Reality is a Stubborn Thing

big_rock_at_sea

By Charlie Johnston

At a chatty informal evening long ago, Abraham Lincoln is reputed to have memorably asked his companions, “If you call a sheep’s tail a leg, how many legs does a sheep have?” Several gave no answer at all, others said five. After they had finished, with a wry smile, Lincoln answered his own question. “Four,” he said. “Calling a sheep’s tail a leg doesn’t make it one.”

So Ireland has formally declared that a romantic union between two homosexuals is a marriage. As much as they insist – and overwhelmingly so – it still looks like a sheep’s tail to me.

In their efforts to try to eradicate belief in God, the old Soviet Communists would not accept a marriage performed in a church or synagogue as valid. The only marriages the government recognized were those performed by government clerks. In overwhelmingly Catholic Poland, people adapted readily enough. They would go get their certificate from the city clerk’s office to satisfy government overlords, then go to a Church for the “real” marriage. I am told by some Polish ex-pats that when couples met, they would take some pains to note which Church they were married in, so that new people they met knew it was a real marriage and not just a government parody. In the end, the Soviets’ decree did not change the reality of what marriage is; it just helped to discredit the shrill functionaries who tried to enforce an artificial version of reality.

Interestingly, the American Republic largely did not intrude on regulating marriage at all until the middle of the 19th Century. It kept a record of what churches reported and authorized certain officials – magistrates and certain military officers – to perform secular marriages. But it gathered the information almost solely for settling estates and for census purposes. It was only with the rise of Mormon polygamy that there was an outcry for state governments to define and regulate marriage. Most of the outcry came from Christians, who had no clue what a Pandora’s Box they would ultimately open by shifting primary authority for regulating marriage from churches to a secular government. It seemed safe at the time: almost all officials were practicing Christians. But this is what happens when things are taken out of their proper sphere and transferred away from those who, properly, have prudential responsibility for them.

I am actually not going to go through the history of marriage and the need for giving it privileged status to protect family formation and the stability of a society in this piece. I am just noting that when people who think themselves masters of the universe undertake to redefine reality, they have already begun to undermine their credibility. It may take years, decades, even a century or better, but once an authority uses its coercive power to redefine reality, it has already begun the process that will bring it to ruin. The success of early and accelerating coercion only masks the rot that has already set in, making the ultimate fall sudden, stark and often violent.

Debate on issues is rarely based on facts, evidence and logic today. Instead, various prescribed ideological attitudes define whether you are part of the “in” crowd or not. Trouble is, a lot of those “in” positions defy reality – and reality is a stubborn thing.

Even the “consensus” position on evolution has become an utterly unscientific litmus test of whether you are part of the in crowd. People on the left call evolution “settled science,” while mocking anyone who says otherwise as a superstitious ninny, even as they say that Christians don’t have to give up their God to believe in that particular bit of “science.” To my embarrassment, I used to believe them, as I saw nothing in evolution to exclude it from being a way in which God could have made His creation. I say that to my embarrassment because I am a stickler for facts, evidence and logic. It was a paleontologist acquaintance who first tipped me off. He told me that the dirty secret in his profession was that everyone knew that Darwin’s theory could not be correct, but no one dared speak of it publicly because of the ostracization they would get. I asked how he knew. He replied that the fossil record did not match up at all with what Darwin said it would be.

So I read up on a little Darwin. He had predicted that the fossil record (then just being discovered) would show a stately, linear progression of species rising. That is not how it happened at all. Nothing much beyond single cell organisms happened before the Cambrian period. Then, almost all the complicated animals appeared at once, seemingly out of nowhere. It is, in fact, called the Cambrian Explosion. Imagine my surprise to find that the Biblical account is a much more accurate metaphorical description of how creation came to be than Darwinian evolution. I have since discovered that some microbiologists have quietly rejected Darwin’s theory as well. I have further discovered that this theory – that all right-thinking people accept as fact – oddly failed on each and every one of the predictions it made. Every single one.

Darwin’s description of adaptation within species is no longer a theory; it is a fact, proved by the evidence. We have the nice irony that, were Darwin alive today, I don’t believe he would be a “Darwinian” on evolution. Oh, I don’t think he would be a Christian. But he was an honest scientist who thought science was a dispassionate means of finding truth, not a fashion accessory to be worn as proof of your membership in the in crowd. He would go back to the drawing board for a theory that matched up more closely with the facts and evidence rather then coming up with forced explanations of the Cambrian Explosion. It turns out that evolutionists’ charge that many Christians reject evolution for fear it disproves God is exactly backward: evolutionists hold on to a failed theory because they so badly want it to disprove God.

Next time an evolutionist starts hectoring you, simply ask them what they make of the Cambrian Explosion. If they don’t know what you are talking about, they are an ignorant posturer not worthy of disputing with. Tell them to get to know the facts of their own belief before arguing with you about yours. Reality is a stubborn thing.

Unless it is engaging in one of the greatest head fakes in history, the Vatican is about to endorse a massive shift of power to centralized governmental elites to combat what is called “climate change.” The Pope’s top advisor recently responded to critics of the “science” with an insult instead of an actual argument. The Apostolic Nuncio to the United Nations last week spoke to the matter by making an assertion from authority rather than an argument from evidence.

Now, nature operates in cycles rather than static absolutes. The more primitive the peoples, the more panicked they get at the edges of a natural cycle. Even children know that when night comes, daylight will return soon enough. It is a short cycle, so no one gets into a lather about the “global darking” that happens every day. But we are barely a thousand years away from a time when primitive peoples engaged in human sacrifice out of fear that the normal winter end of the seasonal cycles would become permanent – and that was just a predictable, annual cycle. Like the tides, the mean temperature of the globe ebbs and wanes over decades and centuries in a continuing cycle. If the pattern we are in now is real, the first question has to be whether it falls out of the normal range of that cyclical activity. Simply put, it does not.

Satellite data shows that the earth has not warmed to any significant measurable degree in the last decade and a half. That, in fact, is why the phrase “climate change” replaced the earlier phrase of “global warming.” In the early 70’s we were nearing the end of an extended cooling period. That led some alarmists – in political policy seats and science, to claim that we were heading for an unstoppable new ice age. From the late 70’s until the late 90’s, we entered a period of steady warming. Since the late 90’s we have had a fairly stable global temperature. It won’t remain that way – and when it starts either to cool or to warm again, alarmists will be in full shriek – or at least fuller shriek than they are now, when things are stable.

When looking at the policy recommendations of those vested in controlling the climate, the first thing to examine is the track record of their existing predictions. The fact is, like Darwin on evolution, the “experts” have been wrong in every particular. The hockey stick never showed up for the party. The ice caps did not melt. They receded for a while near the North Pole while expanding near the South Pole – and have been expanding near the North Pole for a few years. The ice cap at the North Pole was supposed to be gone entirely a few years back, according to the “experts.”

An enviro-governmental complex has metastasized. Governments want massive, centralized power – and are willing to subsidize scientists who will confirm their fantasies with massive grants and endowments. This has perverted the transmission of accurate data – and in ways that are obvious to anyone who looks seriously. In the East Anglia scandal a few years back, scientists spoke in what they thought were private emails of “tricking” the data so as to produce the results government overseers wanted in order to justify their seizure of power. Sure enough, when satellite data stubbornly refused to support hypotheses of unnatural warming, rent-seeking scientists moved earthbound sensors to more urban locations (which are typically warmer than non-urban areas) to produce the results they wanted. Government power-mongers shouted hallelujah.

Usually, when trying to make initial assessments of who has the best of an argument, I look to see who is using reason and evidence and if either party is relying on coercion, deception and bullying. Those who bully to try to make their case almost always have the weaker of the argument. One prominent public “scientist” who has been consistently wrong in his predictions has taken to suing any who publicly criticize him. The courts do their best, but they are not the place to settle scientific disputes. Though their ruling may bind for a time, it does not change reality. Ask Galileo. Meantime, the progressive wing of the U.S. Congress recently demanded data on research scientists at universities working on climate science – and did not bother to hide the fact they wanted the information so they could strip any university of all federal funding and grants if it had a climate change skeptic on its roster. Robert Kennedy Jr. has publicly stated several times that he would like to see the law changed to charge anyone who is skeptical of climate change with treason and send them to prison. Imagine that: people who think actual treason is “serving with distinction” want to make disagreeing with them a treasonable offense.

Editors of scholarly peer-reviewed magazines decided a decade ago to refuse articles skeptical of climate change. That way, they could say that any skeptics, no matter how compelling and clear the data, had not been properly peer-reviewed. “Fix-is-in” science is not, actually, science. What you have here is governments, greedy for more power, paying vast sums to scientists who are more greedy for permanent endowments than scientific rigor. Now, the Vatican seems poised to jump into this hot mess and weigh in on the side of those greedy for centralized power. Why?

Perhaps it is just hubris. Perhaps it is merely the desire to meddle in what is not their province – an all-too-common human failing to avoid dealing with what is. Perhaps it is designed as a sop to progressive absolutists in hopes that they will treat the Church as an ally rather than as enemy number one. I have never been much for the strategy of feeding the beast that would destroy you in hopes it will turn its attention elsewhere. But, to mix metaphors, some people will not believe a glowing red stove is actually hot until they burn their hand. I pray that the final Encyclical will speak compellingly about stewardship and how to properly approach our duty to each other and our earthly home, but that hope is dimming with each information-free proclamation from high Vatican officials.

For the statists, the Church’s intervention would be welcome; as welcome as  Germany’s acceptance of the Soviet Union as an ally in the early days of World War II. Church authorities recognize that the preferred methods of greedy governmentalists would impoverish millions. So the Church is saying it has a plan that would ameliorate that. The plan is, again, all assertion and no data – kind of like Barack Obama’s assurances that his stimulus would provide “shovel-ready” jobs. There are three foundational aspects to building temporal prosperity. You must have abundant, inexpensive food and energy. Then prosperity is limited by how convenient and efficient your means of transportation is. The Vatican seems poised to cooperate with statists to destroy easy access to energy, while maintaining it has found the means to ensure what has never before happened in human history: general prosperity without abundant, inexpensive energy. If the Vatican succeeds in rewarding the statists, it will not be seen as having saved the planet, but in having impoverished the world. Then, just as Germany did when it had used its alliance with the Soviet Union to vastly expand its might, the statists will resume their assault on the Church just as Germany abruptly invaded its ally.

