but what we count as “Russian I Ezra and Ezra+Nehemiah”. Which reminds me, a list that gives “Jeremiah” need not be just “Jeremiah” but could be “Jeremiah+Baruch”.

Anyway, St. Jerome was obliged to the customs of the Papal Patriarchy, the Latin Church, in which he was a minority of one. Making as - presumed by you - St. Cyril of Jerusalem would have been a bit as if a Latin Rite priest had wanted to celebrate the Eucharist with leavened bread. Or a Byzantine Rite priest with unleavened. Still obviously presuming you are right on St. Cyril.

“Other terms were “ecclesiastical” and “intertestamental”; “deuterocanonical” is a much later invention.”

Both intertestamental and deuterocanonical are later inventions, but “ecclesiastical” rings true, since they are books shared by the EKKLHSIA but not by the ΣYNAΓOΓH.

Luther had a motive, but no real gain, in ditching canonicity of Maccabees. II Maccabees 12 features prayers for the dead, so Purgatory, and even if it were not canonic it would have meant the idea of Purgatory / Prayers for the Dead was already around in Our Lord’s time, and we know He did not speak up against it in the Gospels.