Australia appears to be heavily influenced, if not completely controlled, by the Jewish community. They have successfully pressured the government to launch a Royal Commission into the deaths of fifteen wealthy Jews at the hands of two Indians. Additionally, Jews have pressured the government to pass a new law called the “hate crimes law,” which specifically targets Muslim Australians and anyone who opposes Jewish murderous crimes against the Palestinians. This law is based on the new, misleading definition of “anti-Semitism” created by Jews, which has little to do with actual anti-Semitism and more to do with opposition to Jewish murderous crimes against the Palestinian people.

This legislation criminalizes any criticism of Israel and bans the acknowledgment of the ongoing livestreamed Palestinian genocide. It also prohibits pro-Palestinian demonstrations, critiques of Zionism and Israel, and advocacy for the Palestinian people. As a result, individuals of Palestinian descent, regardless of their birthplace or current residence, are silenced. Writers, actors, musicians and artists of Palestinian origins are banned from public events. This law effectively erases Palestinian identity and has even led Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, a well-known terrorist and war criminal, to celebrate.

An outstanding article, very original and thought-provoking. New perspectives are always welcome in these fluid and rapidly changing times where the paradigm is shifting before our very eyes.

“The only thing constraining my actions is my own morality” said the King just this morning.

Good essay. Disturbing but with an affirmative ending. Thanks.

The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation.

If all the ministries have names that are the opposite of their real purpose, then it follows that the dungeon master O’Brien is really Goldstein. And the slow motion image of the dismembered hand flying in the sky is not from a Jewish refugee, but rather a Palestinian.

Yes, apart from the million plus …

That’s exactly what I wrote, before you mentioned it. Reading comprehension is important. You should work on it.

To ask for a government that ‘doesn’t bother you’ in any way is sort of on the level of a third grade girl who wants a pony for their birthday. Totally unrealistic. And as I said, other than the social stuff, which I agreed with you on, the government is probably not actually bothering you– at least in a physical sense, as you go about your day to day life. Obviously psychologically you are taking a hit. And it shows.

The monitoring you mention is mostly private. Go into any business and cameras monitor. That’s not the government. But maybe you are in Britain. I’m here in the US. Don’t know how it is in the UK–maybe the government is watching you, 24/7.

Finally, I don’t think there is a prison cell waiting for you if you ‘say something wrong’. I don’t even think you believe that. Unless you are in Britain. If so, then if you post here on TUR that does mean you are on Starmer’s short list? Or are you exempt since Ron’s site is not in the UK? Brave of you to defy the authorities like you are.

Actually, I couldn’t tell where you are based. I went through a few of your posts and it wasn’t clear, although I didn’t read them all. However I noticed that you like to tell everyone to ‘shut the fuck up’, if you don’t like what they write. Nothing like coming on someone else’s platform and telling others to go away. While at the same time extolling how you want ‘freedom’ for yourself. LOL

Yes, apart from the million plus …

That’s exactly what I wrote, before you mentioned it. Reading comprehension is important. You should work on it.

To ask for a government that ‘doesn’t bother you’ in any way is sort of on the level of a third grade girl who wants a pony for their birthday. Totally idiotic and unrealistic. And as I said, other than the social stuff, which I agreed with you on, the government is probably not actually bothering you– at least in a physical sense, as you go about your day to day life. Obviously psychologically you are taking a hit. And it shows.

The monitoring you mention is mostly private. Go into any business and cameras monitor. That’s not the government. But maybe you are in Britain. I’m here in the US. Don’t know how it is in the UK–maybe the government is watching you, 24/7.

Finally, I don’t think there is a prison cell waiting for you if you ‘say something wrong’. I don’t even think you believe that. Unless you are in Britain. If so, then if you post here on TUR that does mean you are on Starmer’s short list? Or are you exempt since Ron’s site is not in the UK? Brave of you to defy the authorities like you are.

Actually, I couldn’t tell where you are based. I went through a few of your posts and it wasn’t clear, although I didn’t read them all. However I noticed that you like to tell everyone to ‘shut the fuck up’, if you don’t like what they write. Nothing like coming on someone else’s platform and telling others to go away. While at the same time extolling how you want ‘freedom’ for yourself. LOL

Disagree. Langdon uses the term “leftists” throughout the piece and I am sure he thinks of himself as part of the “right”.

Political “debate” (such as it is) only occurs within this binary framework and it has been this way for decades – left or right, labour or conservative, democrat or republican.

today the “left” supports high levels of immigration even though it benefits the “right”

Ridiculous. Immigration only benefits transnational corporations and the ruling “elites” – everyone else suffers, whatever their beliefs.

If you think about it, I mean on a personal level, the government probably doesn’t bother you

Yes, apart from the million plus (legal and illegal) browns that flood my country each year, the ever increasing taxes that they steal from me to feed and clothe the invaders, the cameras that track my every move, the prison cell waiting for me if I say something “wrong” while organised rape gangs who prey on our children are protected, apart from that, I suppose the government doesn’t really bother me at all.

