With David Palm, Sungenis, Robert Bennett and Rick DeLano

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

David Palm to me et al. (including Sungenis)

10/03/15 à 21h24

Re: On "Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10"

Dear Hans,

For the reasons given in my article, I think it's futile to attempt to derive physical, scientific principles from miracles which are by definition supernatural. But even if one were to accept your premise on Joshua 10, my article documents that both Fr. Haydock and even Sungenis have suggested a solution that meets your objection without giving any particular support for any particular cosmological theory. So have another look at the article and if you had further questions that you want to discuss privately, let me know.

God bless,

David

Me to David Palm et al. including Sungenis

11/03/15 à 09h38

Re: On "Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10"

You have:

• not documented that Haydock does so, because Haydock was not dealing with this specific objection to Heliocentric interpretations, precisely as Pius XII in Humani Generis was not dealing with Mark 10:6 ruling out long age interpretations of the days;
  
  
• nor documented that Sungenis did so, because what Sungenis conceded is rather to be taken as God could have arranged the miracle any way he wanted rather than that God could have wanted to arrange it in a way that was misleading about cosmology to the observers. Sungenis also was not dealing with my specific objection to Heliocentrism in the passage you quoted and when I sent him and you my objection, he endorsed it in a letter back to me and to you.

Furthermore, the Haydock endorsement for Heliocentrism stands for Haydock only, since he actually interrupts the commentary of Calmet in order to insert it.

Haydock comment is usually very good in standing for Dom Augustin Calmet endorsed by Haydock, Bishop Witham endorsed by Haydock, Bishop Worthington endorsed by Haydock, Bishop Challoner endorsed by Haydock, Tirinus endorsed by Haydock etc. But the endorsement for Heliocentrism is only Haydock endorsed by Haydock. It is obviously in some kind of obedience to the 1820 decision, since Haydock wrote this after this decision. All commenters he otherwise cites wrote before it. Usually.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Sungenis to me and David Palm et al.

11/03/15 à 16h14

Re: On "Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10"

Palm: For the reasons given in my article, I think it's futile to attempt to derive physical, scientific principles from miracles which are by definition supernatural.

Sungenis: Mr. Palm is obfuscating the issue. No one is asking him to “derive physical, scientific principles from miracles.” That would be absurd, since miracles are above scientific explanations. The Fathers in consensus, as well as St. Bellarmine and Pope Paul V, stated that there is only thing required of us: to acknowledge that God, by a miracle, stopped the sun and moon from moving, and he did not stop the Earth from moving, since the Earth wasn’t moving in order to be stopped miraculously. In the same way, if Jesus raised someone who was dead, it is a fact of nature that the person was dead before Jesus raised them. If Jesus put a limb back on someone’s body, it is a fact of nature that the limb was missing from the person’s body before the miracle. Likewise, if the sun and moon are stopped, it is a fact of nature that they were moving previously. It’s really very simple.

Palm: But even if one were to accept your premise on Joshua 10, my article documents that both Fr. Haydock and even Sungenis have suggested a solution that meets your objection without giving any particular support for any particular cosmological theory. So have another look at the article and if you had further questions that you want to discuss privately, let me know.

Sungenis: If Mr. Palm is suggesting that the same stoppage of the sun and moon would occur if the universe were stopped from rotating, that will not work, and I discovered this after I had proposed it in the 9th edition of GWW, and I don’t propose it any longer. That is because the sun and moon have an independent movement against the universe. The universe moves on a sidereal rate, the sun moves on a solar rate, and the moon moves faster than both the universe and the sun, on a lunar rate. Therefore, it would not fit Joshua 10. The sun and moon must be stopped independently of the universe or in addition to stopping the universe.

Me to Sungenis and David Palm et al.

11/03/15 à 16h39

Re: On "Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10"

A little correction, Sungenis:

"The universe moves on a sidereal rate, the sun moves on a solar rate, and the moon moves faster than both the universe and the sun, on a lunar rate."

The lunar rate is a bit slower. Sth like 24h50min per circuit around Earth, as I recall since a few years ago studying tides, to refute the argument that they prove the Newtonian astronomy. Stars/universe are faster than either sun or moon, 23h56min and sth seconds, if I recall correctly.

