vendredi 23 août 2013

Carnivores in Eden?

Series:

Did animals die before the Fall? If yes, can dinos be very, very old?
Animal Death could be Consequence of the Fall (Patristic support and scientific consideration)
Carnivores in Eden?

I am obviously speaking of the dogs and cats as belonging to the class carnivores, not as absolutely sure they were actually eating meat.

Church Fathers have differed on this one. St Augustine and Venerable Bede both held herbivores were actually getting fed to carnivores by sovereign decision of Adam.

As Benno Zuiddam very amicably pointed out to me, others before them disagreed. Defending either scenario - carnivores actually eating meat or not yet eating meat - is thus possible for a Christian.

Now, I will caution two things about this:

  • if death occurred in beasts before Adam sinned, as per carnivores eating herbivores, it does not mean other beasts were dying as well or that there were any sick herbivores that needed mercy killing - and absolutely not that Darwinian evolution "guided by God" used deaths of less adapted forms to purify adapted ones, so that Adam would have come from less adapted hominids gradually evolving towards him by deaths of those less like him;
  • if no death in beasts (at least what Hebrews would call nephesh creatures) occurred, this does not mean that the carnivores were automatically anatomically herbivores until drastic evolution changed them.


Let me elaborate on this point, and on another one also related to evolution as observed after the fall.

Hugh Ross is very right that God provides, and that this is stated in Psalm 103.

Therefore the direct driving force of selection is not chance death or struggle for survival, but the Providence of God.

The other point is this: an anatomical omnivore can be individually herbivore.

But a herbivore can loose its capacity to digest herbs. In a pure herbivore this leads to extinction, as celiacy would lead to starvation if man could digest nothing other than wheat. But in an omnivore this leads only to specialisation as a carnivore. And this would not be added information, it would merely be degenerative evolution.

Two nourishment related mechanisms may have been destroyed in man - perhaps at the fall or perhaps when God shortened human life span from 1000 to 120 years. We have an appendix, which may have been an appendix of a full caecum, as found in apes. But in us it is not. We have a sequence related to production of vitamin C within the body that is not functional - that lacks DNA "letters" to do that.

Now, dogs and cats could have lost caecum too, between fall and flood. Guineapigs have according to that appearance lost the vitamin C sequence functionality too (as have, I think apes).

One other point about evolution: for a mutation to spread, a small population is ideal, it does not have to get by many barriers before getting dominant or exclusive in them. After flood or even in breeds leading up to the arc this may explain quick evolution. In human varities enumerated by Linnaeus, europaeus, asiaticus, africanus, americanus, monstruosus, I only attribute monstruosus (extreme giants or dwarfs and possibly centaurs and fauns) to direct nephelim traits, while the four normal "races" would all have resulted in part by quick evolution in small groups. Actually it may be that American Natives are a mixture of West Europeans and Mongolian type Asiatics.

Whether it comes to skin colour in men or to exclusive carnivorousness in beasts, this is not at variance with Hugh Ross' mathematical model for evolution (which works well enough for bacteria, as he said) since the result to be explained is not advantageous mutations breaking through among ten thousand disadvantageous ones, but only the sometimes clearly degenerative mutations to actually break through - even by deteriorating a species.

Now, if Adam had not sinned, why would there have been carnivores around even though not eating meat in actual fact?

Well, as Christians know Satan hates us. He did creep into a snake to seduce, but he could theoretically have crept into something like a T Rex (unless these are genetically manipulated organisms, created by sinful tampering with genetics) or a bear and attacked Adam with direct physical violence. I think the snake was chosen because carnivores were part of a bodyguard for Adam. Let us say a big lizard, carnivorous like others, had attacked Adam under the influence of Satan. Let us say a Brontosaurus had killed it (thus expelling Satan from his tool as well) - there would have been a pile of unsavoury carcass around, and carnivores would already have been able to deal with it by scavenging on it. If a T Rex had killed a Brnto before getting killed there would be two carcasses. And even now, dog teeth are not just useful for chewing their meat food, but also for holding on to the limbs of malefactors, as guards know.

But without such an eventuality (and presumably there was none, since Satan chose the snaky approach, which he might not have done if there had been no carnivores around Adam), maybe they were symbiotic with ruminants. A sheep eats grass, it digests in one stomach, it pukes it up to chew again before digesting in the next stomach (which might be an argument why centaurs are less believable than fauns and dogheaded men even after Nephelim taint came into humanity) ... I am not sure lambs need feed on that, but if they do that would have been an occasion for a lion literally to lie down beside that lamb and get fed too, although an adult lion.

And after the fall, they still had the physical equipment to feed that way, if this theory goes anywhere, but after Adam's sin, peace was gone between lion and lamb, and the carnivorous capacity was used for simple feeding purposes - and the other feeding capacity may have been lost through degenerative evolution.

Bears are still able to eat berries and honey.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
BpI, Georges Pompidou
Vigil of St Bartholomew
23-VIII-2013

I wonder if the three sixes in the number of this post are a kind of warning? If so, I am forwarding the fact.