STFU you fucking idiot.

Supposedly over ten thousand British people have been arrested for nasty tweets.

Seems like you are too stupid to think that people will accept what you claim without backing up your claim without showing facts.
UNZ has a number of posters that think that other readers should have to spend thier time searching for evidence to substantiate what they post

Come on, don’t be so lazy when postimg 🙄

An interesting conversation between Nick Griffin and Dilly Hussain.

Nick Griffin | Civil War in Britain, American Deep State & The Zionist Lobby

In this episode of the Blood Brothers Podcast, Dilly Hussain spoke with the former leader of the far-right British National Party (BNP), Nick Griffin

Topics of discussion include:

Why did Dilly and Nick’s first podcast from December 2023 trigger the British political establishment and the pro-Israel lobby?

The Zionist lobby, anti-Muslim propaganda, censorship, and a major shift in western public opinion against Israel.

GB News, Southport riots, Raise the Colours campaign, and the rise of an angry white Britain.

Who wants a civil war in Britain? Tommy Robinson,
Professor David Betz and Colonel Richard Kemp.

Who benefits from a civil war in Britain and across Europe? The American deep state and European migration to the U.S.

British Muslims, western foreign policy, remigration, and a balkanised Britain.

https://youtu.be/EuDdWiD1WSY?si=udKcjTHg87TaC1j9

Supposedly over ten thousand British people have been arrested for nasty tweets. Add in their friends and relatives, and that’s a ticked off voting block that’s never going to vote Labour for any reason whatsoever.

Labour is too stupid to realize this.

No, Huxley’s book is a satire of the kind of thinking that was actually already widely extant in Great Britain. The crazy sex-crazed society without families, in which the works of recusant Roman Catholic William Shakespeare are 100% alien and unrecognizable. It was a reaction to the absurdities that were commonplaces among people around him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shape_of_Things_to_Come

1984, likewise, was based on real life. The Soviet Union. Great Britain, the proles there and the BBC. The mentality of a society that voluntarily preserves rationing and even maintains nostalgia about its “fairness.”

1984 is quite remarkably with prescient its anticipation of novel writing machines. That always seemed far-fetched when I was a kid.

Going back to the well to attack Christianity is just pitiful, but it’s always the last resort. “Constantine messed everything up.”

The cultural Left has more or less smashed the cultural power of Christianity, and the chickens are just starting to come home to roost.

Jews are realists and particularists themselves, but they push delusional idealism and universalism on goyim.

What is often not apparent is that Orwell’s 1984 and Huxley’s Brave New World are not warnings of a dystopia but propaganda. They both portray what dystopia would look like in the extreme: totalitarianism or drugged out social hierarchy. But actual propaganda is much less obvious, more seductive, and entices one to voluntary slavery – such as Constantine’s Imperial Cult Christianity described by Joe Atwill in his book Caesar’s Messiah. It is not a coincidence that both these books were produced in Britain.

Tobias writes well, but he’s still caught up in the left/right binary.

It’s not the “binary”. It is part of the meddling with your consciousness. “Immigration is the reserve army of capital” is a statement of the 19th century “left”, yet today the “left” supports high levels of immigration even though it benefits the “right” not the “left”. Anarchism, a political theory of the “left” is now “right” and called libertarianism.
What is black is white and what is up is down. That is what Langdon is pointing out.

In Nineteen Eighty-Four, you can’t turn off the voice of the Party and you can’t escape the voyeurism of the Party. In other words, the Party is always in your consciousness. That’s where egomaniacs and megalomaniacs want to be: always at the center of your world just as they are always at the center of their own. Jews and “transwomen” are like that, which is part of why Jews and translunatics are so prominent in leftism despite being such small minorities. The narcissism and vengefulness of Jews and translunatics are also things that those two groups pursue through leftism. The original Narcissus merely wanted to gaze on his own face in adoration. The narcissists named after him want you to gaze at adoration at their faces too. And if you don’t gaze, if you don’t accept their adorability, they want to punish you. In other words, they want to cripple your King — to permanently mar and mark your consciousness.

“Chosen” narcissist jews got the ball rolling on all of this insanity. It’s constantly ebbed and flowed for 2000 years since Christ, with the best times for everyone (except psychopath and sociopath narcissists and “the egomaniacs and megalomaniacs”) being the periods of strong antisemitism.

The Party is always in Winston’s consciousness, always watching him, always speaking to him. But he clings to the hope that Die Gedanken sind frei — “Thoughts are free.” As he will later learn, he’s wrong about that. The Party can get inside his skull too, can inflict pain on him not just indirectly, through his peripheral nerves, but also by directly interfering with the working of his brain

This is why the jews long ago first took control of mass media (now MSM) and then social media, the latest example being the jew Ellison’s takeover of CBS, and the installation of the (probably psychopathic) jew female Bari Weiss to run a big chunk of it as editor-in-chief of CBS News.
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2025/12/31/the-bari-weiss-playbook-how-a-zionist-operative-conquered-american-media/

People, this is a systematic, Anti-Christ, Marxist-Zionist (“Big Brother”) plan that went into full swing preceding WW 1. It has its roots the totalitarian jew ethno-religion from which Jesus Christ escaped, and against which He is waging a cosmic battle as we speak.

