Now, it is not just Scriptural. It is within Scripture put into the mouth of God. Some will say this is only a religious novel. Ah no. Religious novels are all fine, Dante describing Boniface VIII in Hell and Celestine V in Heaven or C. S. Lewis putting words into the mouth of Aslan=Jesus in another world or what was his name Guareschi putting words into the mouth of the Crucifix that Don Camillo worships (of course with a relative and not a direct latria). They are all fine, but they do not come into Scripture. When something like that does, for instance the Parables - some being Allegories and others being Examples - do come in the words of The Word, I suspect they come from real examples. Being all knowing Christ knew them. But saying Jonah or Job are religious novels - no. So either book of Job is fake or we have God himself describing the Leviathan. That consideration cannot be narrowed down to Hovind.
In the same video he is less bright on other subjects. He counselled "chew the meat and spit out the bones" and here I am dealing with some "bones". If he had not taken pride in cars but been mean about drivers whom he may have considered drunk because they had had one pint ... or because the law said so, he might not have been seen pleading against what the law says so about taxes and get convicted. Now, I might have been getting him wrong. He might have threatened to call the police only in cases where someone was really drunk, he may never have actually called it, he may ... have counselled others to call it. And he may have been real panicky, and considering he at that time thought "wine" meant grape juice not necessarily fermented, when it means fermented grape juice or not necessarily from grapes, just as Englishmen can speak of cherry wine he might have been wrong a few times. And that does not mean he deserved legally all the shit especially about his PhD.
But where he gets bad is where his PhD in education is getting him and the sect of Watchtower Society agree with nearly everyone else in the Modern world, and disagree, first of course with the Lord, but also therefore with the Traditions of the Church.
He said they get the hormones before they get the brains ... and he means by "brains" sharing his outlook on life.* If he really did teach in High School for Fifteen years, God knows how many he demoralised by breaking up couples. St Thomas Aquinas said that about what Grace most drives to, as about what nature most dirves to there is no need for long deliberation. Good deliberation is another thing, but good and long is not necessarily same thing. He also says each is generally responsible to follow his own prudence. And Prudence in Love is not just about working abilities (though that should come in), but about what one can call EQ - Emotional Quotient rather than Intelligence Quotient. It is not a matter of knowing who will best serve your future. You cannot know that. It is about whom one likes. And the medium age of puberty is old enough to know that. Thus, century on century, the Church basically said "from 14 if you are a boy, you have a right to marry - you may be wise to wait, but you have a right. From 12 if you are a girl..." - if we go by the canons at least.
Some priests did not go by the canons. Some even collaborated in castration of choir singers, although the Church prohibited it under pain of excommunication.
And permission of parents was not absolutely mandatory, just near mandatory. One usually commits a mortal sin by marrying against the will of one's parents. But there may be exceptions, some very obvious ones. If I have a father who is a Protestant, who erroneously thinks if I only were healed from some imaginary illness he thinks is in my mind, I would return to Protestantism, and he therefore does not want me to marry a Catholic, I have no obligation to obey him therein. The only "Protestantism" there was in me when I was small was getting Christianity through Protestant and therefore incomplete and tainted sources.
And the same breaking up of couples instead of marrying them is of course as much in Awake! (I usually avoid Watchtower, they may be good Journalists but not Theologians - which taints some of Awake! as well) as it is in Kent Hovind's video about T Rex.
Read the story of Jacob and Laban. Who is humble and who is proud? It is after all Jacob who insists on getting the girl he wants. In the process of Laban trying to say basically "well, he is nice but he needs a lesson ... who marries whom should be decided by us oldies" he screws up the life of Jacob considerably and very much makes him a polygamist - which he did not want in the first place.