It might be because I used material about "homo americanus" from a video showing only stone age people in both Europe and America (but Ojibwa Indians have genetic markers in common with Western Europe, that was not mere speculation on part of those). Or it might be the prayers of some followers of Eugene Rose who in religion was Fr Seraphim Rose and who strongly disagreed with St Augustine and St Bede. Or again Orthodox opponents to him - I was neohimerite for some time. Or ...

Or I might have been culpable or badly influenced in not voicing my suspicion that T Rex might be a genetically modified ostrich rather than lizard. Some "dinosaurs" are of lizard type in hips and some are of bird type in hips. T Rex belongs to the bird type of hips dinosaurs.

Or culpable or badly influenced in not mentioning that Psalm 103 supports Geocentrism. Was probably so used in Galileo process.

dimanche 11 août 2013

St Augustine gives an inch and some take an ell

Series: 1) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere 2) somewhere else : Bible and Church Questions 3) Creation vs. Evolution : Why I have a Personal Grudge against Kenotic Heresy 4) item : St Augustine gives an inch and some take an ell 5) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : When St Augustine makes a fault, it is not all that faulty

Where did St Augustine write about Genesis? There may be a passage in Confessions. There certainly are parts in City of God and in Questions about the Heptateuch (Pentateuch, Joshua and Judges). There may be parts of Revisions. There is De Genesi ad Literam in twelve books, De Genesi ad Literam one incomplete book and De Genesi ad Literam against the Manichees. There may of course also be passages in Letters. And in each case of the three works named De Genesi ad Literam, the title so far means "on Genesis [taken] at the letter", and in each case this refers to the fact that it also has spiritual senses - like Eve taken from a rib of Adam while he slept denoting Church taken from the opened side of Jesus Christ while he hung dead on the Cross.

Now, thing is, Kent Hovind said that evolutionists contradict Jesus and Saint Paul. In both cases there are people who try to get around this using Saint Augustine. And in both cases I would say that if St Augustine gives an inch, they take an ell. If you know a certain proverb, I would say that gives them, but not St Augustine a certain similarity to the Devil.

Jesus said: From the beginning of Creation God created them man and woman.* Now, if someone playing around with St Augustine likes, he can say: "sure, in the beginning of creation, the way St Augustine speaks of the six days, God created all there is in its roots, and then after that there were billions of years until Adam was actually formed in time and matter and Eve too, but they had already been formed in their causes billions of years before that. That does not make Jesus a liar."

Hold it a minute! This is in De Genesi ad Literam book five and onwards at least into book six.

St Augustine did say the six days and the seventh days were essentially atemporal. He also says that taking them as temporal, as six and the seventh time 24 hours lapse is, if not quite adepquate, at least good enough for beginners. He does most certainly not say that the kind of indeterminate lapse of material and temoral time between Adam's individual body being created and him getting married to Eve could amount to billions of years. Still less that God would successively have created world after world without man and all different from ours and from each other before landing on the one with man. On the contrary, his basis for taking the six days and seventh days as other than normal days is Genesis 2:4-5. That passage contains "day" in the singular.**

OK, says St Augustine, then there were not six different days, only one day. Repeated six times. And that means it was not temporal.

It also says of this day "before any herbs were germing".**
*Gospel According to Saint Mark : Chapter 10 : [6] But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. [7] For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife.

[It is pretty cool the verse containing these words is 10:6, while Gospel has all in all 16 chapters.]

**Book Of Genesis : Chapter 2 : [4] These are the generations of the heaven and the earth, when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the heaven and the earth: [5] And every plant of the field before it sprung up in the earth, and every herb of the ground before it grew: for the Lord God had not rained upon the earth; and there was not a man to till the earth.

***Ecclesiasticus Chapter 18 : [1] He that liveth for ever created all things together. God only shall be justified, and he remaineth an invincible king for ever.

°Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Romans : Chapter 5 : [12] Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

[Here 5:12 makes a sum of 17. These verses "sixteen going on seventeen" do not need someone "older and wiser" telling them what to say, and St Augustine does not pretend to be so either.]

°°The City of God (Book I) Chapter 9.— Of the Reasons for Administering Correction to Bad and Good Together.

What, then, have the Christians suffered in that calamitous period, which would not profit every one who duly and faithfully considered the following circumstances? First of all, they must humbly consider those very sins which have provoked God to fill the world with such terrible disasters; for although they be far from the excesses of wicked, immoral, and ungodly men, yet they do not judge themselves so clean removed from all faults as to be too good to suffer for these even temporal ills.

...

If any one forbears to reprove and find fault with those who are doing wrong, because he seeks a more seasonable opportunity, or because he fears they may be made worse by his rebuke, or that other weak persons may be disheartened from endeavoring to lead a good and pious life, and may be driven from the faith; this man's omission seems to be occasioned not by covetousness, but by a charitable consideration. But what is blame-worthy is, that they who themselves revolt from the conduct of the wicked, and live in quite another fashion, yet spare those faults in other men which they ought to reprehend and wean them from; and spare them because they fear to give offense, lest they should injure their interests in those things which good men may innocently and legitimately use—though they use them more greedily than becomes persons who are strangers in this world, and profess the hope of a heavenly country. For not only the weaker brethren who enjoy married life, and have children (or desire to have them), ...




