Diatribe with Robert Bennett (Two Teas)

1) New blog on the kid : Chris Ferrara the Conspirator, 2) HGL's F.B. writings : Debate with John Médaille on Geocentrism, 3) Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Getting Back to Tom Trinko on Geocentric Satellites and Some Other Things, Especially Whether Literal Belief is Protestant, 4) With David Palm and Sungenis, 5) With David Palm, Sungenis, Robert Bennet and Rick DeLano, 6) Christopher Ferrara Bumps In And I Get Angry, 7) Aftermath of the Quarrel, 8) Diatribe with Robert Bennett (Two Teas), 9) HGL's F.B. writings : Continuing Debate with Mark Stahlman and John Médaille and Others (sequel I), 10) Continuing Debate with Mark Stahlman and John Médaille and Others (sequel II), 11) Where I Get a Dislike to Mark Stahlman

Introductory remarks from Robert Bennett (two teas, noted) to me:

To Hans Lundah [sic], interspersed with comments

Robert Bennett, interspersed with my comments:

[Placed as in quotation in original letter, so as to make his new remarks stick out as answers.]

I

Robert Bennett

« The firmament was set in rotation at the first gulp of forbidden fruit, not to stop until the Lion of Juda returns. This precludes complete cessation of cosmic rotation… “

Hans Georg Lundahl

In St Augustine, the firmament or the light within it, he doesn’t say which and at another point leaves the question undecided, and explicitly so, was set in rotation around Earth on day 1.

Robert Bennett

[AMDG] So the firmament was created on Day 2, according to Scripture, and set in rotation on Day 1, according to Augustine…or possibly Lundah?) [sic] …. rotating before it was created…

Even the Almighty would be challenged by that contradiction.

Augustine warned against those who would weaken the faith by arguing from ignorance. He should include those who misquote him.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Mea Culpa. No, St Augustine does not say the firmament starts rotating on day 1.

But the light which was created on day one started rotating that day, that he does say.

If Sun rotates because of rotating aether, that obviously means the aether is something other than the firmament.

My own idea about the firmament between the waters is oxygenized athmosphere.

H2O below it. Some H2O but mostly H2 as “waters above the firmament”. And some H2 used to create Sun and Stars on day 4. And some H2 reunited in double proportion to O2 to form the H2O when the waters of the heavens were opened at the deluge.

But this does not mean aether would not have been rotating.

II

Hans Georg Lundahl

I am not convinced of the visionary Hildegard of Bingen.

Robert Bennett

[AMDG] There’s no relevance to your lack of conviction. Private revelation – to Augustine or Hildegard – is judged by the Church to be ‘take it or leave it’…not binding in conscience according to its content. So we can say, each to the other, ‘Es macht nichts’… But reference to Hildegard’s works are based on comparison of her visionary statements with scientific facts in today’s world. And. so far, her interpretation of reality is not in conflict with present facts, but with present interpretation of those facts. Alternate causes without contradiction.

Augustine makes no claim of divine revelation, AFAIK, and he makes no statement about nature testable today… IMBW.

Hans Georg Lundahl

St Augustine does however make a serious claim of having studied the Bible.

III

Robert Bennett

“The 16 fixed stars(angels?) need only supply the aether winds to fully counter the sidereal rotation of Sun and Moon to conflate Scripture(necessary) and Hildegard(optional).”

Hans Georg Lundahl

I have no idea what you mean by “16 fixed stars” since the fixed stars (each probably not quite fixed and probably moved by an angel) are innumerable.

Robert Bennett

[AMDG] So lack of conviction is based on ignorance of Hildegard’s content? An interesting epistemology.

Hans Georg Lundahl

A conviction decidedly for or against needs to be based on knowledge of content. I pleaded lack of conviction.

I do however know that if she said anything about “16 fixed stars”, this was not the exact typical terminology of the Middle Ages.

As I said : I have no idea what you mean by “16 fixed stars” (in Hildegard of Bingen) since the fixed stars (each probably not quite fixed and probably moved by an angel) are innumerable (in common usage of what fixed stars means to the Middle Ages).

IV

Robert Bennett

“God could grant Joshua’s request indirectly by using the angels of solar and lunar aether as instruments of His will… Wo ist der fehler? »

a

Hans Georg Lundahl

God is not said simply to have granted Joshua’s request, but to have obeyed him.

Robert Bennett

[AMDG] And somehow it’s known that God could not have obeyed Joshua indirectly, by angelic implementation? God has never used angels to send a message or in effecting His will?

Hans Georg Lundahl

But the word “obey” implies God adjusting His behavior to the command of Joshua. His own behavior. That is the point. Otherwise it would have read that God granted the request or something.

b

Hans Georg Lundahl

Furthermore, if the aether is the habitation of Sun and of Moon, for them to stand still as seen from Earth (Joshua 10) and also “in their habitation” (Habacuc 3:11)the habitation also needs not to move, since if it moved, either they would stand still in it, but move with it as seen from Earth, though faster, at stellar angular speed, or they would stand still as seen from Earth but by moving against the movement of their habitation. One could get around it by saying aether rotating around Earth is not what Habacuc meant by their habitation.

Robert Bennett

[AMDG] Joshua 10:13 references shamayim not zĕbuwl

Hans Georg Lundahl

I am not a Hebraist, in Douay Rheims Habacuc 3:11 reads “in their habitation”. And Latin has “in habitaculo suo » in the Vulgate.

V

Robert Bennett

“Any one of Hildegard’s 4 aether types could be the source of the obvious global atmospheric circulation and jet streams eastward and its conflict with the firmament’s westward motion, balancing only in the GSZ. “

Hans Georg Lundahl

I have no idea of what her 4 aether types are.

Robert Bennett

[AMDG] Blissful ignorance, a fortiori.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Blissful or not, when I posted the words before Christopher Ferrara’s interruption, I counted on an explanation.

Final remarks:

Robert Bennett

Enough of the irrational posturing…. Like David and Chris previously, Bennet(sic) is bailing out …

No more missives, svp..

AMDG,

Robert B.

Hans Georg Lundahl

For one thing, deleting a last letter is different if it changes pronuntiation and if it is just omission of a double letter.

For another thing, I was tired.

For a third, I have corrected all Bennet to Bennett. Except where he put “Bennet(sic)” Since my fault was involuntary, I feel I had a right to correct it without falsification.

For a fourth, just as some oaf seems to have prayed that I may trust Robert Sungenis less on spelling of Slavic names, so someone seems to have prayed that for saying this I should be shown untrustworthy myself. Mission accomplished. Before correction, I had in fact written “Robert Bennet” which really does merit a (sic) from his writing.

For the fifth, as he asked for “no more missives” this answer will be given on message board (unless I was excluded) instead of per missive.

Hans Georg Lundahl