But God is adamant that ALL things must be set to right. Right now we have government ministers who play at being Bishops by defining marriage; we have Bishops who play at being government ministers by defining what is the proper policy to adopt on temporal matters; we have scientists who dream of being influence-peddlers; and influence-peddlers who pretend to be scientists. This is part of the Storm. It is a sorrow, for many who think they are advancing their cause are, in the long term, discrediting it. If they do not get right, they will be remembered in infamous terms. We still need government ministers, but we must ultimately insist on ministers who see themselves as servants rather than masters. We need our Bishops to prepare us for the next world and how to live in this, despite any disastrous dalliances they have with playing ministers of state. We need scientists with rigor. They help enormously to reveal God’s plan of creation. We even need influence-peddlers, who often help develop concensus among competing entities and move solutions forward. But we need each to play their position.

With respect to Nuncio Tomasi, before declaring that we have the “technological grasp…and know-how” to mitigate “climate change,” wouldn’t it be prudent to wait for the experts to actually get a few of their predictions right? Right now, if they were baseball prospects, they would all wash out with a batting average of .050 and have to get real jobs.

I am just a little guy. My ramblings and rantings are not going to change any of the minds of those who think they can change reality by decree. But as they continue on their way, I remind them that reality is a stubborn thing. It has broken all before this generation who thought they could decree it out of existence.

About charliej373

Charlie Johnston is a former newspaper editor, radio talk show host and political consultant. From Feb. 11, 2011 to Aug. 21, 2012, he walked 3,200 miles across the country, sleeping in the woods, meeting people and praying as he went. He has received prophetic visitation all his life, which he has vetted through a trio of priests over the last 20 years, and now speaks publicly about on this site. Yet he emphasizes that we find God most surely through the ordinary, doing the little things we should with faith and fidelity. Hence the name, The Next Right Step. The visitations inform his work, but are not the focus of it. He lives in the Archdiocese of Denver in the United States.
This entry was posted in Church Governance, Culture, Discernment, The Storm and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

126 Responses to Reality is a Stubborn Thing

  1. SteveBC says:

    On matters requiring evidence, science is never settled. By definition, new data could contradict what we think we know.

    Models are not reality. When we mistake our models for reality, we are not doing science.

    Years ago, some reputable scientists figured that Al Gore’s recommendations to fix climate change would cost $44T (that’s trillion) over several decades and result in one year delay in peak temperatures, as well as of course doing nothing to combat global cooling, a much worse phenomenon.

    I have a back of the envelope system that would give us the ability to adjust global temps up if cooling occurs and down if warming occurs, cost less than $5T, and give us robotic and human access to most of the solar system, ultimately allowing us to terraform Mars and possibly Venus, most all via contracted and independent private sector effort.

    So when people like Gore say we must do this or that which tamps down energy use, raises costs enormously, vastly expands government power, and sends trillions and trillions of dollars to favored entities they own a piece of, you can know it isn’t about solving the supposed problem but expanding their control over us. Of course, that’s what most or all of our current government programs do – at great cost, they make the problem worse, so that politicians can double down on them, saying that we need to do more.

    Like

  2. One finds a curious item amongst all this confusion. The appeal to the youth and their energy to solve all worldly problems. What is old is “bad,” and what is new, novel, or exciting, is “good.” Young people cast down traditions (and facts as well) in order to “make their mark” towards utopia. Notice how the misinformed, tyrants, or godless Communists always recruit the young to do their work. They and their notions” are doomed to failure.

    Hear from someone witnessing their failures almost a century ago:

    “A generation is now growing old, which never had anything to say for itself except that it was young. It was the first progressive generation – the first generation that believed in progress and nothing else…. [They believed] simply that the new thing is always better than the old thing; that the young man is always right and the old wrong. And now that they are old men themselves, they have naturally nothing whatever to say or do. Their only business in life was to be the rising generation knocking at the door. Now that they have got into the house, and have been accorded the seat of honour by the hearth, they have completely forgotten why they wanted to come in. The aged younger generation never knew why it knocked at the door; and the truth is that it only knocked at the door because it was shut. It had nothing to say; it had no message; it had no convictions to impart to anybody…. The old generation of rebels was purely negative in its rebellion, and cannot give the new generation of rebels anything positive against which it should not rebel. It is not that the old man cannot convince young people that he is right; it is that he cannot even convince them that he is convinced. And he is not convinced; for he never had any conviction except that he was young, and that is not a conviction that strengthens with years.”

    G.K. Chesterton, Illustrated London News of July 9, 1921

    Liked by 5 people

  3. Acker Family says:

    Makes sense to me! How can we get this piece into our Holy Fathers hands?!?

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Mark says:

    Demanding gay marriage is like a demanding a shoe retailer sell you 2 left shoes and demand they call it a “normal” pair of shoes. Sure it looks a bit like 2 shoes to a casual observer, but that really isn’t a pair. They don’t fulfill their purpose. Of course those who want this can say “No they are fine, they will be comfortable I’m sure” the reality is they don’t fit and they won’t fit, no matter how hard they try to be convincing. Now not many people will want to buy two left shoes, so should every store be required to have all the combinations offered in all sizes, colors and styles anyway? If they don’t should they be run out of business?

    Personally I think the idea should just be given the boot!

    Liked by 5 people

    • Jerry McFadden says:

      I can’t think of a good response to save my sole!

      Liked by 2 people

    • Kathleen from NJ says:

      Unfortunately Mark the response from the ‘left’ – no pun intended, would be that their feet are genetically shaped that way and can’t help it that they have two left feet. Very sad state of affairs, but I like your line of thinking.
      God Bless! K

      Like

  5. Jerry McFadden says:

    This Pope and his top advisors seem to be part of the problem these days. We need to trust that this is part of God’s plan and will somehow facilitate the cleansing and rescue that is coming and is here. Remember, paradox is the Way of the Cross. Reality, which is Truth, trumps everything and wins in the end.

    Liked by 3 people

  6. vicardwm says:

    I knew “global warming” was a sham just by knowing the principles of science. The essence of science is to gain knowledge via the scientific method. This involves controlled experiments. There are WAY too many variables which are uncontrollable or even unknown which influence global temperature for science to be able to demonstrate that the increase of temperature was due to human intervention. “Science” today is mostly dreaming up ways to make government and corporate ideas and products sound scientific.

    I’m glad you pointed out that information about evolution. When you have a theory that utterly fails to match up with the existing evidence, you can be sure that it’s a sham. As you said, “evolutionists hold on to a failed theory because they so badly want it to disprove God.”

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Diane says:

    Charlie,
    This is part of the storm, but how much more can we be so duped and so lost to what is the Truth – I try to understand as weak as I am how much we are acing like a bunch of idiots in a poorly written play, and I constanty ask God how far we have to fall into the darkness in order for Him to shatter that darkness with His Light. I sometimes get absolutely frightened by the brokenness of God’s beautiful creation – including me and those in my family – it isn’t just that disfunction runs rampant thoughout but down right icky, sticky evil clinging to us – if it were just disfuction that would be okay, but this muck is clinging and growing. Remember the movie The Blob – just keeps growing and growing – where St. Michael and his Army to come to our rescue. I know God is in the midst of this, but oh my, how very dark the world is getting. I cling to my Guardinan Angel and thank my angel everyday for getting me to mass to receive the one who we both adore, I really believe she pushes me out of bed and gets me going at 5:00 am.
    Funny story – about 1 month ago I missed the bottom step on our staircase and fell on my knee. The first thing I did was admonish my Angel and said, Hey, your supposed to do better than that. Something got twisted in my knee and it was very painful – (abhor going to the doctor) so the next day while limping around, and offering my discomfort up to the Lord for conversions, etc. I reminded my Angel that I did not intend to go to the doctor and that my knee needed to be fixed. Later that evening I was laying down with my leg up and I felt something vibrate and move in my knee – very eerie feeling – but I knew immediately that whatever got messed up got back into place. It was still painful for another 2 weeks, but I told my husband that my Angel put it back in place. He thinks I am crazy and maybe I am, but darned if I don’t think my Angel was involved in the healing process.
    Sorry to get off track, but I gotta say, I’m getting tired of how stupid we are. I always end with Love. I do. I am getting weaker everyday. So now I ask that we all pray for the Strength to be who God created us to be – and reminding myself and others that He did indeed put us in this NOW for a reason – If He thinks we can handle this storm, well who am I to thinkg any differently.

    Liked by 3 people

    • charliej373 says:

      I don’t understand how it all works in together, either, Diane. But I was told before any of this rose that it was coming and that it was part of God’s plan to set things right. I believe Him even when I do not understand Him. I guess some infections have got to be brought to the surface before they can be gotten rid of. I don’t know – but I reckon He showed me bits of this last December so that my faith would not be shaken when it all came to pass.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Wow! You nailed it, Charlie. Let all the germs, evils, and nasties reveal themselves first, in order that they be obliterated in God’s due time (not ours.)

        Reminds me of the old Robert Graves book (which was made into a chilling PBS series) “I, Claudius,” to show how much “infection” with evil a society can endure. As the emperor, Claudius thinks: “I will give Rome Nero and when he is done with Rome, Rome will be done with emperors altogether. It will be bad, exceedingly bad…worse even than Caligula but they have to have the whole terrible truth about just how bad it can be before they come to their senses. Let all of the poisons that lurk in the mud, hatch out.”

        What Graves is REALLY SAYING is what St. Paul reminds us of in Romans 1:18‐3:20. To understand the importance of the righteousness of God revealed in the His Son and the gospels and how grand and glorious that righteousness truly is, you have to understand something of the reality of the sinfulness of fallen mankind. So let me explain that to you. Let me explain it to you in all its brutal ugliness. Let all of the poisons that lurk in the mud, hatch out. A terrible, yet most effective demonstration.

        God is showing us the ugliness of sin in all its horrific forms before He, like the Great Physician and Surgeon that He is, excises it out. His time and manner—not ours.

        Liked by 5 people

  8. saulkeeton says:

    The main thing that keeps me from buying into the global warming / climate change hysteria is that none of the proponents of these theories live as though they actually believe the theories are true. They fly about the world in private jets. They commute in convoys of Escalades and Hummers. And they cultivate enormous yards full of lush green (and lavishly watered and fertilized) grass. Until they start living in a way that shows they buy their own BS, I’ll take a pass.