OK, says St Augustine, who had had a Platonic education before becoming Christian, this means what God created in the six days were not yet any individual items of anything. Growth still had to happen. Biological process did not start till after the six days.

But he gives a parallel passage*** to support this reading of Genesis 2:4-5.** This parallel passage*** says God created everything at once. It is pretty obviously in visible or at least apparent contradiction with Cuvierism, with the idea now proposed by Hugh Ross, the idea of God first creating one world like fauna and flora and climate and all, then the next, then the next and each successive one containing traces of the earlier ones.

If St Augustine was by any chance wrong, then "day" in Genesis 2:4-5** would be using the word yôm in a looser sense, like "occasion". And the parallel passage*** would be using "at once" in a somewhat looser sense too. As, obvious to us now, opposed exactly to Cuvierism or successive stages of creation evolving on top of each other. As opposed to creating trilobites on one occasion, then waiting for millions of years, then creating dinosaurs on another occasion, and again waiting millions of years, then creating Australopithecus on one occasion and waiting a million of years to see how he was doing, then creating Adam and Eve. With death in between all those occasions, which brings us to the next point. But first one pause on the topic of six days.

Even if St Augustine was exactly right about atemporality of six days, as St Thomas Aquinas points out, this does not exclude that the first seven days of actual material time mature all the items created "in their causes" in the atemporal six days" as well as the rest in a temporal so to speak repetation or rehearsal of the atemporal six days.

St Paul said: By the sin of one man, death came into the world.° Same kind of guy would say: "sure, death as a punishment for humans came with the fall, but since St Augustine says animals would have died even before that, we can accept evolution."

Right, he said that carnivores were carnivores and would have eaten by killing even if Adam had not sinned. Note that his argument is a very total fixism and non-evolution of the carnivorous species. If a lion was exactly a lion as we know them, and if a wolf was exactly a wolf as we know them, or even a cat and a dog exactly a cat and a dog, as we know them, and if each species of finches of the Galapagos islands was created seperately on the fifth day and had a separate couple of ancestors on the Arc of Noah, then St Augustine has proven there were animals eaten before Adam sinned. And animals eaten obviously means animals dying.

But in that other scenario that evolutionists give, animal death is not limited to some deaths to feed some animals, it is actually made the chief instrument for weeding out the varieties not wanted for "next step in evolution".

St Augustine weakens "by the sin of one man, death entered the world" but he never reverses it to - as do the evolutionists - "by death man entered into the world".

And maybe for a very good reason. You see, St Augustine was a convert from Manichean heresies. To them, to the heretics adherring to them, man precisely as a biological being is a product of a kind of spiritual death or fall. The souls that stayed quite alive never made it to be men, they remained body-less spirit children of the purely spiritual "God". Man as living on earth is the product of such beings getting trapped by the "other god" of death and materiality. So, to a Manichean as much as to an Evolutionist it would seem true enough to say "by death, man entered into the world". But St Augustine had washed off that shit from his mind, when he asked St Ambrose for baptism.

As an ex-Palmarian, I know what it means to stake the view of creation on St Augustine. The Papacy or Antipapacy at Palmar de Troya has issued a creed in which a recent creation, but that one "in one moment" is raised to status of dogma of the creed.

The people who just barely avoid contradicting Our Lord Jesus Christ and St Paul by taking an ell where St Augustine gives an inch, to me they are very clearly sham Augustinians on that precise point.

So, I have taken my distance from Palmar de Troya, even before I left Sweden. When I did, I started reaffirming literality of six days as most probable since supported by most Church Fathers.

Some people similarily - like Palmar de Troya - place St Augustine over the other Church Fathers - for sake of whose authority St Thomas Aquinas insisted on the possibility of harmonising by a rehearsal of the heptapartite initial not yet successive moment of Creation with subsequent heptapartite week in time of maturing with miraculous rapidity what had been created "in its seeds" or "in its causes" in the "one moment week". They similarily place St Augustine over the other Church Fathers, but only when it suits them. That is where they are not like Palmar de Troya, which refrains from going beyond St Augustine away from other Church Fathers on this one.

Dom Gérard Calvet, who was founder and first abbot of Le Barroux, Sainte Madeleine Monastery (one kilometre or so above Le Barroux village and castle), clearly had read the fifth book of the twelve book work on Genesis. He finds the prologue of St John's Gospel make better sense that way.

Any tree "was life" in God the Son from all eternity as knowledge about treeness is part of God's Wisdom and hence eternal life. Then - possibly - it was created in its treeness in the third recurrence of the one-moment day. A one moment in which God decided that trees should be among the infinite possibilities He knew that He also brought to actuality. Then individual trees were created up to present - very probably with the first ones created on the third lapse of 24 hours of actual time.