The people who do not agree with me here are of course agreeing heartily with Kent Hovind and the neo-Arian Watchtower Sect. And then they get back and tell me (mostly backhandedly, say FSSPX arranging for a faithful of theirs on FB to publish a warning against Watchtower Society on status, but sometimes more directly, as with Sedisvacantists and as with videos with Abbé Pagès) that I should quit listening to Hovind and Watchtower Society. Why don't they do so for a change?
Oh, they are not getting their ideas from these sectarians? Weeeell, neither am I exactly. I am not taking them as authorities but as sources. And more so Hovind, since he is Trinitarian, since he is non-Calvinist (except about a certain "style") and since he has something to say about zoology and cryptozoology which is worth hearing.
But when he can state that Grendel is a dragon (as opposed to troll which he was like his mother and thus probably nephelim tainted from Cain through Ham) ... I prefer Tolkien with pipe and beer and renouncing the car. And Beren and Luthien braving Thingol. Wonder if Rob Skiba has read Culhuch and Olwen yet, at least in summary? What does he think of Yspadadden?
BpI, Georges Pompidou
St Francis' of Assisi
But this is not about spitting bones, this is about meat: his sermon about pride has the ring. And I appreciate he enumerated the Cadillac in things that neither count before T Rex/Leviathan nor on Judgement Day.
PS, I was tired and missed the distinction between Vanity which is usually a venial sin and Arrogance which is a mortal one. Of course, meditating on Leviathan and on God being more terrible still is a cure for Vanity as well, but when Pride takes these two forms, it is not feeling vain about gaining in Monopoly that will damn you. Sad that Evangelicals miss the distinction between venial and mortal sin, it is in the Epistles of St John the Gospeller! And missing it is part of their "everyone is a sinner" ideology, when in fact some never fall into mortal sins after Baptism and some are no longer in them./HGL
*In case someone takes a recent case of suicide as proof I am "very wrong" there, I have just been debating under a status thereon:
- "raping a 14 year old student who later killed herself. " - Rape or statutory?
Was this in a state where she was legally of age of marrying her seducer or real rapist or one where that option of repairing things was excluded?
Age 14 is hardly childhood for either sex.
And letting male teachers (especially neither married nor consecrated celibates) teach in classes for teen or older girls or mixed girls and boys, that is in itself hypersexualisation. Covered up by officially stamping 14 year olds as "children" when in close to ninety percent of the cases they are no longer so.
- Hans, as the parent of a wonderful 14 year old boy. Your statement is profoundly and scarily absurd.
- Well, if he is not yet a man he will normally be so within the next year. Or less.
- Perhaps so. I find that most of his friends are still mentally transitioning from childhood, still developing mentally and physically.
Looks CAN be deceiving...
- As his parent you should know whether he could, if he married, fulfill the marital obligation in bed to his wife.
The MENTAL transition from childhood occurs for both sexes between 10 and 12. From 12 (which he is past) up to 18 his brain will have the greatest size it has in his life. 18 - 25 it will shrink a little. 60 (or so) it will often shrink some more.
But perhaps by adult you mean sharing your outlook on things like responsibility? That is another thing and a society which deliberately postpones his chances of marriage will of course be somewhat delaying a kind of consideration which it makes during those years less worth the trouble. Considerably less worth it.
If he got a chance he might catch up surprisingly quickly.
Meanwhile, society is driving young people to despair and some into the hands of what is called child abusers, where the term child may be inappropriate but the term abuser very appropriate.
Concretely, if the 14 year old student had been able to marry from when she was twelve, she might have gotten away from the school before she was raped or seduced by her teacher. Which would probably have given her a child or two by now instead of a grave by the crossroad.
- You are employing sarcasm? I hope...
- When I do employ sarcasm there are people missing it. I wrote three sarcastic stanzas about avoiding unborn children (social motive, individual motive, methods) and one non-sarcastic one about why as a Christian I do not agree [and some readers missed where the sarcasm was]. I spoke very straight face and I spoke (or rather wrote, to be precise) as a Christian. Right now.