    Liked by 3 people

  9. Lin says:

    Another intriguing post….esp. the part about the history of marriage in our country.
    So glad to see you are feeling better!

    Like

  10. jaykay says:

    Ahhh, Charlie, in the case of Ireland it’s not so much the sheep’s tail as what’s directly under it that we have decided to convince ourselves is a leg. And worship. Apologies for the crudity but, well, it’s been a trying few days. Yes, life has gone on “as normal” since last Friday but, really, it’s not normal. It’s a parody of the country it once was. So they can have their feast with the vessels from the Temple, and their dancing girls, and boys, natch, and their dancing transgendered whatevers, metaphorically speaking, but the writing is now truly on the wall. Scripturally speaking. And the Titanic was built in Ireland, on which it was party time until…

    Good Gaia, Steve BC, don’t you know the science is settled on climate change? Because 97%. Because… DENIER!!! THERE! Refute that, you… you… oooh, I need a safe space from nasty people like you… just like I have in my University.

    Like

    • charliej373 says:

      Yikes, Jaykay! I will certainly keep my distance from any Irish “sheep.” Your Archbishop Martin said we need a reality check. I think the reality we must face is that we now live in a functionally pagan world. Well, those who will can depend on Gaia…I will depend on God, and we will all see how it turns out in the end.

      Like

      • jaykay says:

        Heh, heh😊 Well, we actually have two Archbishop Martins. Just to confuse things. One is the Primate of Ireland and the other is the Primate of All Ireland. Who, technically speaking, is The Man, being the lineal successor of St. Patrick. Also my Archbishop, and, indeed, my Parish Priest (for historical reasons. As with much in Ireland, you have to be here to really understand).

        Anyway, yes, things are bad, but we do go on in faith and hope. Really, there is nothing to hope for on the political front, the parties being all pretty much indistinguishable, and Independents will have no influence whatsoever, assuming they’re even brave enough to stand. We’ll have a general election in the next 10 months or so, probably sooner as they feel they’re on a tidal wave of approbation, and for the first time in almost 40 years I may not vote. Because I will not give any of them my approbation unless I am totally sure they won’t betray us. And, y’know, there’s nobody I can be sure about in that respect anymore. Blessings to all. J.

        Like

    • Patricia says:

      Jaykay,
      I took this as truth when I read it but you might know better. The story was written quite awhile back about one telling the story of his father working inside the hull of the Titanic. It went on to say that the jobs were given to the Protestants and a few Catholics. The Protestants taunted the Catholics, as usual, and even scrawled vulgar things about the Blessed Virgin Mary on the inside of the hull where they were all working. Needless to say, that is where the iceberg hit.

      Like

      • jaykay says:

        Quite honestly, Patricia, that sort of urban myth about fervent Orangemen cursing the Pope with every rivet they hammered in has been around since 1912. Yes, there was horrible anti-Catholic discrimination, and worse, in Belfast at that time, and yes, some such incidents “probably” happened (but there was much worse in a physical and political sense in Ulster as a whole, apart from Harland & Wolfe shipyard). The whole Titanic thing is just the usual story of human carelessness mixed with overweening Pride, but it’s emblematic of our current situation. We never do learn.

        Like

        • charliej373 says:

          Yes, there were horrible anti-Catholic purges in Henry VIII’s England. But then there were horrible anti-Protestant purges that came with the brief restoration of Catholicism that began there in 1660. Then when Cromwell had King James’ head lopped off, the Protestant rulers renewed the anti-Catholic pogroms. Unfortunately, much of this intense back-and-forth strife was transferred to Ireland in what was really a battle of nationalism.

          The thing is, if we look to our forbears, whether Catholic or Protestant, we have all been both victims and victimizers. We cannot change that, We can, however, decide in the present moment that we will be neither nor support others who would be either.

          Liked by 3 people

    • SteveBC says:

      JayKay, do you know the phrase some businesses use to build their reputation? Like “Providing great birthday cakes since 1986” or “Purveyors of fine English beer for the Queen since 1581”?

      Well, I first heard about global warming in 1997 or so. I spent a few months poking around and figured out it was malarkey.

      So for me it’s a case of “Staunch climate skeptic and denier since 1997!”

      Now you can put that in your oh-so-academic-professor pipe and smoke it. Unlike normal academic fare these days, since it’s a slice of reality, it will not make you high or give you hallucinations. Just solid three-dimensional vision. Ha! 😀

      Like

      • jaykay says:

        Erm, you do realise I was joking?

        I’ve only come to the actual belief that the whole thing is another contrived control bid in relatively recent years. I think before that I might have even leaned towards concern (that they were actually right… yikes!) given that my conservative nature does – and always did – make me lean towards conservation. And my actual primary qualification is archaeology so I’ve been concerned about environmental matters for a long time, given the destruction of sites etc. that has accelerated in recent decades. So yeah, they probably had a bit of a natural supporter in someone like me.

        But in more recent times, as I’ve witnessed the outright manipulation of facts allied to hysteria and ugly threatening behaviour, I am a convinced sceptic, even a “denier” (another ugly manipulation of language, that). Thank God for the Net, because I doubt I’d have got wise to the whole thing having to rely on TV or the dead tree media.

        Like

        • charliej373 says:

          Interesting, Jaykay, given your specialty. Certainly, there is almost a coordinated attack on real archeological treasure troves. But another thing that has occurred to me is that, though the climate is fairly stable and alarmism there vastly overblown, it strikes me that there are some peculiar geological disruptions – an increase in the frequency and magnitude of earthquakes along with the reports of mysterious deep rumblings. It is almost like the earth, itself, is groaning.

          Like

        • SteveBC says:

          JayKay, absolutely, I did get that you were joking, and I very much enjoyed the joke, and I meant my last paragraph in the same spirit, with a laugh icon to boot. I thoroughly enjoyed our back-and-forth on this and hope you were equally amused. 🙂

          Like

          • jaykay says:

            I am sorry, SteveBC, I didn’t actually see the icon thingy until now as I was using a basic phone in a wifi-less area and only text showed. Sort of like seeing through a glass darkly, as some dude somewhere once said! But using my laptop back home I can now see clearly, including the table you published in the comment below! Apologies for the over-sensitivity.

            I love that sort of stuff i.e. actual facts as opposed to manipulated hockeysticks. What I think is hilarious is that the “scientists” who are wedded to all that (“Mike’s nature trick” as it was referred to in the infamous East Anglia e-mails) would be scorned by Darwin who, as Charlie points out, was a true scientist and, were he alive, would have revisited his Theory – there, I’ve just uttered blasphemy in the eyes of the believers of the Church of Evolution – in the light of future evidence. Settled science my… sheep’s tail.

            I have to thank people like the UK author James Delingpole for really wakening me up to all this. While he himself is, and describes himself as, a polemicist rather than a scientist he has taken the trouble to educate himself about it. His book ‘Watermelons” is an interesting run through the dangers of the wider green agenda. The title refers to them as being like the eponymous fruit: green on the outside, red through and through inside. On your side of the pond, guys like Mark Steyn have also been of great benefit in educating me. There are of course many others, although you always have to be on the lookout for agendas. Still, like prophecy, one takes the good and discards the bad. But Lord, the sheer bombardment of theory masquerading as fact, not to mention the increasingly brazen propaganda they rarely even bother to conceal anymore, that comes from “the other side” really does make it very hard to discern the good from the bad.

            Like

          • SteveBC says:

            JayKay, thank you for letting me know that. I hadn’t thought you couldn’t see the icon. Anyway, no harm done.

            It can be very difficult to get humor or anything with subtle emotion across on the web. I take great care to do it obviously enough that my intent cannot be mistaken. However, if someone has a dumb phone instead of a smart one, all bets are off, right? 🙂

            Like

  11. Diane says:

    do you have a date for Fort Lauderdale Yet? – Planning my trip to see my mom around your talk here in So. Florida. Just curious.

    Like

  12. gettimothy says:

    Hi Charlie,

    Kudo’s on your fearlessness addressing that trifecta.

    If you haven’t engaged him already, the Calvinist pastor Douglas Wilson http://www.dougwils.com is on the same page as you regarding these issues and he is just as outspoken. I do think God’s kingdom will benefit from you two conversing. It may be “the next right step” as far as that protestant/catholic that you speak of happening.

    On the global-warming scam, Steve Goddard at https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/ is fearless.

    On the demise of Darwinism, the discovery institute http://www.discovery.org (Intelligent Design folks) are very good at itemizing the shortcomings of the propaganda of evolution. (For age-of-the-earth questions, there is promising research that is worth keeping an eye on wherein via Relativity effects the Earth the literal account in Genesis stands and the Earth http://sixdayscience.com/six-days-2/

    As to “the Storm” I am still prayerfully weighing what I think. I have the same ‘sense’ of things, but I do not have visions and frankly the idea of relying on your word is anathema; I will trust the Holy Spirit. That said, in scriptural terms, you do evince the fruits of the Spirit and I think you are true. Frankly I hope your prediction of 1 to 5 months is true as the evil that is growing is so downright BORING.

    God bless.
    t

    Like

    • charliej373 says:

      When I first began seeing these things as a child, one thing that never occurred to me until less than a year ago, was that we would reach a time when the Storm was visibly the least bad option. But here we are. I have had several people tell me they are thankful for the Storm. I must give kudos to my friend John Bailey, who was the first to tell me, while I was still on pilgrimage three years ago, that he sure hoped I was right about the Storm…for if it did not happen, this would surely be the end the way things were headed.

      Liked by 5 people

  13. Pawel says:

    Bad news from Ireland but perhaps some good news from Poland. Winning the presidential elections in Poland a few days ago by an ultra Catholic politician was called by leftist Italian media “another European nightmare” compared to the financial nightmare in Greece. The incumbent who had 75% approval nationwide in March lost to a barely known politician. Not that we should put our hope in politicians, but it was a very unexpected turnaround.

    http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2015/05/25/apparent-winner-in-polish-election-sends-message-of-unity

    Liked by 1 person

    • Judy says:

      I guess that this is a good sign, but the Polish churches are currently near empty. I am told that they are using them to house homeless people.