Now, Dom Gérard Calvet did support this reading of St John's prologue. He was certainly a devout Catholic, a real friend of Our Lord Jesus Christ. He was also a friend of two people - Father Bryan Houghton, who described Evolutionism as rehashed Buddhism, but also Gustave Thibon, who thinks a certain evolution with its painfulness is an essential to the production of Christian saints, of hallowed souls. Now, I have not read much of Gustave Thibon, but I do fear he may have been a supporter of Thestic Evolution. Father Bryan Houghton clearly was not.

The Pseudo-Jesuit Pierre Theilhard de Chardin (a favourite intellectual enemy of Father Bryan Houghton), as we all know, was a supporter thereof.

Whether Dom Gérard was a Theistic Evolutionist or not, I leave, for the present to God's privy. If he was, "he was wrong on that one" - amicus Gerhardus, magis amica veritas.

But I thought it worth mentioning the fact that people who have read St Augustine with even less attention than I used yesterday - including those who have read only selected quotes - may feel able to plead not guilty to the charge that evolutionism makes Our Lord Jesus Christ and St Paul look wrong or misinforming. They should not need to immediately take heat as heretics from people who may be orthodox on Genesis but wrong on even more important matters.

However, I should not neglect to inform these evolutionists who think they are no heretics, who think they respect scrupulously the words of Christ through the Catholic interpretation of St Augsutine, that the same St Augustine might have a point about why the Church is on the brink of being submitted to persecution by certain powers. City of God. Got it? Now look up Book I. Got that one too?°° Now, there is a chapter called chapter IX.

I am one of the guys that St Augustine calls weak. I still hope to have children. I do not like the prospect of my family getting persecuted - whenever I shall get it. But I do say what I think about Evolutionism. Or about Heliocentric false philosophies too. Some guys are what St Augustine calls strong. They are monks or bishops, like Dom Gérard or Monsignor Lefèbvre were in their mortal life. And some of them are still a bit queezy about correcting the evil mighty ones. Read through that chapter and see what such behaviour brings in terms of misfortunes that the good share with the bad when living together in a society.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
BpI, Georges Pompidou
Sunday after St Lawrence
and before Assumption of the BVM
11-VIII-2013


A little PS: This link is These links are too good to miss, while we talk about dates:

Creation Ministries International:
How do you date a New Zealand volcano?
by Robert Doolan
http://creation.com/how-do-you-date-a-new-zealand-volcano
CMI : The way it really is: little-known facts about radiometric dating
Long-age geologists will not accept a radiometric date unless it matches their pre-existing expectations.
by Tas Walker
http://creation.com/the-way-it-really-is-little-known-facts-about-radiometric-dating

vendredi 2 août 2013

Can Evolutionists be a Laughing Stock?

Series:

1) Creation vs. Evolution : Can Evolutionists be a Laughing Stock?
2) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Age of Earth video's by Kent Hovind
3) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Chaplains vs Councellors and on Creation vs Evolution (feat. Kent Hovind)
4) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Hovind's Dissertation Not as Bad as its Critics on Rational Wiki Think
5) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Hovind - Ross Debate, for Four Videos
6) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on History being Kent Hovind's Weaker Subject
7) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Kent Hovind's supposed failure in Carbon Dating Subject

I just saw a video which complained that creationists were too funny and killing poor atheists by provoking laughter.

Same video professed it was impossible to make evolution look funny.

Now, here I am watching Kent Hovind. He had moments of making evolutionist atheism look funny. Looking at such a video, I think an atheist would either snicker - or be angry.

Now Kent Hovind is serving prison. Maybe he was kind of funny. Check him out.

He can of course have been set up because he attacked the public school system. As do I. As do I.

We have both served in such.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
BpI Georges Pompidou
St Alphonsus Maria Liguori
2-VIII-2013

Turtle's and X-rays:

That poor turtle!” the netizen wrote. “It had to absorb all those X-rays!”

source

Now, absorbing X-rays is not very healthy, but turtles are thickskinned and absorb less than others.

Mussels - other long lived species - also have a shell and are furthermore protected by water. Trees are longlived and have bark.

As I said elsewhere, I do not believe the Hovind theory, since I believe the "water above the firmament" is a permanent part of creation and refers to all water molecules, maybe even all hydrogen molecules you can find all over space. Came down during flood, then back up, part of it.

But he is right that there were less X-rays or other cosmic radiation reaching earth before the Flood, that much I consider a safe guess.

My turn on that is that God asked the stars "time to turn on some more radiation, men have been living too long and getting too bad, as you could see. If times are shortened some of them even might be saved" and stars answered "OK, you are our creator and theirs, you know what you are doing". (Confer Canonic Book of aruch, chapter 3:34-35)

Now, I found his defense of the water canopy theory, and I will quote from it what I find relevant to mine, with my answers. And maybe later restudy it:

2 Peter 3 : Open letter to Brother Tom Ish- Editor of Creation Illustrated

"Genesis 1:1 in the Jewish Torah (OT) says, 'In the beginning God created the heaven...' Hmmm? Heaven is in the singular and has been for 3,400 years in Jewish literature as well as the thousands of copies scattered around the world."