I don’t want a left wing government, but I don’t want a right wing government either. Left or right is not the problem – government is the problem.

If you think about it, I mean on a personal level, the government probably doesn’t bother you. On a daily basis it gradually modifies your actions– deciding for you which side of the road you will drive on, and so forth. But I doubt you can list any actual enforcement government inflicts upon you as a person going about your day to day business that significantly hinders your life and style.

What most complain about are the social consequences of government; policies that may impact one’s physical location (zoning etc), and work environment (AA hiring and promotional opportunities).

Taxation is an issue to some. But within the total scheme of taxable things it is relatively benign for the majority of citizens . That is to say, due to the progressive nature of income taxation, most people don’t pay a significant percentage of their income to the government. Of course in this YMMV, depending upon your salary.

What really affects many is the belief (rightly so) that the government neither cares about them as citizens, nor works in their benefit. That government is willing to protect them, under the law. This of course is the anarcho-tyranny angle. Then, mass immigration of an unlike kind that gradually (sometimes rapidly) changes the local ‘scenery’– meaning the entire social fabric specific to what was once an indigenous folk.

Then, an understanding (at least in the US) that the government works the interests of Israel over American interests. Or considers the two as one.

As you state, the ‘left-right’ dichotomy is essentially meaningless, and actually a distraction.

As far as Orwell? His was a mixed bag. Some of the psychological stuff along with the propaganda angle fits. But he was too involved in looking at Soviet economics, the scarcity and monotony of that life, unable to understand the expanding post-war consumer economy (as it transitioned from ‘hot’ war into ‘cold’), leading not to shortages but rather to what has been called an Age of Excess.

Also, a misunderstanding of the means of psychological control via a surfeit (and not denial) of sex which, at least in the West, was opposite his prediction. And the push for acceptance of mind altering drugs– for Orwell it was limited to ‘Victory Gin’ which no one could stomach. Even in his day George should have hit the Fool and Bladder more often in order to discover first hand what was actually available to the proles, to help drown out their sorrows.

Finally, his political sectioning of the globe into three ‘world powers’ was not accurate. But then again, he was not Criswell, either. So you can’t really hold that against him.

Tobias writes well, but he’s still caught up in the left/right binary.

I don’t want a left wing government, but I don’t want a right wing government either. Left or right is not the problem – government is the problem.

Just leave me the fuck alone.

Who controls the minds of the goyim?

Consider what the goyim have been asked to believe, on pain of exile, death, imprisonment, debanking, etc:

“I, YHVH, create both good and evil”
Jesus is both God and man
God has three persons
The dead live
Christians are (true, spiritual) Jews
Bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ
War is peace
2+2=5 if the Party says so.
The State has withered away
Dissent must be banned to preserve democracy
Men are women
Immigrants are the real Americans

See the pattern?

“It’s debatable whether the booby-trapped pagers were a legitimate tactic of war.”

No, it isn’t. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians is not a legitimate tactic of war.

Leftists are unburdened by any concern for truth…

The Jews/Commies understand that truth & lies are simply means to power/control (either one are equal/acceptable tools)–which is the principal objective. It was the Jewish agent Jesus who brainwashed & disabled the Aryan into imagining the war is for ‘truth’ & not power. now you know brah

A.A.
999

Hmmmmmm . . . curious. I was pretty sure, I provied a much more in depth response to this comment. There are dozens and dozens of miracles by Christ that we will neber hear of. That does not make them unimportant.

The reason that the resurrection of Christ would supersede the resurrection of others is that his resurrection was the most important. Key and central to the faith. It described to accomplis a very specific purpose.

These are not dead people. There are no zombies as someone else suggested. Either they were alive in flesh or the were spiritual, they appeared it is not clear if they stayed, ascended or anything else.

A physician may heal 100 individuals from a deadly illness. People may rejoice a the healings, embrace the healed, but the most of the attention will be on the healer. And in this case, the physician according to scripture actually healed himself and rose from the dead.

Afterall , Christ stated that he was the resurrection an the life, —- not the saints who rose. It’s pretty obvious how they would be eclipsed by events and circumstance.

skrik wrote to me:

I still object to “creating” [I say ‘what is always was’[*]] although I have now ‘seen’, via your ‘video playing backwards’ that such a process based on GR ends at a singularity.

Well, as I’ve said, I don’t know of any physicist who thinks there really was a singularity. That is just a sign that classical General Relativity fails at that point, possibly because of quantum effects we do not understand.

skrik also wrote:

That singularity would necessarily have contained all the inputs [matter, energy] which then via some unspecified mechanism [a phase-change? A nukular-type explosion? Something totally off the planet – like magic, say?] was input to the big bang.