      Like

      • Pawel says:

        Judy, I would rather say less attended. True, over the last 10 years the number of Catholics attended mass in Poland decreased by 2 million but at the same time 1.4 million, including myself, left the country for better job opportunities. Still 39.1 % of Catholics in Poland attended Mass weekly in 2013 ( compare it to around 24% in US ), the first drop below 40% in years, but like me I did not officially leave my parish in Poland so they count me as not attending Mass though I do attend it in US. I never experienced an empty church in Poland, both in rural and urban areas,I moved out 6 years ago so perhaps it changed a little bit, but usually I did not have a chance to sit in a pew and it was not because I was late for Mass. Another reason for having the churches less crowded is probably the fact they keep building new ones, and they still keep running the old ones, not like in Germany where churches are being shut down or turned into non-Christian buildings.

        Like

        • Judy says:

          Well, that is certainly better news than I have heard from people who have been visiting the country and I am glad to hear it!

          Like

  14. Patricia says:

    Charlie,
    Are we to ignore stories such as these?

    http://the-american-catholic.com/2015/05/28/popewatch-is-the-schism-here/

    Like

    • charliej373 says:

      Patricia, I do not say you must ignore them. What I do say is that Pope Francis IS the Pope who is to captain the ship through the Storm. That does not mena his judgment on all, or even most, matters must be sound – but that he is the instrument God has chosen to carry us safely to port through this Storm. I do not say I understand all that is happening…certainly, much of it is not how I would recommend going forward. But, perhaps aware of my short-sightedness, I was shown these things last December 20th and told this is part of God’s plan to set things right. Sometimes, a good man must make some blunders, even terrible ones, to see the fullness of his calling. God knew from the minute He formed him in the womb that St. Paul would be a great tool to evangelize the world…yet He suffered letting St. Paul be the great persecutor of Christians for a time, perhaps filling Paul with even more zeal for the truth when the fullness of time came.

      Papal infallibility does not prevent Pope Francis from making temporal errors, from making bad appointments, or even from teaching bad non-Magisterial theology. It DOES prevent him from error in proclaiming Magisterial doctrine. So I really have no fear of what the Pope will finally decide on the matter of the Synod – regardless even of what the Synod recommends. God will not allow error to be formally propounded from the chair of Peter. Perhaps some of these things are for our benefit. I know people who think the Pope or their local Priest can – and should – infallibly tell them what make and color of car they must buy. That is an error and an abuse. So perhaps it pleases God to underline to us what clerics are authoritative on and what they are not.

      What I know is that Pope Francis IS God’s chosen instrument for these times…and that God wins in the end…and that we all suffer from vanities hidden even from ourselves that it pleases God to expose and excise. So make no mistake, whether I occasionally do some kicking and screaming or not, I am and will remain firmly planted in the Barque of Peter, for however wild things get or bad they look, that is the place of safety in these times.

      Liked by 6 people

      • DanSouthChicago says:

        “but that he is the instrument God has chosen to carry us safely to port through this Storm.”

        “Safely” is the key word. Thank you, Charlie. Our Lord surely knows what He’s doing. I have to remember that and trust. God bless.

        Like

    • Steve says:

      Patricia, I don’t think we should ignore stories such as these, we should be watchful. The issue here is, will these articles cause you to lose faith? Will they cause you to turn your back on the Church? Will they shake your belief in Christ? Remember that only one person in history has ever been without sin. The satan is out working his ways, as well. We need to understand that his work is much easier and he accomplishes much more when he uses truth to promote his evil ways. It is much easier to cause a person to give up on faith if the leaders of their faith make mistakes in the temporal issues. It is even easier if our leaders make spiritual mistakes, as we tend to put them up on a pedestal. What we need to do is pray for our leaders, as not one single person is totally infallible. Remember Christ’s admonition that he who is without sin should cast the first stone. It is easy to sit back and be an armchair judge, it is much more difficult to follow Christ’s teachings and earnestly pray for those who may be stumbling. I honestly believe that we will experience schism’s in the Church, but also believe that it will be to weed out those who would attempt to lead the flock astray under the guise of spiritual guidance. I believe it is truly wise advice to pray constantly and give everything up to Christ.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Patricia says:

        Thanks Steve. I think the difficult part is explaining all this away. Friends and colleagues, particularly the Evangelicals who loved the moral authority of JPII and Benedict , are stymied.
        I do think we are already in schism and have been for years, at least in Boston. As reported on Boston Catholic Insider today, Father Cuenin’s antic’s at Brandies and earlier in a Newton parish, have been giving very public scandal to the Church for at least two decades and no one has censored him, until now, where it looks like illness has felled him. As you are aware, this is only the tip of the iceberg in this area. It is possible that if the Synod ends this September with the rogue elements being reined in again that the renegade members of our Church may make it formal. We shall see.
        My faith is grounded in the Trinity, the BVM and the Saints. Since I came back to Church in my early thirties many years ago, I very often have to explain to my peers why I go to Church and believe what I do. I never, however, expected to have to explain to my parent’s generation what I believe and why and that is what makes it all the more painful.

        Like

  15. Judy says:

    Two thoughts come to mind as we await the Pope’s speech.

    Matthew 7:15-20New King James Version (NKJV)

    You Will Know Them by Their Fruits
    15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

    A Kingdom Divided
    …23 And He called them to Himself and began speaking to them in parables, “How can Satan cast out Satan? 24″If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25″If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand.…

    I hope and pray that the Holy Spirit will give this Pope discernment.

    Like

    • charliej373 says:

      Please know that whatever the Pope says, it does not disqualify him. I think Pope Francis genuinely wants to do what is best. He may shoot from the hip, which is worrisome, because he is not protected from error on temporal matters. But for me, the worry is the disrepute it could bring to the faith exactly at the time when it needs all its credibility to help get people through the Storm. Your comments underlie that fear in me. Whatever error the Pope might make in a secular matter will not last for long…but if it caused people to jump ship, the damage to them would be incalculable. This is why I have said you may disagree intensely with Bishops or a Pope on political and secular issues, but you must defer to the Pope and assembled Bishops on faith and morals. Stay steady, mind your post and all will be well.

      Liked by 5 people

      • Judy says:

        I will always believe and live Catholic teachings. However, you are right about people jumping ship. People are already talking about it.

        Like

      • W. Leo says:

        OK, Charlie, ‘fess up:
        http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/what-is-causing-the-strange-trumpet-sounds-in-the-sky-all-over-the-world
        have you been sounding the trumpet again?! On a more serious note, a sincere thank you for your steadfast advice: “Stay steady, mind your post and all will be well”. Glad you are feeling better.

        Like

      • LJD says:

        Why are people so worked up about climate change? And by that I mean most of the comments here that Im reading. We as a species are creating products through chemistry that are not biodegradable, we dump all kinds of garbage in our land, oceans (there are pools of trash larger than the state of Texas in the Pacific alone!), and air. Walk around any major city and look at the air. We bottle water now and fill landfills with the plastic bottles, all in the name of convenience and corporate profit! We have become lazy and ours is a disposable society…be it items or people. We have no idea what is precious. Why is everyone so up in arms when the pope is trying to call people’s attention to these things and that maybe we shouldn’t commit slow suicide with our planet but rather be good stewards of it. The whole earth is getting hotter and people fuming on both sides is just corporate media trying to get each side to hate the other and salivate over the ensuing fight.
        No one seems to be fighting for the simple idea that we need to stop trashing our own beautiful and God given home. Do that and stop calling ‘lefties’ crazy for enforcing their ‘radical agenda’. I am all for reality, but we are being used as puppets and destroying ourselves in order to prove a point.

        Like

        • charliej373 says:

          Well, LJD, you are mistaken in your assertion that the whole world is getting hotter. It has not for over 15 years now. It does not sound like you actually read any of the article, as your comments are not geared towards much of anything in it. There is a great difference between speaking and giving guidelines for stewardship and endorsing a massive transfer of power to centralized governmental entities. If the Pope does the former, he will get nothing but cheers here. If it is the latter, it will beggar the planet, hurt the environment, and devastate the poor. So yeah, the stakes are kind of high – and when they are that high, it is important to get the facts right.

          Meantime, name a major country with a rigorous centralized command system where the environment is well cared for. There are none. The places where the environment is cleanest are also the freest. That is not an accident.

          Liked by 2 people

          • LJD says:

            I read the article and pretty much agree with most of it. My comment was geared more toward the comments about the whole climate change and how this pope’s agenda was leading down dark path etc. The earth getting warmer or cooler is not my argument as I have not read up enough specifics to give an educated response. My gripe is that people are spending all their time arguing the warmer or not debate and not the obvious catastrophe of our trashing this beautiful planet.
            I don’t think I’ve seen anyone speaking to this part of our responsibility toward the planet and future generations to not leave them a garbage dump they will need to find a way to clean up. Centralized gov I’m not much a fan of in any case. I’m a Ron Paul fan. I get the whole gov using this to control our lives theme, I was just trying to add a layer from political mindset to the real and urgent problem of environmentalism.

            Like

          • charliej373 says:

            Ah, now I get you, LJD. Thanks for clearing up what your central point is, LJD. That makes more sense to me.

            Like

        • SteveBC says:

          LJD, you make good points that there are actual problems that need attention, so why all the fuss about the climate change issue and whether the Earth is warming or cooling?

          I see two reasons to make crystal clear that global warming and climate change are irrelevant, and they have absolutely nothing to do with the science. However, using science to destroy the undeserved “validity” of the global warming efforts by the elites is a required step in getting people refocused on the problems that are real and free up money and economic activity to pay for remediating the real problems.

          The people and organizations that back the global warming theory are in it for two things, power and distraction.

          On power: By arrogating control over this issue to themselves and the elite organizations that currently have many levers of power, they multiply their ability to control us while they free themselves to do what they want. This directly harms our ability to resolve real issues. Charlie is right that it takes wealth and freedom to address the undesired results of early-stage economic growth. By taking money for wasteful efforts to advance an obviously wrong hypothesis and by pushing hard for measures that will unnecessarily impoverish people the world over, these elites do great general harm for large personal benefit. People will die in large numbers if these elites succeed in this effort.

          On distraction: Not only do the efforts to advance the global warming theory directly take money out of the hands of people like you and me who want to deal with the problems you name, they also agglomerate under the umbrella of the global warming “problem” other problems like the things you name (and many more), which distracts us all from seeing how to address and fix those problems effectively.