Sorry, but ha-shamayim is in Hebrew plural. Whether you translate the word as heaven or as heavens in English - you did not cite the Hebrew - the Hebrew word is plural.

"The FIRST 'bible' I can find that uses 'heavens' plural in 1:1 is the 1553 Spanish 'Inquisition Approved Old Testament' -'En Principio crio el dio alos cielos y ala tierra.' Plural. Catholic Spanish Inquisition... Hmmm? Satan plans lo-o-o-o-ong term!"

Sorry again, but Spanish Inquisition at that time included lots of converted Jews who really knew Hebrew.

[Besides, if you accept the Sanhedrin approved Masoretic version, approved by the inheritors of the Sanhedrin that condemned Jesus or at least the Sanhedrin at Jamnia, that seems to have condemned Christians, it seems a bit fuinny to object to a "Sanhedrin" of a Christian type when it is on top of that clearly not withholding the Bible from the people. At least not from stable and pious ones.]

"KH- Ps. 148:4 says 'the waters THAT BE above the heavens.' Based on that verse I believe the entire universe we see is inside a water canopy right now. That would not negate the idea that there was also one over the first heaven as we will cover in part 3. The birds fly in the firmament (KJB). That means it is the air not the stretching. I do agree the heavens have been or are being stretched. The Bible says they are at least 11 times."

Ah, that was the psalm I was looking for!

That is why I believe the waters above the firmament are still or again at least in part there.

I wonder if the verses about having been stretched mean that God is making the Universe bigger - which could explain why year is now more than 364 days (confer Book of Henoch) - or that it is not hanging loose and limp as something "not stretched" would.

Now, if the waters are "above the heavens" they are therefore also above the firmament.

That is my main reason against the Hovind theory./HGL

Yeah, sth else I would not laugh at at all:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP4dp-VxNvQ

vendredi 26 juillet 2013

Why I have a Personal Grudge against Kenotic Heresy

Series: 1) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere 2) somewhere else : Bible and Church Questions 3) Creation vs. Evolution : Why I have a Personal Grudge against Kenotic Heresy 4) item : St Augustine gives an inch and some take an ell 5) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : When St Augustine makes a fault, it is not all that faulty

I got mail, arrived Monday 29 of July, St Olaf of Norway, about how I put this:

Dear Mr Lundahl/Dear Hans-Georg

Thank you for forwarding your blog. I have no problem with you making critical comment on anything I/we write, but I found the way it was laid out a little confusing, to the point where it actually misled the reader.

I.e. it readily gave the impression that it was I who claimed that Jesus did not know as much science today as we do, whereas in fact that was a quote from a theistic evolutionary professor. Even though it was my article, I had to look it up to work out that the bit on mental illness was my response to a comment on the article. Perhaps it would both enhance your blog and alleviate my concerns if you were to add a few things to clarify things in that regard.

Sincerely,

Carl W.


Dear Carl,

I thought it was clear:

a) that you gave an answer that was perfectly satisfactory as to inerrancy of Gospel and of Christ's knowledge,
b) that my issue with it was only your assumption that Christ must have met mental illness properly so called as per modern definitions
c) that what I was citing was not your article (except I was giving a resumé of Jonathan Sarfati's part right at the start), but one comment response plus your answer to it
d) whereafter I added my thing.

If it was not, I hope putting your letter on top of the post and this answer of mine below it and only hereafter original article of mine with its citiations from your comment section will make it doubly clear!

Thank you for the encouraging words!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

original article as already previously published, but modified in order to clarify, as per request:

Basically, there is a passage of, I read online it was Philippians, where the Son is said to have "emptied himself", and the Church back in IVth Century already answered that this did not mean emptying Himself by becoming less God, less Divine or loosing even one single divine attribute, such as all knowledge.

Now, there is an article about this on Creation dot com. I am not citing it because they are Protestants, condemned by Trent, though they may incidentally be that too, but because they are not Arians condemned by Nicea I and Constantinople I. Since one of the writers was a former doctor, he got in the comment section under the online article another question about the Scientific Knowledge Our Lord could have had. He gave a sufficient answer to save inerrancy, but insufficient for our moral positions today. I cite relevant part of comment section:

Travis F., Australia, 8 May 2012

He said:

“Jesus didn’t know as much science as we do today.""

---

Given your unease around this comment, I am wondering on your views around mental/physical health issues and the likelihood that the ancient way for interpreting these was through a demonic lens.

  • Did Jesus only encounter demons?

  • Did mental illness not occur in Jesus' day?

  • Is mental illness always linked to demonic activity?

  • Did Jesus share the scientific/medical understanding of his day; an understanding that has developed over time?


These may be age-old questions for you, but I appreciate the space to be able to ask them here.