But perhaps you do not recall how it was to be fourteen? I do.
A young man called by his comrades Tollers, in a boys's school and thus very much less exposed to female company than your son, at age 16 engaged himself for life to one 17 year old girl called Edith Bratt.
We owe Lord of the Rings to that couple and to his fidelity to teen age love. A fidelity that is targetted from other quarters than just rapists by now.
- I'm guessing your command of the English language is somewhat limiting your ability to clearly articulate what you mean.
- You are guessing wrong. But perhaps your inexperience of FB has somehow led you not to push the "See More" button and read all of it.
My point is: 100 years ago teens were engaging even in England with the rather late age of 16 minimum - plus a wait if you did not have approval of your parents or guardian (a wait that John Ronald handled better than Edith). This particular couple was relatively late in marrying, since Academic Bourgeoisie. Working Class and Farmers would be marrying earlier than that. And the sexual stimulation - whether tempting to rashness or to despondence (or now to unnatural sins using condoms) - was more limited before Co-Education (among other things) was the rule. Human nature has not changed, and social changes have not been fit to adapt society better to it.
- I see the point, BM. My mother, grandmother on both sides, and even a great grandmother were married at 16... but those were days of war, too, and man matures quickly with real strife.
The american knows war as a brief privation, but in general has no concept of what it's like for his cities to be pounded by midnight bombing raids... or what it's like to have Socialism's great liberators marching though your property, stealing, raping.
So I understand HG's perspective, I think, but it's a totally foreign paradigm for our period and our location.
My point is that if you're talking about maturing a society from the ground up,that is one thing.
But if your intent is only to allow access to the immature by predators and perverts, natural or unnatural as their impulses may be, it's a different story altogether.
In OUR day, we see no concern with aedifying the culture.
We see an agenda to sexualize childhood so they can be good consumers, and to make sure all men orient themselves to only carnal appetites, so their intellect can pose no obstacle to the State.
We are seeing a trend to deform childhood. Not to mature it into adulthood.
- Sure, you are right about present trend.
Answering two of your points:
"it's a totally foreign paradigm for our period and our location."
Sure. That is the only thing that can possibly save the world from a rush toward a battle at Mount Megiddo.
The paradigm that is current is already bearing fruit like people "seeking death and not finding it" and if not all at least much flesh being corrupted.
"but those were days of war, too, and man matures quickly with real strife"
First not all of them were in war, were they?
Second, even if so, the people in peace before their days were maturing as quickly. Real strife is not the only way to mature.
[If debate continues, it will get a message of its own.]
- " That is another thing and a society which deliberately postpones his chances of marriage will of course be somewhat delaying a kind of consideration which it makes during those years less worth the trouble. Considerably less worth it."
Huh? Sorry, H , I re read this over and over again, but I can't decipher your meaning...
Perhaps you could be more concise - to the point if you will.
It is my experience of my rememberances at 14, my kids and my youth coaching experience that a person at 14 is completely unformed. Any other supposition is absurd and ignorant if reality.
- Oh, you have experience at youth coaching? Well, that is perhaps your trouble.
If at age 14 you have spent 7 years preparing for your line of business and can get a job and marry, it makes sense to take certain responsibilities.
If at age 14 you are instead forced to count another 2 - 4 years before marriage is legal plus whatever time it takes to get out of school, and into learning a trade, plus counting on not getting a contract fast ... it does not make that kind of sense to rise each morning in order to be in time when expected.
Is that spelling it out sufficiently clear for you?
I do not think at all that you remember yourself as thinking at age 14 that you were completely unformed.
I think you might very well have been Stockholmised by modern society to discount your own selfimpression at age 14.
- I think you are incredibly esoteric and detached from contemporary reality. Good luck with that, Hans.
That is thick. If anyone is esoteric, it is people claiming God gives the youth the hormones before the brains. Or that contemporary reality is different. I am not at all blind to contemporary realities (plural), I do just not think they properly constitute reality. Anyone who thinks so, now that is to my mind a real esoteric.