Well, basically, it always was exploding — if my argument above about the Big Bang having existed eternally as an almost-black hole is correct, then for all eternity it was (very slowly from the perspective of the outside universe, but rapidly by its own measure of time) exploding. But my argument is pretty speculative — probably wrong, though I don’t see where it goes wrong.

By the way, matter basically is energy — at the high temperatures in the Big Bang, matter was basically turning into energy and vice versa really, really fast.

No need for a phase change or whatever — it started out really, really hot.

And then there is (the highly speculative) cosmic inflation, which, yeah, is a bit like a phase change, though not of a sort we have any experience with.

As to conservation of energy… well, you have to be careful in General Relativity. If the universe is finite but unbounded, the idea of the total energy of the universe is rather dicey. Basically, you need to be able to stand outside most of the matter/energy of the universe before you can talk about the total energy and conservation of energy.

skrik also wrote:

I offer an analogy; VFR vs. IFR [visual flight rules vs. instrument flight rules]; you have the math so you’re IFR [= can fly though clouds also in the dark], and I don’t so I’m VFR [WYSIWYG].

Well, the problem is that just trusting our naive intuition alone just does not work: our normal experience is way too far removed from all this to be of that much use.

But just blindly believing the math is a problem, too: the math is always an idealization of the real world, and if you do not have an intuitive understanding of the math, you can go — and even top physicists often have gone — wildly astray.

So, it is a constant attempt to try to use the math to train our intuition and then use our intuition to better understand the math.

Historically, in a number of issues involved in General Relativity, such as gravitational waves, this has gone on for decades. Einstein himself flipped back and forth on whether gravitational waves were real.

And you can see from our exchange here, that, while we do understand some things quite well, such as the CMB, there are other things that are still really up in the air.

Is the dark energy, which is the simplest way to explain the (apparent) accelerating expansion, real? Probably both are real.

But maybe not.

And, as you can see, while my guess as to what happened at the point of the Big Bang is marginally better than your guesses… well, the emphasis is on the word “marginally”! No one really knows, and no one really has any good guesses.

But, of course, it really did somehow happen. The universe is actually here.

Which is pretty awe-inspiring.

Dave

Thanks again for your explaining.

Is it just wrong to assume a finite, though huge, amount of mass or to assume that the explosion is powerful enough to keep the matter from falling back in?
The math is very, very clear-cut, but I assume that almost anyone reading this must be thinking, “There’s gotta be something wrong here!”
But what is it?
Anyway, I trust you can see now why it took me a few days to come up with a reply to your comment!

[my bolding] Again thanks and yes, my understanding is improving. I offer an analogy; VFR vs. IFR [visual flight rules vs. instrument flight rules]; you have the math so you’re IFR [= can fly though clouds also in the dark], and I don’t so I’m VFR [WYSIWYG]. I expect my AI-assisted searches are based on the same info as your inputs to having learnt ‘all about it’. I looked up “Cosmic time” then found “Lambda-CDM model”:

The Lambda-CDM, Lambda cold dark matter, or ΛCDM model is a mathematical model of the Big Bang theory with three major components:
1. a cosmological constant, denoted by lambda (Λ), associated with dark energy;
2. the postulated cold dark matter, denoted by CDM;
3. ordinary matter.
It is the current standard model of Big Bang cosmology,[1] as it is the simplest model that provides a reasonably good account of ..

[a list, ending with the accelerating expansion of the universe observed ..] Too bad they didn’t put ‘postulated’ before ‘dark energy’?

In contrast, look to what I bolded earlier:

It wasn’t an explosion in space, but an expansion of space itself, creating matter, energy, space, and time from a singularity

[my bolding] I still object to “creating” [I say ‘what is always was’[*]] although I have now ‘seen’, via your ‘video playing backwards’ that such a process based on GR ends at a singularity. That singularity would necessarily have contained all the inputs [matter, energy] which then via some unspecified mechanism [a phase-change? A nukular-type explosion? Something totally off the planet – like magic, say?] was input to the big bang. So my understanding is improving thanks to our chats, thanks also to the moderator(s)’s forbearance and wishing all “Happy New Year!” rgds

*PS I say ‘what is always was’. My appeals to authority are often based on Feynman, here: ”THE CHARACTER OF PHYSICAL LAW” pp77 (Penguin)

To return then, to our list of conservation laws (fig. 14), we can add energy. It is conserved perfectly, as far as we know. It does not come in units. Now the question is, is it the source of a field? The answer is yes. Einstein understood gravitation as being generated by energy. Energy and mass are equivalent, and so Newton’s interpretation that the mass is what produces gravity has been modified to the statement that the energy produces the gravity

[my bolding] It’s a law! [Of physics].

skrik wrote to me:

[Dave] We can observe out tens of billions of light years, more or less. So, suppose that the matter in the universe extends out to, say, a trillion light years, far beyond what we can now observe, but, at that point, the matter just peters out — beyond that, perhaps, the universe is more or less empty

[skrik] IF this were to be the case THEN there is a very strong implication there, namely that there is a true outer-bound [end of matter to empty space], and the enclosed space would therefore be finite, so the originating BB-predecessor could also have been finite, and much easier to consider to have started at a singularity [like a black hole, say?] Just saying.