Carl Wieland responds

I will repeat your comments if I may, but firstly let me suggest that it is not just a question of any personal 'unease', what is at stake is the trustworthiness of the entire fabric of Christian doctrine, if one thinks it through carefully. And the extent to which the ancient world saw things through different lenses is not really relevant to the question of the Creator's own trustworthiness, because He has no such limitations. In short, it would not be an adequate 'excuse' for Him.

So here goes--and btw, I have in the past thought on such issues a bit, also because of having been a Christian medical doctor with a great interest in mental health issues- plus someone who has seen the reality of the demonic, as my book Beyond the Shadows documents in detail. You wrote:

  • Did Jesus only encounter demons?


CW: We have no way of knowing the totality of what Jesus encountered, we can only make comments on what the Bible describes Him as having encountered. I think it likely that He encountered mental illness as such, but I have no way of knowing that. The encounters with demon possession are clearly described as such and so the presupposition of biblical inerrancy (without which we have no epistemological basis for knowing anything from Scripture) forbids us from making the leap that this is merely a way of describing mental illness (which incidentally would have to in one case have involved mental illness in a whole herd of swine causing them to have the same suicidal impulse at the same time as each other).

  • Did mental illness not occur in Jesus' day?


CW: As indicated, I think it likely did, but that still has little to do with the issue here, because doubtless so did acne, and so did cancer, but there is no indication that Jesus encountered and dealt with either of these. He may have; we simply don't know. Had the Bible merely recorded the opinions of others that these were demonic possession, it would be a different story. But it clearly states the cause.

  • Is mental illness always linked to demonic activity?


CW: I don't believe that for a minute, except in the most general sense of the effects of the Fall and the resultant Curse. I do believe that in today's world, much mental illness is misinterpreted as demonic. But the demonic variety (which is real, as i can testify, but extremely rare) can be clearly overcome by the Christian wielding the sword of the Spirit and the blood of Jesus, without any long incantations/rituals, etc. - and responds to it dramatically and not just by way of some shorterm improvement. Importantly, it does not respond to psychotropic medication, which true mental illness does, even if not as a total healing.

But there is a further important point to make, namely that the types of mental illness today that are most likely to be confused with demonic activity are psychoses, in particular schizophrenia. I read an important paper a few decades ago in which a secular Melbourne Prof of Psychiatry argued that one can identify schizophrenia fairly well from descriptions in early documents and from this it is reasonable to conclude that whatever the causes of this disease, it seems as if it was unknown prior to a few hundred years ago, at which time there was a virtual epidemic. And those psychoses known to be caused by genetic mutation would be subject to the accumulation of such mutations in time - all of which suggests that the types of mental illness most likely to be confused with demonic possession (because they involve hearing voices, etc.) were likely either unknown or exceedingly rare in Jesus' day.

  • Did Jesus share the scientific/medical understanding of his day; an understanding that has developed over time?


CW: There is no evidence of this, and thus no reason to assume that He was merely misinterpreting things due to His limited understanding. The accounts of his demonic encounters make sense in their own right, without the 'mental illness' understanding.

I appreciate the opportunity to comment.


Comments section (closed) on
CMI article : Jesus on the age of the earth
(a passage in the article itself gives exact reference about Philippians)
http://creation.com/jesus-age-earth


Now, I have another take.

There are certainly mental troubles that occur due to lesion of brain. In Jesus' day there was less industrialism and thus less car accidents and similar (none car accidents properly speaking). The war like things going on left people with brain lesions acquired in battle lots less likely to survive.

There are mental troubles linked to an extra chromosome in some of the chromosome pairs, notably pair 21. In Jesus' day girls married early, and women giving birth in forties had not lost so many good ovulations by menstruating every month up to that event in their forties. Down's syndrom was much rarer than now, not because of abortion, but because the women who get Down's syndrom babies do so pretty often by not having given birth previously. I forgot if the statistics I read were about births or first births, but for a woman 20 years old it is one in ten thousand, for a woman 40 years old, one in hundred that is a birth of a Down's syndrome child.

There is depression. I think in Jesus' day the social tolerance of depression was less likely to stamp depressed peoples as "mentally ill".

Now, the diagnosis most usually associated with troubles such as of the demonically possessed is schizophrenia, but it is a mysterious diagnosis, and it is also used for things hardly worth calling mental troubles at all, such as absentmindedness or as being "still a boy at forty".

Now, there is a thing about real demoniacs, the one at Gadara had severe problems with hygiene until the legion of demons was thrown out. They - the onlookers - saw he was washed and combed and clothed ... and realised that the demons were cast out.

There is also a thing about Pharisees: they said Jesus was a demoniac because he did not wash his hands before the meals.

Do you get it? Verbally same criterion - say "dirty" - can be applied in so totally different ways.

I think modern psychiatry applies criteria for demonic possession on people most certainly not possessed (thereby giving reasons, so to speak, to discredit demonic possession and validate schizophrenia, though no one can explain what it is). They are doing so by Pharisaically misapplying criteria.

If you go by the real criteria - those used by Jesus and His disciples, not by the Pharisees - mental illness is far less common today than mental diagnoses. Psychiatry is so often repeating Pharisees' saying "he has an unclean spirit" when any Christian would disagree completely, but disguising it as something else ("schizophrenia") so as not to provoke a reaction from the Christians.