          As an example, take coral reef bleaching. That is now assumed by most people to be caused by global warming, but it isn’t. It’s often caused when people living on land near a reef system cut down trees or otherwise disturb their local environment and cause the water that runs out onto the reef to become more turbid with dirt. This directly disturbs the daily heating/rain/cooling cycle that the reef is used to. When the elites take the bleaching problem as support for general global warming, they distract people from understanding what is actually causing the bleaching, which in turn makes it much harder to solve the problem locally where the solution actually rests.

          Therefore, I contend that occasional efforts on my part or by others to point out that the emperor of global warming has no clothes *directly* helps non-technical people resist the constant barrage of global warming propaganda the elites release on a daily basis. This in turn *directly* assists all of us in avoiding distraction and the accompanying loss of power and wealth, which helps us refocus on what matters and how to actually fix those issues and pay for the fixes.

          Without the central shibboleth of global warming, the elites lose a powerful way to instill fear in us and drive us in a herd into the pen in which they want to keep us. Thus the centrality of debunking the global warming theory. I very much view such debunking as a proper effort which will save literally tens of millions of human lives over the next several decades, as well as free us up to fix actual problems.

          I hope this explains why I go off on occasional (I hope well-informed) rants on the subject here. 🙂

          Like

          • charliej373 says:

            Interestingly, when I was in my early to mid-20s, I was a conventional environmentalist – and of some local influence (very local). It changed as I studied deeper. It would not have been so bad if professional environmentalists were simply mistaken, but the more I studied, the more I realized they usually do actual damage to the environment. They jump on things that sound good, without developing any base of real knowledge – just postures that make them feel morally enlightened – then hector everyone. A few simple examples…environmentalists bear a lot of responsibility for the catastrophic wildfires of recent decades. They simultaneously sought to suppress all fires AND to prevent removal of deadwood from forests. This did not help the environment, but created intense fuel-loading that intensified fires once they began. Environmentalists’ jihad against lumber companies is insane. We actually have more forested land in the continental U.S. than we did in the mid-1800s – and it is precisely because of lumber companies, which have a powerful economic incentive to vigorously re-plant. (On a few school campuses where I spoke, I used to take a certain delight in telling some young folks that if they wanted to help add to forestation they should forget the Audubon Society and go to work for a lumber company.) Environmentalists who are cornered by the data here usually emphasize the profound need for “old-growth” trees to keep the environment stable. They have it exactly backwards. The reasons for protecting old-growth forests are for legacy, historic and aesthetic purposes. Like all organisms, it is young-growth forestation that provide that best oxygen processing because of their vigor. The fact is, professional environmentalists often just make it up as they go along – and their arguments are calculated to make themselves feel noble while aggregating power to themselves and people like them.

            Oddly…as I become a prominent conservative activist and operative in Illinois, a fellow once sent and emissary to try to recruit me to his campaign team. I did not intend to, but the fellow was a man of substance with whom I wanted to strengthen friendly relations with. So I let the emissary drive me around and meet key allies of theirs all day. It was early summer…and I had the guy stop to look at various natural formations and gardens four or five times. About the fourth time, the emissary looked at me with his eyes wide and said, “Oh my God, Charlie…you’re a closet tree-hugger, aren’t you?” I laughed and conceded that I am, but that I mean it…and by the way, don’t spread it around.

            Liked by 2 people

          • Judy says:

            I agree with you entirely

            Like

    • Steve says:

      Judy, since we are human, meaning that we are not free from sin, then I read this in a slightly different way. A good tree will bear good fruit, but even the best trees occasionally bear a few bad fruit. I don’t know if you have any fruit trees or have been around any, but you can always find one or two bad fruits on a good fruit tree. If we start searching every tree to find if there is even one bad fruit, then we will believe that there is no such thing as a good tree. Conversely, a bad tree will sometimes bear one or two good fruit. Are we to read this, then, that the tree is good simply because it bore one good fruit? I believe that Christ’s parable was to say that we can judge a tree by the majority of the fruit it bears. If it regularly bears a lot of good fruit, with only the occasional bad fruit, then we can judge it as a good tree, and if it bears mostly bad fruit, with an occasional good fruit, then we can judge it as a bad tree. Notice in verse 20 that he says “Therefore by their fruits you will know them”, using the plural of the word.

      Like

      • Mick says:

        Excellent points, Steve. I spent the day before yesterday pruning some plum trees on my property (apple trees today, maybe), and your explanation/analogy regarding Jesus’ words really hit home with me. Thanks for the worthy insights.

        Like

        • charliej373 says:

          Ha Mick, when I first glanced at this, somehow my mind read, “Thanks for the wormy insights” on your last line. I guess if you have plum trees planted, you will have some worthy and some wormy insights before all is said and done.

          Like

          • Mick says:

            Ha, Charlie! I was in fact pruning wormy leaves and branches off of my plum trees! I wish I’d been clever enough to have actually said “wormy” insights. 🙂

            Like

      • SteveBC says:

        If I remember from my days living next to an apple orchard, apple trees go through a self-pruning stage early in the fruit-growing cycle. Somehow they know how many apples they can bring to ripeness given conditions and also know which apples are weak and should be dropped so the healthier apples will get supported well during the rest of the growing season. So a good tree will self-prune the poorer apple candidates and keep the better ones.

        Like

  16. Becky-TN says:

    Great post, Charlie!

    God Bless,

    Becky

    Like

  17. Steve says:

    Larry, it is really interesting that you put this post up today. I just read an article by Richard Tol on Fox News that addresses the “97 percent” that Obama put in his tweet. (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/05/28/climate-change-and-truth-mr-obama-97-percent-experts-do-not-agree-with.html?intcmp=trending). I find it interesting that Mr. Tol specifically points out the desire to be in the “in crowd” and how many so-called climate scientists are chasing the money. He also tears apart the “research” that was done to come to the 97 percent number.

    Like

    • SteveBC says:

      Steve, I have followed the progress of the Oregon Petition for a number of years. Their website is here:
      http://www.petitionproject.org

      Over 30,000 American scientists (over 9,000 Ph.D.s) have signed this as of today. I have seen figures saying that there are really only about 30 scientists who write much of the IPCC reportage in detail, and only about 1,500 scientists who contribute work to IPCC reports (much of which is misrepresented in the Executive Summaries), the actual percentage of scientists who are climate change *skeptics* ranges from 95% to more than 99%.

      As is often the case with progressive groups, the actual percentages are the exact opposite of what they claim.

      Like

      • Mick says:

        Steve and SteveBC, this reminds me of the foreign dictators who claim to have gotten 97% or 98% of the popular vote in their recent “election.”

        Liked by 2 people

      • Judy says:

        In my school we had a teacher who was known to reject the idea of ‘global warming’ and climate change. He became the subject / target of a faculty meeting in which a science
        teacher appointed himself as the man who would show him the truth and the facts. I thought the whole thing was an awful expression of progressive type hubris. It was not a short meeting. I could not believe that it was happening. There are those that do not allow divergence of opinion or discussion on these matters.

        Liked by 1 person

  18. Mack says:

    I’ve been thinking of the Gospel incident of the storm on the lake. The apostles got quite rattled even though Jesus was right there with them, sleeping through it all. At times now it might seem like Jesus is asleep while the Church rocks back and forth, lurching from one crisis to another. But JESUS is with us and the Pope is his vicar on earth. So while there may be rocky weather ahead, we ARE in good hands — God’s hands!

    Like

  19. Julia says:

    Thank you for another great post Charlie.

    That Darwin theory was one of the things I used to say to my children. Remember it is a theory, and whatever they tell you at school, it can not be held as fact since it has never been proved.

    I read somewhere that Darwin, apparently a Catholic had tried to correct his evolution mistake before the end of his life, but no one would listen to him. Don’t know if that was another fable.

    The Global warming and new Ice age malarkey. I remember hearing all that years ago. I remember then every time the weather went cold for a few weeks, it was the scientific evidence for another Ice age. Then when there was another spell of a few hot weeks it was proof of Global warming. In the end I came to the conclusion they don’t know what they are talking about. And put it down to a load of nonsense.

    I do however think, there is disruption in the earths climate and it seems to be to do with the degenerate moral lives of us who live on Gods earth. It feels like nature is rebelling against our terribly sinful behaviour. If we turn back to God, nature will settle down again. Who knows if that will happen in my lifetime.

    The politics, well there seems to be too many perverts in Government, who are perverting our societies. They don’t canvas and tell us who they really are or we would not vote them in.

    Maybe what you are sharing with us is, God will intervene in a supernatural way to get us back on track before we fall under the total control of the one who wants us and the earth extinguished and that just to get one up on God. God will not be mocked. Keep up the good work Charlie.

    Like

    • charliej373 says:

      Well, the business about Darwin being a Catholic who wanted to correct his errors is a fable. He was a pretty steadfast atheist. When he died, neither the fossil record nor microbiology had advanced enough to demonstrate the errors. But he was an honest and committed scientist. I really just don’t believe he would advance a theory that the evidence had disproved.

      Like

  20. Mary says:

    I study science a great deal out of part interest, mostly necessity, being ill. I have been complimented as a very good researcher. I can honestly say on nearly every front in regards to organisms, very advanced primitive ones capable of astounding adaptation and survival mechanisms that when it comes to understanding disease whether it be antibiotics (they fight back, some eat them like candy) to vaccinations to disinfection to the immune system to agriculture and cause and effect in environment, they were more catastrophically wrong on just about every front than right in the last century. Stick with God and even science will reveal itself more clearly, lest one makes terrible mistakes for humankind.

    Like

    • charliej373 says:

      Funny, when I first read St. Augustine’s “Confessions,” which served as a catalyst for my conversion, I was astounded at his soliloquy on what time is. What astounded me was that it was very similar to Einstein’s theory on the same subject. I chuckled to myself to realize that it only took science 1500 years to catch up with what Augustine knew through revelation, theology and right reason in the mid-400’s.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Mary says:

        Exactly, exalted thought produces exalted thought whether it be science or literature or anything else. It was a priest who helped form Big Bang and if I remember correctly your guide told you he wasn’t too far off.

        Liked by 1 person

  21. Mary says:

    And if I may add, in regards to these organisms and evolution, they did not necessarily evolve, these mechanisms were likely in their genetic toolbox all along and only now due to DNA, protein analysis and technology like electron microscopy are we learning their secrets. And that is not all, there seems to be a clear divergence between us and them at the molecular level. Similar but certainly not equal. They were likely wrong about that too, we did not evolve from pond scum.