Well, there are two points here, one about the CMB and the other, more broadly, about a possible edge to the matter in the universe.

I am afraid that what I wrote about the CMB might not be clear.

Here is what is happening naively. I say “naively,” meaning ignoring effects of gravity, including the dark energy: technically, I am talking in terms of the “Milne model.” Qualitatively, what I am saying here is right, but, of course, taking into account gravity would change things quantitatively.

You might get the impression that the CMB is just sort of bounding around the universe higgeldy-piggledy. That is not what is happening. When we point our radio telescopes in a particular direction to measure the CMB, we are “seeing” the matter that emitted that radiation at a particular point in space, the point that is at a distance such that light from that point just had enough time to reach us here on Earth today.

If we look again a day later, light (the CMB) has had an extra day to reach us, and we are now looking at a point further away than we were seeing the day before. Naively, we are seeing about eight billion miles further away, measuring distance with the hypothetical array of satellite drones. (Again, “naively” means that the eight billion mile figure would change if we properly took into account the effects of gravity.)

So, every day that passes,, we are able to see the CMB radiation produced from further and further away.

We’ve now been looking at the CMB for over sixty years, so the distance we are looking at has expanded by hundreds of trillion of miles, again measuring distance with the hypothetical array of satellite drones and naively not taking into account the effects of gravity. No sign yet of an end to the CMB, even though we are looking further and further out.

Of course, it is always possible that next year we will finally reach a distance that is the edge of the matter that produced the CMB and we will not see it any longer. That would be quite a surprise to everyone! But it could happen.

In any case, it is not possible that the CMB we were seeing sixty years ago was the edge of the universe, because we are seeing out further now. And probably we will see CMB a year from now, which will be still further out and then we will know that what we are seeing this year is not the edge of the universe, and so on.

But I take it you are asking the deeper question of whether there might really be an end to matter somewhere way, way out there?

Sure, as far as I know any physicist would admit the possibility: the math is just easier if you just assume the universe is “homogeneous” — the same everywhere and hence no edge, so that is the model we tend to study. It shouldn’t’ really matter much to our observations whether it goes on forever or “merely” for a trillion light years!

You asked whether “the enclosed space would therefore be finite.” No, that would not have to be the case: there could be empty space going out forever beyond the “small” area that contained matter. You can mathematically create models in which that empty space is finite, but it does not have to be.

And the paradox I described about the Big Bang as an almost-black hole would still seem to occur either way. By the way, I think a lot of physicists would say that I am just “using a bad coordinate system,” but I don’t think that resolves the paradox.

skrik also wrote:

On another [related] note, I posited an infinite neutron blob, and then researched beta-minus decay. I found something new to me, namely the Cosmic Neutrino Background (CNB or CνB, where the symbol ν is the Greek letter nu, standard particle physics symbol for a neutrino)…

There was a “quark soup” for a while, then protons and neutrons formed. The neutron lifetime is a bit under fifteen minutes, so, unless the neutrons were able to combine with protons, they were gone pretty soon. (And, yes, the details are much more complex than this, but that is basically it.)

By the way, in a neutron star, the neutrons are stabilized by the gravitational force and the uncertainty principle along with the the exclusion principle: all of this forces the electrons to fuse with protons to form neutrons and then prevents the neutrons from decaying.

skirk also wrote:

I also researched atomic emission spectroscopy to find that there is no change over time or distance from the big bang = atoms don’t ‘feel’ any expansion of space?

Physicists really should stop saying that space is “expanding.” As I said above:

G’day, and thanks for your efforts. Your latest is, as you once wrote “as the Donald would say, yuge!!” It will take me some time to consider it all in detail, but while I consider, we could start with this, before your {More}:

We can observe out tens of billions of light years, more or less. So, suppose that the matter in the universe extends out to, say, a trillion light years, far beyond what we can now observe, but, at that point, the matter just peters out — beyond that, perhaps, the universe is more or less empty

IF this were to be the case THEN there is a very strong implication there, namely that there is a true outer-bound [end of matter to empty space], and the enclosed space would therefore be finite, so the originating BB-predecessor could also have been finite, and much easier to consider to have started at a singularity [like a black hole, say?] Just saying.