If Christians admitted that Christ knew all there was to know about science that was relevant for living correctly and could transmit it, it is not just Evolutionism which must go, but also so much of modern Psychiatry.

It is a sham science, flattering Pharisaism, making it socially dominant in countries previously Christian, it is also by the use of Neuroleptics a real case of slave hunt with torture. If you have never had a week with a restless body and mind due to Neuroleptics ... I have had it, some close to me have had it as well.

I could have accepted Benedict XVI as the Pope, if, acting on behalf of God, seeing how "mental issues" were differently dealt with by Jesus and by Pharisees, hearing the complaints of Psychiatry's victim's, he had condemned psychiatry.

I thought Susanna Maiolo was such a victim, and that her flooring the Pope or apparent Pope or Cardinal so and so instead of the Pope (apparent) was a misguided but understandable protest against Catholic priests endorsing her captivity among Psychiatrists.

No condemnation of Psychiatry came. Possibly because that would have implied too many Jews and therefore disturbed the Jewish-Christian dialogue which the Vatican seems to prefer to Christian Orthodoxy since the Vatican II Council.

But that does not mean Evangelical Protestants are exactly helpful. You see, some of them think Hitler was worse than Trotski because Hitler fought against Jews and Trotski against non-Protestant Christians. You know where Evangelical prejudice places the title of "People of God". And calling Psychiatry Pharisaical would have involved calling Jews Pharisees.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
BU Nanterre, Paris X
St Anne's Feast
(the Grandmother of God)
26-VII-2013

I nearly forgot the matter of autism. A society more and more loth to listen to others will be more likely to shove that reproach on the others they won't listen to. And invent autisms that do not exist. Some that do seem to have possibly originated by use of quicksilver in connexion with vaccinations.

lundi 15 juillet 2013

Where do you find Dinosaurs over Trilobites?


Geology seriesFeedback to Tas Walker on Geological Columns
If Tas Walker is right, Pius XII was not wrong to canonise Steno!

Actually Steno was not canonised yet, only beatified, and by John Paul II, as stated in following:

Creationism and Catholicism go well together (second example)
Where do you find Dinosaurs over Trilobites?
Steno and "Vertical Barbecue" contra John Laurie


For example, the evolutionist asks us why a layer of rock containing trilobites is never found to contain dinosaurs, and why a layer with dinosaurs is always found above one with trilobites and never the reverse. Fossil succession can be viewed in terms of solitary fossils, commonly called index fossils. Otherwise, groups of fossils can be used. These are often called fossil assemblages or assemblage zones. The essence of fossil succession, however, remains the same whether individual fossils, of groups of them, are used.

...

For example, although trilobites and dinosaurs were contemporaries of each other, there is no basis for believing that trilobite-bearing and dinosaur-bearing rocks were necessarily deposited at the same time all over the world. During the Flood, trilobite-bearing beds at one point on earth were probably being deposited at the same time as dinosaur-bearing beds at another place on earth. Nor can it be said that, when dinosaur-bearing beds locally overlie trilobite-bearing beds, the former are significantly younger than the latter. This, of course, excepts the small amount of difference in time, within the Flood, that elapsed between the burial of the trilobites and the burial of the overlying dinosaurs.


From article by Woodmorappe:

The fossil record: becoming more random all the time/John Woodmorappe
http://aufiles.creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j14_1/j14_1_110-116.pdf


There is a place in Morocco where you find trilobites (and some will forge trilobites to sell to tourists). But there are no dinosaurs above them. There are places where you find dinosaurs, including in parts of Morocco, but I know none of these containing trilobites under them.

That is what I was writing to Tas Walker about, and he said he was patiently looking at local geological column after local geological column, like starting all over from zero.

Methodologically speaking, I think we can get as sure a conclusion even without that work. It suffices to look into the known find places of certain types of fossils or fossils from certain periods.

I know - after some wikisearch on Lagerstätten* - of no place on earth, possibly excepting Grand Canyon and one other, where you can find Dinosaurs on one level, Trilobites on a level below it and Sabre Toothed Tigers on a level above it.

I only know that places where you find Dinosaurs are considered to be younger in the fossile column than places where you find Trilobites and older than places where you find Sabre Toothed Tigers. At least as to the relevant level for the fossile diggers. They will consider the level below the Dinos they find there as contemporaneous to a Trilobite level somewhere else, even if they find no Trilobites there. They will consider a possibly missing level above it as contemporaneous to a Sabre Toothed Tiger level somewhere else, even if they find no Sabre Toothed Tigers in it, because the level is missing.