    Like

    • charliej373 says:

      Mary, there is not a single case of one species evolving from another. None. There is enough evidence of intra-species adaptation (that is, a species changing certain characteristics over time) that that is a simple fact. Evolutionists like to make much of the fact that much of the genetic material in all species is the same. Big deal – in nature, simplicity is the watchword. There are barely over 100 elements entirely. There aren’t even five particles that make up the atoms that make up all of creation. God uses simplicity in amazingly varied combinations to create His diversity – which differs from leftists’ diversity in that it is actually diverse – and in that His complexity rises from an elegant simplicity which is not to be confused with the chaos and confusion that leftists think is complexity. A can of chili and a car share many of the same elements. Don’t tell the evolutionists or they will be writing dense papers on how automobiles evolved from chili cans. And they say we’re the superstitious ninnies?!

      Liked by 2 people

      • It is a fact that creatures adapt within their species and even that some natural selection may play a role. For instance a black polar bear would be out of luck trying to evade hunters. But Darwin claimed to have found “the origin of species” and not “the origin of small helpful variations” which is what he’s really talking about. Then he did not even find that for those variations were observed by Fr Gregor Mendel as well, and may I add with a more rigorous scientific method.

        Like

  22. GB says:

    Nicely done, esp especially dismantling the fear over the fluctuations in earth’s temp. I’m pretty shocked how Pope Francis is so trusting of like the UN to be in charge of managing this issue, it is like giving your enemy a club (mitre?) with which to bludgeon you and your own family. I’ll try to focus on the OTHER points of this encyclical, which I’m sure will correctly call people to a more judicious use of natural resources, etc…

    Like

    • Judy says:

      I think that a lot of us are shocked, but he has not spoken yet. Let’s see what he says. I am praying that the Holy Spirit wakes him up to find new trusted advisors within the complicated walls of the Vatican.

      Like

  23. Lin says:

    Interesting article related to this post: “Catholic Group Exposes Red[Communist] Influence in Vatican.”
    http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/kincaid/150527

    Like

  24. Phillip Frank says:

    In retrospect we are causing global climate change as was predicted by Jesus. When He was riding the ass to Jerusalem, the Pharisees told Him to stop his followers from calling him the Blessed One but He responded if He did, the very rocks would cry out!
    Next we had the elements at His crucifixion and death go into convulsions agonising , as it where, with a broken heart as their Creator was dying.
    Again, as we eclipse reason and shunn our Lord nature is convulsing again but this time globaly…

    Liked by 2 people

    • charliej373 says:

      Phillip, I think that is a deeply insightful observation. While when examining evidence I just don’t find anything truly startling about climate (which is similar to tides) I do see a lot of odd, extreme weather patterns in strange places (which is similar to waves). There is a frothiness in nature right now. The rocks are crying out, I think.

      Like

      • Barbara Dore says:

        Our sins may possibly affect the weather and the nature. I always believe the trees and flowers or any plant can feel or hear our singing praise to God. It is my personal opinion.

        Like

      • Truly so. Adam and Eve sin first in the story of the Garden of Eden and then (Genesis 3:17) the whole natural order is out of whack because of that. That seems to initiate a process of disruption that continues to our day. Sin is the monkey wrench, natural disasters are in my opinion, natural consequences of our mistakes but NOT in the way the progressives want us to believe. In fact I think the progressive solutions (more abortion, more taxation, more centralization of power) are multiplying the problems while doing nothing to improve environmental conditions.

        Like

  25. Paul says:

    Hi Charlie-

    the comments to this latest post are amazing…you’ve got some great people following this blog

    Writing to let you know I would like to be a host in my area (Philadelphia) and more specifically, South Jersey. I’m in Haddonfield(next door to Cherry Hill, which is better known)…look forward to hearing from someone as to next steps…

    Like

  26. My question is: What was causing global warming in the Triassic? It was really hot, even Antarctica was as hot as Vermont is today. There were no human beings, few mammals if any.
    May be the reason for global warming is that big yellow thing in the sky.

    Liked by 1 person

    • SteveBC says:

      I don’t know if this will work and actually show the JPEG I’m trying to include. The chart is about 600 million years of CO2 and global average temperatures. Carlos, the only thing I can think of that explains the variation in temperatures (which are mainly two-phase at 22 deg C and 12 deg C) is something a blogger said well over ten years ago. The 22 deg C periods apparently occur when the continents drift into positions where there is relatively free flow of water around the equator (and shallow seas), while the 12 deg C periods correlate with continental patterns that block free equatorial ocean flow. The latter condition applies now of course.

      Here’s a link to a page that discusses the following chart and has the chart (the second chart) on its page:
      http://worldview3.50webs.com/6globalwarming.html

      Here’s the chart, if it will show:

      To those who can figure out the chart, note that the average CO2 concentration over the past 250M years has been 1500-2500 ppm. At the moment we hear all sorts of screaming about 400 ppm being too high and likely to kill us all. The Earth would thrive at levels 3x-6x current levels.

      CO2 is plant food. At the end of the last ice age, CO2 bottomed at about 250 ppm. I understand that plant life on Earth would die out completely at 150 ppm or lower. So quite recently we almost saw Earth life disappear.

      Huge amounts of carbon were locked into the Earth in the Carboniferous Age. If we humans had not come along and invented oil drilling and gas-guzzling muscle cars, God would have had to figure out some other way to revive the Earth by freeing up all that stored carbon. Oh, wait, he *did* invent us! 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

  27. CrewDog says:

    This came from my MILINET Blog today and is worth watching as it tells the tale of where we (USA) have been and where we are going!:
    THE AMERICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT
    The word ‘Democracy’ is frequently used to describe our form of government. Many would be surprised to learn that the word never appears in any of the founding and framing documents of our great nation. America was conceived as a very different form of government — a Republic — a government based on the rule of law rather than the rule of a majority. That’s because our Founders were students of history and governance, and knew that democratic forms of government contained the seeds of their own destruction; that every attempt at democratic rule through history did not endure, but failed badly, collapsing into economic ruin and social chaos, to be ultimately replaced by despotic and tyrannical dictatorships.
    Governments do evolve over time, but the challenge remains to retain its essential form while adapting to emergent conditions. Signs are everywhere, however, that mounting pressures to replace lawful foundations and constraints with popular will are beginning to hold sway. Every American has a role to play in guiding and influencing the ultimate form of our government. An understanding of the essential character of the different forms of government will be an empowering discriminator in enabling every citizen to carry out his or her rightful role in this.
    I have sent around many documents and videos over the years that could be characterized as tutorials. I cannot think of one that I consider to be more important at this time than the attached, at the link (below). I hope you will take a few minutes away from everything else pressing all around for your attention to watch it. Your time will be rewarded for as long as the American Republic shall endure.
    CAPT Les ***** USN (Ret)

    GOD SAVE ALL HERE!!

    Liked by 1 person

    • SteveBC says:

      CrewDog, good points. I would also point to the 17th amendment, which made Senators directly elected by the people of their state rather than appointed by the governor or elected by the state legislature.

      This destroyed the carefully constructed power structure of our federal government.

      We the people lost our best allies, the states, in any fights against the Feds. We would not have lost nearly as much power to the Feds if the states were still represented at the Federal level in Congress. They would have protected the interests of their constituent, their state, at the same time as they would have protected us, helping us resist the drawing of ever more power to the Federal level, usually at the cost of the states.

      A progressive amendment aimed at increasing the degree of democracy in our political system has (big surprise) resulted in less freedom and less democracy.

      Liked by 1 person

  28. Just a general word of advice to no one in particular: before ever letting yourself get up in arms — or distracted — by a political statement of the Pope or any Bishop, do be sure to check whether it has a legitimate foundation in the Magisterial 2005 Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church first: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html . It’s so simple! Just do a “Control+F” (search) through that for key words of the question at hand.

    Furthermore I’d strongly caution against reading *any* Magisterial document with the mindset of picking and choosing which parts of it you deem within the competency of the Church and which parts are not. As a good child of holy mother Church, trust, rather, that she only puts into Magisterial documents teachings that are, in fact, within her competency. And simply make a firm commitment now to submit to whatever you find within a Magisterial document. I solemnly assure you that God will be pleased by this commitment: it is a true death to self; being willing to abandon even political positions that we may have argued for and fought for.

    And why is this death to self necessary? Because we must be honest: few of us have really formed our political viewpoints on the foundation of Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium. Rather, we’ve culpably spent way too much of our time listening to worldly pundits whose aims are not of God (even if they claim to be Christians). Their rants, their money-making schemes, their self-interested positions, have, unfortunately, formed our political views. That has its consequences.

    (By the way — I’m not trying to disagree with anyone here on this particular question at hand. I don’t believe in anthropogenic global warming. Nor do I believe in evolution.)

    Like

    • charliej373 says:

      Daniel, I have thought about what you said here, and there is no little merit to it. But I think I must reject part of it. The Pope is infallible on matters of faith, morals and doctrinal matters when specifically speaking with that authority – as are the assembled Bishops, united with the Pope. An individual Pope can – and has – erred, when speaking authoritatively outside his area of competence. The Pope is guaranteed no infallibility in defining his area of competence. If that were not so, the Pope would not have erred in the matter of Galileo – and the sun would actually be revolving around the earth.

      Now, that case is more complicated than most know. Galileo actually had most of his problems with secular authorities, who were constrained from acting decisively against him. Galileo, for all his genius at astronomy, loved to speculate on theology – and was absolutely terrible at it. He was so obviously and absurdly bad the Church didn’t much bother to notice him, much less rebuke him. But secular authorities pressed Church authorities – who intervened. If the Church had simply condemned his theology, it would have been no harm-no foul. But they ventured where they were not competent – and in time, gave the Church a huge black eye from their hubris. It is still used as an argument against infallibility by otherwise educated people who don’t know what infallibility is. If I accept your advice in toto, then it is not only an argument against infallibility, it is a compelling one. The Galileo case is not the only time the Church has spoken clumsily outside her area of competence, only the most famous instance. Interestingly, every time she has done so that I am aware of, she has been trying to curry favor with secular powers.