On another [related] note, I posited an infinite neutron blob, and then researched beta-minus decay. I found something new to me, namely the Cosmic Neutrino Background (CNB or CνB, where the symbol ν is the Greek letter nu, standard particle physics symbol for a neutrino), which

.. decoupled (separated) from matter when the universe was just one second old

Interesting; that 1st second really was busy, including the putative cosmic inflation. I also researched atomic emission spectroscopy to find that there is no change over time or distance from the big bang = atoms don’t ‘feel’ any expansion of space? Now back to work.. rgds

PS [search input] explain: dark energy invented to account for accelerated expansion of universe

[response]

Dark energy isn’t “invented” but hypothesized to explain the observed accelerating expansion of the universe, a surprising discovery in the late 1990s that showed galaxies moving apart faster, contrary to gravity’s expected slowing effect, acting as a repulsive force counteracting gravity, making up most of the universe’s energy, and driving this cosmic acceleration

Sooo, what of the Sabine video you cited = expansion isn’t accelerating?

skrik wrote to me:

Well, I looked it up and the response is

The phrase “infinite but bounded” is likely a misremembering or a simplified interpretation of Albert Einstein’s early view that the universe might be finite yet unbounded

I’m going to reply to both of your previous comments here.

First, yeah, I think you flipped the “infinite but bounded” point. The actual point is that the cosmos might be like the surface of the earth, which is of course finite but has no “edge” — hence, finite but unbounded.

When I started studying all this, over fifty years ago, lots of people liked that model. but there was not really any evidence for it (or against it). The truth is that the universe, or at least the matter in the universe, might indeed have an edge.

In at least some of the cosmic inflation models, in which our universe expanded very, very rapidly for a very brief time, there is in fact an edge to our universe: outside that edge, which is constantly receding, very, very fast, is the “Multiverse” (a term give several different meanings, by the way, just to confuse everyone!). This is extremely speculative (i.e., no real evidence), but it is possible.

Putting that aside, almost all textbook discussions of standard cosmology assume that the matter density in our universe is more or less constant throughout the universe at large scales (i.e., over, say, a billion light years). That is indeed the case as far out as we can see, but almost everyone thinks the universe is much, much larger than what we can observe.

We can observe out tens of billions of light years, more or less. So, suppose that the matter in the universe extends out to, say, a trillion light years, far beyond what we can now observe, but, at that point, the matter just peters out — beyond that, perhaps, the universe is more or less empty.

Is that possible?

Weirdly, the textbooks almost never discuss that possibility, because the geometric models are simpler if you just assume that what we see goes on forever and ever.

But, yes, it is possible that the matter just peters out — this turns out to be relevant to your question about whether the universe started in a black hole.

Now, at this point, explaining everything just starts getting really weird, so I’m inserting a MORE tag here so as not to completely fill up this thread with all this!

Thanks for the update. Earlier, I claimed that

Einstein said that the universe is infinite but bounded

Well, I looked it up and the response is

The phrase “infinite but bounded” is likely a misremembering or a simplified interpretation of Albert Einstein’s early view that the universe might be finite yet unbounded

OK, intermediate step:

Following Edwin Hubble’s observations in the late 1920s that the universe is in fact expanding, Einstein accepted the dynamic model and abandoned his idea of a static universe and the cosmological constant (which he reportedly called his “biggest blunder,” although this is also a contested quote).
Current Understanding
Modern observations of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) suggest that the universe’s geometry is very close to “flat”. A perfectly flat universe would imply it is infinite and unbounded

and then:

Q: What did Einstein say was infinite?
A: Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I am not yet completely sure about the universe

So, I keep ploughing along. rgds

I like Bart Ehrman’s writings and like that he became a skeptic later in life after he had thoroughly mastered all aspects of history of Christianity. It was a decision made with full knowledge rather than ignorance. Interestingly, it was the problem of ‘Why We Suffer’ that turned him away from faith and not any of the pillars of faith (like Resurrection) that torment a thinking person.

https://www.wyso.org/2008-02-19/excerpt-gods-problem

About the ‘when they inform me that I am going to Hell’ part, it was the insistence of a couple of women who would knock on the door on weekends to wake us up with those words that turned me and my wife into firm skeptics of faith over three decades ago!

epebble wrote to me:

What do you think is the fraction of adherents who believe in Substitutionary Atonement?

Well, as far as I know, that is generally the official position of traditional Christianity. To me, it makes no sense at all — I don’t see how forgiveness for wrongdoing can be like paying a parking ticket, where someone else can pay off my parking ticket.

But I am pretty sure that most practicing Christians have not really thought it through carefully.

If you troll through my past posts, you can find me speaking quite harshly to Christians who aggressively push their views, most especially when they inform me that I am going to Hell.

But of course I know perfectly well that most Christians, even most who are fairly devout, are not like that. Most Christians were “born into the Faith,” and do not really consciously think through its doctrines, much less push them strongly on others. For them, it is like me singing “The Star Spangled Banner”: I do it because I was born in America (I do in fact like our national anthem), and it would never occur to me to try to impose it on non-Americans.

And while I am happy to deal quite harshly with Christians who choose to present their views in a harsh or dogmatic manner, I actually do not hate them — I believe in freedom of speech, and if they want to have a “Food Fight” over religion, hey, let’s go at it! That’s the whole point of freedom of speech and religion.

And then I am happy to say that I hope they had a Merry Christmas.