But I know of no place where this consideration of one fossile stratum of Dinos as younger than one fossile stratum of Trilos is actually demonstrated by finding one of them on top of the other. And if Trilos were buried in what was during or previous to the Flood sea, and if Dinos were buried in what was during or rather previous to the Flood land, this is what we expect from that scenario too.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
BU Nanterre, Paris X
St Vladimir of Kiev
and St James of Nisibis
Council Father of Nicea
July 15, YooL 2013

*Check this out yourself:

Wiki: Lagerstätte
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagerstätte


List of Fossile Sites
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fossil_sites

dimanche 7 juillet 2013

Creationism and Catholicism go well together (second example)


Geology seriesFeedback to Tas Walker on Geological Columns
If Tas Walker is right, Pius XII was not wrong to canonise Steno!

Actually Steno was not canonised yet, only beatified, and by John Paul II, as stated in following:

Creationism and Catholicism go well together (second example)
Where do you find Dinosaurs over Trilobites?
Steno and "Vertical Barbecue" contra John Laurie


I already noted as to Wilberforce, Wilberforce and Wilberforce, that the father was the abolitionist, the one son, as creation.com notes, the man who debated the creationist side against evolutionist Huxley, and the other son, as they failed to note, a convert to Catholicism.

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Wilberforce, Wilberforce and Wilberforce
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2012/12/wilberforce-wilberforce-and-wilberforce.html


Now, Saint Niels Steensen (or Nicolaus Steno) is another example.

Nicolas Steno in Catholic Encyclopedia
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14286a.htm


The Christian Science Monitor : Nicolas Steno: The saint who undermined creationism
http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Horizons/2012/0111/Nicolas-Steno-The-saint-who-undermined-creationism


Quote:

Steno never publicly renounced this Biblical time frame, but his geological investigations clearly challenged it. How could an honest person looking at, say, the Alps, explain the immense movement of rock, the folding, faulting, and erosion of land, the depositing of sedimentary strata, in the span of just 56 centuries? Alternatively if God created the earth's surface in its present form and then created plants and animals, how, exactly, did their remains wind up embedded inside solid rock?


He was not a believer in uniformatarianism and thus he believed that mountains had formed quickly after the flood.

Other quote:

Gregor Mendel, an Augustinian friar, developed a model of inheritance that made Darwin's theory of evolution intelligible.


Mendel's laws implied existence of chromosomes, which are an major stumbling block for Darwinism. It is well prepared to deal with locus mutations, but not with changing numbers of chromosomes.

Great Creation Scientists: Nicolaus Steno
Founder of modern geology and young–Earth creationist
by Ann Lamont, B.Sc., M.Ed.St.
http://creation.com/great-creation-scientists-nicolas-steno


She mentions he was brought up as a Lutheran, but does not mention his Catholic Conversion. There is nothing controversial about the evidence for it, though.

I was wrongly under the same false impression as Asimov (see Ann Lamont's article), that his geological views were at variance with the Bible. Now I have evidence this is not true. He was as true to the word of Genesis in his Geology, as he was to the word of the Gospel ... in his Roman Catholic conversion.

You see, what made him decide for Catholicism was mainly the discovery that the Catholic Church took literally the words of Our Lord "for this is my body" and "for this is my blood".

He died making "geological observations" of another kind than his more famous ones, namely looking at the earth while freezing to death. How so? Why? He was a bishop "in partibus infidelium", a Missionary Bishop among the Lutheran infidels, who did not hold to the literal truth of the Gospel. He lived as a beggar and died as a vagabond, because of Lutheran inhospitality towards a Roman Catholic correcting their errors and bringing the Salvation that their own "Church" was cheating them of.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
BpI, Georges Pompidou
Sunday after St Maria Goretti
7-VII-2013

PS, in previous post I wrongly ascribed canonisation of Steno to Pope Pius XII, it was John Paul II who only beatified him. Now that I know this beatified man was not a founder of uniformitarian Genesis-denial, there is one less thing to raise against John Paul II (rather than, as I thought, against Pius XII).

vendredi 5 juillet 2013

If Tas Walker is right, Pius XII was not wrong to canonise Steno!


Geology seriesFeedback to Tas Walker on Geological Columns
If Tas Walker is right, Pius XII was not wrong to canonise Steno!

Actually Steno was not canonised yet, only beatified, and by John Paul II, as stated in following:

Creationism and Catholicism go well together (second example)
Where do you find Dinosaurs over Trilobites?
Steno and "Vertical Barbecue" contra John Laurie


You see, Steno is kind of a countryman of mine. He was Danish, I am Swedish but we are both from Scania* - a region then in Denmark, now in Sweden. He was also on my list on possible accusations against Pius XII for not supporting Creationism enough. I had read some text to the effect that Steno, while founding Geology, came to something like Old Earth conclusions. Of course, 6800 years back in his days is pretty old too, and he may have used the word "old" for that reason. Here is however what one Bible believing Geologists (unfortunately not Catholic) says about the founder of Geology, a Bible believer and a Catholic:

Geological pioneer Nicolaus Steno was a biblical creationist
by Tas Walker
http://creation.com/geological-pioneer-nicolaus-steno-was-a-biblical-creationist


I thank Jonathan Sarfati for linking to this article./HGL

*Steno was from Copenhagen, Zealand, not from Scania, but it is right opposite. It's been years since I studied Steno's life. Decades even.