      An individual Bishop, of course, can err even on matters of faith and morals. Witness Bishop Pierre Cauchon’s condemnation of St. Joan of Arc.

      It is a fearsome thing to get into serious dissent from the Church, which is our Mother, even on matters outside her competence. But if we do not exercise our conscience on such things while staying fully loyal to her, then we divide into two camps – one of shills for whatever the Church says on any matter and one of relentless enemies of the Church. I hold the latter in contempt, but I could not sleep at night being the former. When the Church tells me that marriage is between one man and one woman and that sex outside of marriage is a sin, it exercises its proper authority and I must obey or confess the sin. If the Church tells me authoritatively what color car I must buy, I would respectively tell her to mind her business. I pray that Pope Francis is going to surprise us all and speak from the legitimate authority of the Magisterium on the subject of “climate change.” But if he prescribes specific policy demands to accomplish the goal, I must tell you I expect I will publicly call for the Church to tend to its business. And I reckon if the Vatican can stand a few prominent advocates of gay “marriage” on pontifical councils and advocates of Marxist “liberation” theology that abandons Christ on high commissions, it can deal with my little protests.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Judy says:

        Many are wondering how the Church will handle this recent Irish vote.

        Like

      • A few points in response:

        –I say nothing of infallibility; for certainly strictly and absolutely infallible proclamations would be a far smaller shelf on the library than all Magisterial Documents

        –Indeed a properly formed conscience must always be followed. But conscience is the syllogism that applies the natural moral law to a specific situation; there is no such thing as (for example) a judgment of conscience telling us to have this or that view on Global Warming. That is mere intellectual discernment, and in my humble (haha!) opinion, humility instructs us to put that second to *any* teaching in a Magisterial Document.

        Finally, I am unaware of any Magisterial Document condemning Galileo’s heliocentric theory. Is there one? I could be missing something, but I know only of Juridical actions taken against Galileo by the Qualifiers of the Holy Office. Juridical actions are of course never Magisterial. (That’s why Faustina, Padre Pio, Joan of Arc, etc., had a change of Church stance on them.)

        But we need not go that far back in history; let’s just bring up JPII. He indicated (perhaps implicitly), in his interview Crossing the Threshhold of Hope, that evolution is true, or at least that the genealogy in Luke is not literally true (which I absolutely hold it is). An interview is not a Magisterial document, so I am still happy to disagree with JPII on this. However, if JPII had *ever* written, in a Magisterial Document, (for example an Encyclical or an Apostolic Exhortation), that evolution did indeed occur, and that the genealogy of the Gospel of Luke is not to be taken literally, then I would without a moment’s hesitation abandon my own opinion.

        I am often criticized for openly (and vigorously) disagreeing with Popes, Bishops, and Cardinals all the time. But I draw the line at teachings contained in Magisterial Documents: those I submit to, period. I’m not saying you have to necessarily take this approach to be a good Catholic (far better and holier Catholics than I do not!), but I do believe it to be the safest as far as salvation is concerned — and what else matters?

        Liked by 1 person

        • charliej373 says:

          Carefully reasoned and a perfectly honorable position, Daniel. You are, of course, completely right on the judgment on Galileo being entirely juridical. I will have to contemplate this.

          Liked by 1 person

        • CrewDog says:

          Hey Daniel,
          I’m glad that there are learned folks “Out-There” that are knowledgeable , conversant and can expound on Magisterial Documents, Intellectual Discernment, Juridical Actions and Qualifiers of the Holy Office ….. but … though I can’t see it with my earthly eyes I know that the black-n-roiling wall cloud of The Storm is upon us! I suspect that most here, at the moment, are more concerned with survival of themselves and their family/friends ……. and Salvation …. and dwelling on matters such as the above is just an unnecessary distraction!?

          GOD KEEP US FOCUSED ON YOU!!!!!

          Like

        • Mary Ann says:

          Encyclicals and apostolic exhortations are not automatically of magisterial authority, unless they contain elements of magisterium, unless they teach in matters of faith and morals. Even then, the magisterium has many degrees. Pacem in Terris and Vat II both had many parts that were out of line with prior teachings, if looked at in one way, but could be construed properly (with a bit of effort). What the Church has always and every where believed is infallible. What the Pope, or Pope and bishops together, teaches as to be held definitively in faith – that is infallible, and rare. Everything else demands varying degrees of assent, all the way down to, “That’s nice, but your slip is showing.”

          Like

          • Mary Ann says:

            What I mean is that a document is a document. A document is not the locus of authority. The Church is, the office of the Papacy when exercised in certain ways is, and the whole college of bishops is (with its head).

            Apropos, and in prep for September, Kaspar has shown his hand completely in his comments on the Irish vote on homosexual “marriage.” I believe we are in schism already, a heretical schism, not just a split, and that it will be formal soon. And that most bishops will go to the “other” side. As has happened before. And we may all be very confused, as at the time of the antipopes, when saints supported all claimants.

            Like

          • Any Encyclical or Apostolic Exhortation is, in fact, automatically Magisterial, even though they do not necessarily only contain infallibly declared truths. Now different acts of the Magisterium do require different degrees of assent: my purpose here is simply to encourage more assent. Alas, a more thorough discussion of this matter would no doubt sidetrack this comment thread (and give Charlie a headache 😉 ), so I’ll simply leave my two cents at that: in an age like our own, what is needed is more assent, not less. Will we really regret, on Judgment Day, being more submissive to the Magisterium than our nature is inclined to be?

            Like

      • Mary Ann says:

        What Charlie said. 🙂

        Like

  29. Mary says:

    I know that Charlie, that was my point, it does not surprise me at all that scientists are quietly abandoning Darwin, technology is showing the empirical evidence they demand that he was wrong. It would be nice if they had the cajones to stand up for it but I don’t see that happening anytime soon. My only other point to try to make was, don’t forget it was these same mindsets that shaped our WHOLE system of scientific beliefs to fit their mold that God does not exist, not just climate change and it had many ramifications aside from this issue of climate. Where there is evil I don’t see how one can even expect to find the truth, bias will be built in to the research itself in spite of good intentions of being a ‘good’ scientist.

    Like

  30. Jean says:

    I know we’re supposed to be a sign of hope to those around us, but honestly, in recent months I have really begun to be very scared about the future and find it difficult to be that sign of hope to which we are called (though I do try). Someone above posted the article to “Catholic Group Exposes Red Influence in Vatican”. I know the Church can never err on doctrinal matters, but a pope and/or leaders can do immense harm by giving credibility to those who really aim to harm us. In the same way, the Supreme Court can do immense harm to personal liberty by giving an aggressive agenda (such as the LGBT ideology) the constitutional legitimacy of forcing compliance to immoral realities.

    I used to worry about the rise of Communist Russia and/or China invading the USA or the rise of a Muslim state right here in the USA (by demographic changes), but today I sort of had an enlightening thought: perhaps God is preparing these enemies, not for us Christians, but for those domestic groups who plan to do away with us. The reality is I would prefer a ‘convert-or-die’ proposal over having to live in the totalitarian homosexual regime that is coming very soon. It is much more brutal to be forced to live with evil than to die from it, though neither is a good choice.

    It is no wonder Charlie that God spent your lifetime preparing you to warn us and to promise us a rescue. I doubt most of us could otherwise endure what is inevitably before us.

    Liked by 1 person

    • charliej373 says:

      Well, Jean, I am both daunted – and kind of glad at the same time – to do my job. But I will confess that, every once in a while I look up and say, “Lord, what have You gotten me into?”

      Liked by 2 people

      • Jean says:

        I’m asking the same thing these days even without visions from heaven!

        Liked by 2 people

        • Jean, please allow me to add something I learned only recently. One important station in the perfecting of a soul is not to desire to be exempt from the trials (even Our Lord meekly asked once to be exempted) but to simply trust God’s help in going through them. The storm soon will be behind us and whatever discomforts –even sufferings– we may go through will be amply compensated by what is waiting for us on the other side. The old “no Cross, no glory” principle. Now if we get to desire to go through our trials for God’s glory … that is really close to perfection. I was reading the story of David and Goliath today and I thought David got it right: he fought a lion and a bear and succeeded with the help of God. He trusted he could dispatch Goliath. We as a Church survived great enemies (where’s Nero? [crickets]) I am not saying this will be a cakewalk but I think we can count on God’s protection. Even of we have to die a martyr’s death we know by the example of the saints that God is with them through the ordeal.

          Liked by 3 people

        • Patricia says:

          Jean,
          ditto ten times over.

          Like

        • Judy says:

          We all are asking something along those lines.

          Like

  31. “Back to my point… many professional meteorologists feel like we are fighting a losing battle when it comes to national media and social media hype and disinformation. They will be sure to let you know that weather events they are reporting on are “unprecedented”, there are “millions and millions in the path”, it is caused by a “monster storm”, and “the worst is yet to come” since these events are becoming more “frequent”.

    You will never hear about the low tornado count>/b> in recent years, the lack of major hurricane landfalls on U.S. coasts over the past 10 years, or the low number of wildfires this year. It doesn’t fit their story. But, never let facts get in the way of a good story…. there will ALWAYS be a heat wave, flood, wildfire, tornado, tyhpoon, cold wave, and snow storm somewhere. And, trust me, they will find them, and it will probably lead their newscasts. But, users beware…”

    Quoted from: https://medium.com/@spann/the-age-of-disinformation-98d55837d7d9

    Liked by 1 person

  32. Barbara Dore says:

    Very interesting story from the Old testament. God said He will save ten righteous people in these cities but they were not found. Only lot and his family were taken out from this city by two angels as handsome men.