The truth is that, for most people, religion is a “badge of group identity”: it is just who they are in terms of their family, their ethnic group, etc. I find that odd: to me all that matters is whether or not it is true.

But I know that most people do not think that way.

In any case, I have nothing against, say, the story of the Nativity any more than I have something against the Odyssey. But if someone is adamant about insisting that the Nativity literally happened… well, I will explain why I don’t think it did.

By the way, if you want to watch an interview with the famous New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman in which the interviewer, Paul Ens, presents a view similar to my own, with which Ehrman largely agrees, see here. And the scholar who has recently become famous for pushing the idea of the Gospels as fictional literary constructions is Professor Robyn Faith Walsh: you can find her all over Youtube.

I had independently arrived at similar conclusions on my own some years ago, although I am certainly nowhere near as knowledgeable on the subject as Ehrman or Walsh.

Take care.

Dave

skrik wrote to me:

After 1.5 days since your last to me [to which I responded], I’m supposing you’ve lost interest. That’s OK.

No, I’ve just been busy, and I actually have to do a calculation to answer one of the points you raised. Some of the issues you raised are actually involved in the book I am writing.

I’ll try to give a reply later tonight, but it may not be till tomorrow.

Take care.

Dave

After 1.5 days since your last to me [to which I responded], I’m supposing you’ve lost interest. That’s OK.

In Europe [me not native, I’m ‘merely’ an itinerant], after any street parade, often involving horses, the ‘sweep-team’ comes last. So here is my ‘sweep’.

You queried [my bolding] text re singularity; the text I quoted was from a search-engine employing AI, which seemed to pattern it’s response on a wiki. Sadly, neither to be trusted.

Now; more AI: [search input] criticise: big bang creation from singularity

[response]

The concept of the universe originating from a singularity is considered a mathematical breakdown of current physical theories, rather than a description of physical reality itself. The Big Bang model describes the evolution of the universe from a hot, dense state, but does not definitively explain its absolute origin

[search input] criticise: big bang CMB anisotropy cosmic inflation

[response]

The main criticisms of the Big Bang, Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) anisotropy, and cosmic inflation theories revolve around a lack of direct empirical evidence for inflation itself, and the fact that inflation was an ad hoc addition designed to solve problems inherent in the original Big Bang model

Then a bonus:

The “Pop Science” Misconception: The popular image of the universe exploding from a single, infinitely small point in pre-existing space is largely considered an inaccurate simplification. Cosmologists generally describe the early universe as a hot, dense state, and some models suggest it was a uniform condition across an already infinite space, not localized to a single point

[my bolding] Ah! [Note ‘infinite space’]. Could fit to my

phase-change with the conservation laws preserved theory

Now temporising; we know that a neutron can, via ‘beta decay’ be turned into a proton. I posit an infinite expanse of neutrons. Just like a radioactive nucleus, the neutron ‘blob’ is not eternally stable, but somewhen/somehow begins to massively ‘decay’, ½ going to protons, liberating the same number of electrons – a super-hot process emitting photons into the mix? Voila! Big bang from BB + 0 secs!

The rest is history. Hmmm But the neutron to proton decay also emits an electron antineutrino .. Q: Where are they? A: Everywhere! rgds

Explain what a sc jew is, define. If you can not, your speech about Chrstianity is worth nothing.

Remember, all of critisism of Real Christianity and Real Islam comes from misnomerers…who says it’s ‘jewsh’. Shitt, do they even exist, or an invention. Truth to the root, read Shlomo Sand, Koestler. HH Klein, Benjamin Freedman. ‘Jews’ are ashkenaztslmudists (whith noone connection whatsoever to Palestine, capiche), former kasarians convertites, ‘ukrainians’ who now want ‘their land back’. They are insane talmudists, who want all of the world as their own property. Asylums are full of people with megalomaniac affectiv illnesses. Yees

And written in their sectscripture, ie gemara, talmud. What the f…k is wrong with some, can’t they read.

Read

Thanks for your response. I have seen the “Hawking Radiation” concept. I note your

For astrophysical black holes today, evaporation is negligible, so added matter effectively stays trapped for eons

Which is totally *non-* related to your

Every “Black Hole” is a portal into another parallel dimension ..

But that’s OK, since I’m now beginning a response to @PhysicistDave. rgds

Let me unwrap this paradoxical theory on how parallel universes exist.

Matter and energy that fall into a **black hole** cross the **event horizon**—the point of no return where escape velocity exceeds the speed of light—and become trapped inside.

From an outside observer’s perspective, infalling material appears to slow down and freeze asymptotically at the horizon due to extreme gravitational time dilation, while redshifting into invisibility. However, from the infalling material’s viewpoint (in proper time), it crosses the horizon smoothly and proceeds inward.