- once again wished me good luck and I skip a few
- Legally, the validity of any sexual relationship is based on the concept of mutual consent. Anyone under the age of 18 -- male or female -- is deemed unable to give consent. Hence we have such a thing as "statutory rape" in both homosexual and heterosexual relationships. So pedophiles cannot have the same legal status as homosexuals, as legal consent is not possible. (The same goes for bestiality. An animal cannot give consent.)
But, of course, you know this, and are just being silly.
- Allen, you, of course, know that 'Age of Consent' is a legal notion/statute that can be changed, amended, nuanced in law. Laws don't change, governments don't change until AFTER a great change has already happened in the mores and in the tendencies of a society. And THAT is my point, ultimately.
- Enzo: Yes, laws can change. And they do. But were the laws regarding legal consent to change, they'd have to change for everyone, both homosexual and heterosexual. We wouldn't want to restrict rights for any particular group, would we?
- Amen. Which is why Enzo has always been against setting up a privileged class under false pretenses. "Gay Rights" [sic] are not 'Rights', because they hinge on behaviour, not being. Once you protect a class of behaviours, the flood-gates are open, legally speaking, for all manner of pursuits...
- "Heterosexual" and "Homosexual" are not "states of being"? Most scientists who actually study this matter would disagree.
[Not forwarding his link]
- "Anyone under the age of 18 -- male or female -- is deemed unable to give consent."
Traditionally, consent to marriage can be given from medium age of puberty.
The age 9 is extreme low age of puberty and is an Islamic aberration from this rule.
The age 18 is extreme high age of puberty and is a Modernist aberration from this rule.
The traditional age limits are from Roman Law up to Spain one hundred years ago 14/12.
Traditionally that is an age deemed able to give consent. Getting away from that rule was done by Italy in its anticlerical Risorgimento. It was also done by the Communist Revolution in Russia. It is a Satanic imposture, which, thank God, has not yet conquered all the world.
Your argument would paint anyone desiring someone under 18 and himself above a "pedophile", so I take offense.
"But were the laws regarding legal consent to change, they'd have to change for everyone, both homosexual and heterosexual"
Sure, if a homosexual boy of fourteen wants to marry a lesbian girl of 12 who agrees, they have exactly the same rights as heterosexuals.
That said, sodomy is NOT a right.
You are not even correct for all of US [S.C. at present 16], and still less so if you go back to the nineties before Clinton changed the laws. [A girl of 12 married and quit school.]
- I stand corrected in that age of consent is not consistent. In America, it ranges from 16 to 18, depending on the state. Which does not change my argument that legal sexual relations are dependent on mutual consent, the ability to grant consent being a matter of law. And in many states, the greater the disparity between the "adult" and the "minor," the more severe the penalty. It's difficult to imagine a scenario in which a nine year-old could be legally deemed able to give consent to having sex with someone in their 20s.
- A nine year old cannot, since a nine year old with physical puberty has, exceptionally, got the hormones without the brains. The relevant change of brain size comes from 10-12. Boys wait till 14 because they are behind with hormones, usually. That is why I called Islamic law aberrant when using extreme young puberties (as 9 years) as lower limit.
"Which does not change my argument that legal sexual relations are dependent on mutual consent, the ability to grant consent being a matter of law."
The ability to grant it comes from nature, and law cannot change nature. Islamic 9-year limit and Modern 18-year limit are both aberrations. In opposite extremes. Two legal systems aberrant from nature and violating it, and therefore both should be opposed.
The lower limit of 16 comes not only from States traditionally having 16, but also from those who were forced by Clinton to raise it to sixteen so no one could marry before legally being able to quit school anyway. Before that in some States you could quit school before 16 if you married - which was a good system.
The new system in US has been put in place to serve the puritanism and social greed of teachers.