    Genesis 19 New International Version (NIV)

    Sodom and Gomorrah Destroyed
    19 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 “My lords,” he said, “please turn aside to your servant’s house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning.”
    “No,” they answered, “we will spend the night in the square.”
    3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate.
    4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”
    6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”
    9 “Get out of our way,” they replied. “This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.” They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.
    10 But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. 11 Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.
    12 The two men said to Lot, “Do you have anyone else here—sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, 13 because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the LORD against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it.”
    14 So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were pledged to marry[a] his daughters. He said, “Hurry and get out of this place, because the LORD is about to destroy the city!” But his sons-in-law thought he was joking.
    15 With the coming of dawn, the angels urged Lot, saying, “Hurry! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, or you will be swept away when the city is punished.”
    16 When he hesitated, the men grasped his hand and the hands of his wife and of his two daughters and led them safely out of the city, for the LORD was merciful to them. 17 As soon as they had brought them out, one of them said, “Flee for your lives! Don’t look back, and don’t stop anywhere in the plain! Flee to the mountains or you will be swept away!”
    18 But Lot said to them, “No, my lords,[b] please! 19 Your[c] servant has found favor in your[d] eyes, and you[e] have shown great kindness to me in sparing my life. But I can’t flee to the mountains; this disaster will overtake me, and I’ll die. 20 Look, here is a town near enough to run to, and it is small. Let me flee to it—it is very small, isn’t it? Then my life will be spared.”
    21 He said to him, “Very well, I will grant this request too; I will not overthrow the town you speak of. 22 But flee there quickly, because I cannot do anything until you reach it.” (That is why the town was called Zoar.[f])
    23 By the time Lot reached Zoar, the sun had risen over the land. 24 Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the LORD out of the heavens. 25 Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, destroying all those living in the cities—and also the vegetation in the land. 26 But Lot’s wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.
    27 Early the next morning Abraham got up and returned to the place where he had stood before the LORD. 28 He looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah, toward all the land of the plain, and he saw dense smoke rising from the land, like smoke from a furnace.
    29 So when God destroyed the cities of the plain, he remembered Abraham, and he brought Lot out of the catastrophe that overthrew the cities where Lot had lived.

    Like

  33. Phillip Frank says:

    PJPll said the ” theories”( plural ) of evolution have some truth in them as there were several theories out there to consider. But he said they must be held up to the revealed truth of God and not contradict this revealed truth.
    As Charlie rightly mentioned, speciation is a proven, obvious effect of one type of evolutionary process. Just look at how many different types of dog breeds were produced by breeders just in the last several hundred years all from just one wild dog line! Not to mention cows, horses, chickens, flowers, fruits, tomatoes, etc. All this genetic variability contained in a few simple organisms being selectively bred by man into thousands of different types.
    Darwin’s theory may be mechanically sound in some physical way of lower to higher forms of life but I believe it did not actually happen in real time thus contradicting creationism and here’s why.
    Personally, I believe God created the universe in an appropriate time age of several million/ billion/ trillion years or whatever was necessary to place the world in a condition to facilitate the universe and mans proper function and physical condition. How long it actually took is taught and understood in scripture and by some mystical revelations.
    Case in point;
    When Jesus cured the leper, he received back his body whole and in an age appropriate form. Not too old and not too young but the same age as the leper was exactly. Scripture says this happened immediately. The church calls this type of miracle an acceleration of creation.The man didn’t need fetal tissue to regrow back to proper function, he needed his body back the same age he was then and Jesus did just that. Gave him an age appropriate properly functioning body for his now…with a past, a present and a future in its created function.
    This, to me,  explains some of the arguments about our universe which defy the creation story like how a star whose light was produced millions of light years away can be seen on earth which scripture claims was created under ten thousand years ago….
    God made the star the light in its light years travel and the earth at once in a time appropriate moment in His CREATED time period of now…with a past a present and a future…just like Himself, being omnipresent.
    I think this helps explain the earths “past” as God dropped man into a moment in time with a past and present and future functioning now but in a miraculous ” acceleration of creation” way.
    Pretty simple to me.
    God IS God.
    Aristotle believed the earth was infinite in its age because to him it was too complex to have had any beginning. So far, he is the only “scientist” to have surmised this truth correctly!
    Don’t let any scientist tell you anything different!
    Every time they show some new evidence of Gods infinite majesty, intellect and creative might and wonder and try to tie it off from the Creator as a proof He doesn’t exist I giggle to myself that to me they just did the OPPOSITE! They just unlocked a little more of the mystery which is God and enlarge my knowledge of Him and my soul grows a little bit brighter.

    Phil

    Like

    • SteveBC says:

      Phillip, you said, “Aristotle believed the earth was infinite in its age because to him it was too complex to have had any beginning. So far, he is the only “scientist” to have surmised this truth correctly!”

      Although the rest of your comment is interesting, this may be incorrect. Many months ago, if I am remembering correctly, Charlie wrote that Gabriel had once told him that scientists had got the overall picture of the universe right but that their estimate of its age as being 13.5 billion years old was incorrect. According to Gabriel the universe is only about a third that age, or about 4.5 billion years old. That is about as old as scientists believe the Earth is, which I find an interesting coincidence(?).

      The universe appears to be infinitely complex, yes, but not infinitely old. I suspect God didn’t need an infinite number of years to create where we live today. Instead, it may be something He enjoys, to set things up back then and then allow everything to develop since, helping it out as it grew into what we have today. 🙂

      Like

    • Kati says:

      Phil,

      You said, ” Personally, I believe God created the universe in an appropriate time age of several million/ billion/ trillion years or whatever was necessary to place the world in a condition to facilitate the universe and mans proper function and physical condition. How long it actually took is taught and understood in scripture and by some mystical revelations.”

      Doesn’t this fit, to a degree, with how His saving, sanctifying work in us is accomplished…to ready & perfect us to be able eventually to be fully united with Him? Just a thought I had while reading your post. 😉

      Like

  34. Dave says:

    I do not question the validity of Pope Francis. His positions on all of the core doctrinal issues has been rooted in truth from the ages. I do believe he was put there by the decree of God for this time and place. But also remember that lightning struck St Peter’s basilica not once but twice during the transition. Maybe this was a sign of a beginning of judgement which starts with the church. Whatever the message, from Genesis 41:32 we have

    “Now as for the repeating of the dream to Pharaoh twice, it means that the matter is determined by God, and God will quickly bring it about.”

    Perhaps Francis was chosen BECAUSE of his secular political leanings. As long as church doctrine is followed, there is no requirement of political leaning. He certainly seems to lean left and empower those on the left. I don’t like to have to find a way to convince myself that everything he says is wonderful and spot on. Maybe, just maybe he is there to help empower the goats. I found Charlies description of separating the sheep and goats to be a lightbulb-on moment. Things like the climate change position seem to verify the empowering of those who will do evil. At least I can now know that people in power are “filling in the blanks of their own indictments”,

    Like

  35. Judy says:

    Dave, I have also considered reasons that this Pope was chosen and have considered exactly what you have described. Maybe the body of the R C Church will be fully and definitively delivered into its passion by the man who is head of the R C Church. It seems to me that the Jewish leaders, in cooperation with ancient Roman leaders, did the same for Jesus over 2000 year ago. The reasons will be different, but extreme suffering may be the result. Of course, the big difference would be that none of us are innocents, as Jesus was. However, the Pope has several months to reconsider. And during that time we must pray that the Holy Spirit will give him discernment and that he does not cooperate with those goats who wish to set up international systems which can be used to control us. Of course,he has not spoken yet, so we are making some assumptions which could still be wrong, but as Charlie notes, it does seem to be the direction he is taking because he has aligned himself with trusted leftist advisors who desire great centralized power. I think that these leftist vatican advisors may be in on-going communication with secular leftist power brokers. It is easy to imagine who might be on the list.

    Like

  36. CrewDog says:

    Sir John Harrington’s famous quote comes to mind in these times: “Treason doth never prosper: what is the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason!”. Sir John was speaking of civil affairs but one can easily apply this to the Church today (as well as USA/Europe Society). The useful idiots of satan be they the Gay or Environmental or Socialist Lobby have become so powerful within the hierarchy of the Church that “none dare call it treason” …. and why, I believe, God will very soon lead a grass root movement to re-take His Church. Maranatha!!

    GOD SAVE ALL HERE!!

    Liked by 2 people

  37. Phillip Frank says:

    Hey Steve,
    I was asserting to the nature of God as infinite not the actual age of creation.
    But ones works reflect its creators nature and Aristotle saw this.
    As far as the actual age of the universe, Charle’s Angel is correct but this is my point…
    When Adam and Eve where created they were the age of 33 not zero.
    And do it is with the earth, created in the fullness of time just like Adam and Eve where.

    Liked by 1 person

    • charliej373 says:

      Oooo…marvelous insight here, Phillip.

      Like

    • SteveBC says:

      Sorry, Phillip, I misread your remarks. Thank you for the correction. 🙂

      About your comment here, I might add that I remarked in my initial comment how coincidental(!) it was that Gabriel stated the universe was actually about 4.5 billion years old and the age of the Earth is considered about that much. This could come because the entire 13.5 billion years since the Big Bang actually took place within 4.5 billion years and we are just incorrectly measuring the reality. OR it could come because God created the universe at the moment the Earth began to coalesce and simply for completeness created around the Earth at that same moment a 9 billion year old, Big-Bang-generated universe that would have been needed to cause the Earth to coalesce at that moment.

      I doubt we could ever figure out how to distinguish the latter from our own belief that the universe is 13.5 billion years old. I’m kind of having fun with this, I admit, but it is nonetheless interesting.

      Like

  38. Barb Watry says:

    I watched the presentation at the Six Day science link above, by getttimothy, and was blown away. I always believed the account of Genesis, but the timing was more of an outline, not exact time. But the analysis done there is absolutely wonderful showing how it all fits together. And God does reveal the truth to those who honestly search and trust in His ways.

    Liked by 1 person

    • gettimothy says:

      Hi Barb,

      Try re-reading Genesis 1. IIRC the first four verses or so appear to me to be from God’s frame of reference and then about verse 5 or 6 it seems to switch to “earth time”.

      I am not saying this is so, just that it seemed so to me.

      My view is that God’s sense of humor is at work and that after all the very smart people have spent lifetimes studying the matter, the science will lead them to the account in Genesis as is. (:

      I

      Like

      • Barb Watry says:

        Hi gettimothy,
        I was most blown away about the analysis of time, particularly as to the theory of relativity and how time has changed, with the expansion of the universe from the Big Bang. I really think of all time as God’s, we are just trying to understand what it means from our limited view. However in re-reading it, I found a reference to the Kabbalah, which is questionable, so as usual, I need to take care in what I get excited about. 😕

        Liked by 1 person

  39. Gabriel Mooney says:

    Please check out web page on St Anne Catherine Emmerich/Creation

    Like

  40. LJD says:

    Not really in line with the topic here but I though Charlie and others may find this article interesting. God bless

    http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/currency-in-the-year-2025/2015/06/01/

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s