Actually, I first thought a few weeks ago, the only thing that happened was Sun and Moon speeding up against the movement of the aether, Sun 365 times faster than usual, Moon 27 times faster than usual (or sth like that) heading East same angular speed as aether headed West and thus not moving in relation to Earth.

But:

• that would mean only angels of Sun and Moon, rather than God himself, obeyed Joshua, and the text says God obeyed him;
  
  
• also it does not qualify as them standing still "in their habitation" (see Habacuc 3:11).

So, God stopped aether and still let time go on, despite time being generally a byproduct of the movement of aether, thereby illustrating how the whiteness and two inches in round of a Host can be upheld by God when bread has gone to become blessed Body of Our Lord, also stopping of aether that day is a reminder of the day God stops aether in another way, on Judgement Day.

Meanwhile, Sun and Moon also obeyed Joshua and stopped so as not to move Eastward.

Or one could say (but that won't take care of geostationary satellites like the aether theory, I am afraid) that Sun and Moon are in themselves heading West through empty space and God obeying Joshua refers to His instructing the angels of Sun and Moon to do so. Or to Himself being directly their usual mover, but that theory is very much less held by scholastics, according to Riccioli.

David Palm to me et al. including Sungenis

11/03/15 à 17h00

Re: On "Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10"

"There are inumerable [sic] ways God can accomplish the task at hand if and when the normal laws which govern the universe are set aside to make room for God’s divine ingenuity" (Robert Sungenis, GWW3 9th ed., p. 33).

I agree.

Robert Bennett to me, Sungenis and Palm et al.

11/03/15 à 21h58

RE: On "Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10"

In the context of the Hildegardian visions:

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…

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).

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?

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.

Robert B.

Sungenis to Palm and me et al.

12/03/15 à 01h51

Re: On "Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10"

In a message dated 3/11/2015 12:00:10 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [David Palm] writes:

"There are inumerable [sic] ways God can accomplish the task at hand if and when the normal laws which govern the universe are set aside to make room for God’s divine ingenuity" (Robert Sungenis, GWW3 9th ed., p. 33).

I agree.

If you were trying to be clever by quoting me as your answer, Mr. Palm, you didn't succeed.

I'm sure everyone here realizes that you were hoist by your own petard in trying to make a stopped universe the solution, as well as trying to claim that we were trying to "derive physical and scientific principles from miracles."

As such, I'll take it that you have conceded the point. I'm glad you agree that God could have stopped the sun and moon any way He chose to do so. The point, of course, is that he stopped the sun and moon from moving whereas before they were moving, and He didn't stop the Earth, since that would still permit the moon to move.

I'm also glad you agree that it couldn't be by merely stopping the universe, since then the sun and moon would keep moving, and God would be lying to us. He did not stop the Earth from moving, otherwise God would be lying to us.

So, unless I hear otherwise from you, Mr. Palm, I will advertise the fact that you now acknowledge that God stopped the sun and moon from moving in Joshua 10, and that the Earth was never rotating and thus did not need to be stopped.

By the way, please remove your [sic]. I checked the 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th editions of GWW, Vol 3, and none of them have the misspelling "inumerable." They all have "innumerable."

So where are you getting an edition that has "inumerable" and a page number 33?

Please let me see a photocopy of the page, since perhaps someone may have a bootleg edition.

Sungenis to me et al.

12/03/15 à 01h58

Re: On "Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10"

Hans,

Ah, thank you! I meant to say slower, not faster.

Despite my miscue there, the point is made that the universe the sun and the moon all move independently and at different rates, and therefore, stopping the universe would not stop either the sun or the moon.

Robert

Rick DeLano to Sungenis et al.

12/03/15 à 02h20

Re: On "Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10"

//By the way, please remove your [sic]. I checked the 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th editions of GWW, Vol 3, and none of them have the misspelling "inumerable." They all have "innumerable."

So where are you getting an edition that has "inumerable" and a page number 33?

Please let me see a photocopy of the page, since perhaps someone may have a bootleg edition//

I know a guy who could gin up a whole plagiarism piece on the basis of this, if you need it, Bob.....

Oh....wait.

Never mind.

Carry on.

Sungenis eto Rick DeLano et al.

12/03/15 à 02h21

Re: On "Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10"

Rick, you're so silly :)