Fate Inside the Black Hole
According to **general relativity**, the matter/energy continues toward the center, experiencing intense tidal forces (“spaghettification”) that stretch and compress it. It ultimately reaches a **gravitational singularity**—a region where spacetime curvature becomes infinite, density is infinite, and the laws of physics as we know them break down. At this point:

– The original structure of the matter (atoms, particles) is destroyed.
– Its mass-energy contributes to the black hole’s total mass, increasing the event horizon’s radius proportionally (Schwarzschild radius).
– Some physicists (e.g., Kip Thorne) describe this as the mass-energy being converted into the warped spacetime curvature itself, rather than residing in a traditional “pile” of matter.

The singularity is predicted to be a point for non-rotating (Schwarzschild) black holes or a ring for rotating (Kerr) ones, but this is where general relativity fails, as it doesn’t account for quantum effects. A full theory of **quantum gravity** (not yet complete) is expected to resolve the singularity into something finite, perhaps a Planck-scale structure.

Long-Term Fate: Hawking Radiation
Black holes are not eternally permanent. In 1974, Stephen Hawking showed that quantum effects near the event horizon cause black holes to emit **Hawking radiation**—thermal particles that gradually carry away energy. Over immense timescales (far longer than the current age of the universe for stellar-mass or larger black holes):

– The black hole shrinks and evaporates completely.
– The total mass-energy originally absorbed is released back into the universe as this radiation.

This process raised the **black hole information paradox**: Early calculations suggested the radiation is purely thermal (random), destroying information about what fell in, violating quantum unitarity (information conservation). However, recent advances (2019–2025), using holography (AdS/CFT) and concepts like “islands” in entanglement entropy, have derived the **Page curve**—showing entropy rises then falls, consistent with information preservation and unitary evaporation. Most physicists now believe information escapes encoded in subtle correlations in the radiation, resolving the paradox without contradicting semiclassical gravity.

In summary, matter/energy “goes” into the black hole’s interior, contributing to its gravitational field (and likely a quantum-resolved core), and eventually returns to the universe via Hawking radiation, with information intact. For astrophysical black holes today, evaporation is negligible, so added matter effectively stays trapped for eons.

You have provided many interesting points of data and anecdotes for the prevalence of faith and skepticism in many foundational beliefs of Christianity. Thank you. What do you think is the fraction of adherents who believe in Substitutionary Atonement?

Thank you so much, for your magnificent good sense as usual, and your heartfelt goodwill. Even if we don’t care much about ourselves, we owe it to helpless, defenceless, easily-heartbroken sacred children to love and cherish them, and make their early lives as happy and secure as possible. God knows, they will meet all the disappointment, pain and suffering of human life soon enough.

… are serbs turk …

DNA testing has debunked that lie completely, i.e. Turks allegedly impregnating local women, as well as Prima Nocta that actually existed only in the West. There are literally zero Turkish genes among the Serbs. That was simply yet another Vatican/Austrian/German lie to denigrate Orthodox Christian Serbs.

Actually, due to Blood Levy [1], in place for over 200 years during Ottoman (Impaler) Empire rule, situation is quite the opposite, i.e. there are literally millions of Turks with Serbian genes, with many of them even fully aware of their ancestral genetic roots. There were even sultans and other rulers in the OE that were genetic Serbs, and many of them knew it as well.

The length these liars were and still willing to go in denigrating Orthodox Christian Serbs, is shown in this one example out of many: In 1909, Austro-Hungarian Empire even commissioned making of twelve p?rn?gr?ph?c drawings to propagate that exact lie widely [2]. That just shows how sick and pathetic these people are, as they would stop at nothing while targeting Serbia/Serbs. No wonder they ended up being some of the biggest historical losers.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[1] Devshirme – Child Levy – Blood Tax – Blood Levy | Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devshirme

[2] Google Translate: The sick imagination of the Viennese gentlemen:
https://srbski-weebly-com.translate.goog/istorija-i-srbstvo/bolesna-masta-becke-gospode?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en-US&_x_tr_hl=en-US

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1000+ Anon001 Comments Archive @ The Unz Review | TUR
https://www.unz.com/comments/all/?commenterfilter=anon001
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

epebble wrote to me:

I think most observant Christians take those articles of faith central to their belief. For example, see the debate on ‘bread’

Well… a few decades ago, I managed to get my mom and her sister, my aunt, who were both practicing Catholics. into a discussion about transubstantiation. My aunt was shocked to find out that my mom did not believe in the “Real Presence.” Obviously, my aunt did believe.

And a few years later, each of my parents, then divorced, independently told me that they had come to the conclusion that, no, the birth of Jesus was not a Virgin Birth. They continued to consider themselves Christians.

Furthermore, three separate member of the clergy have told me that they encourage members of their congregations to hold beliefs that they themselves know to be false.

And a friend of my wife’s, an atheist historian, happened to be visiting at Georgetown University, in DC, which is run by the Jesuits: we asked her how she got along with the Jesuits, and she said they had similar theological views to hers! (Okay, they were Jesuits!)

And, finally, there is the book by retired United Church of Christ pastor Jack Good, The Dishonest Church, in which he indicates, based on his own experience, that many in the clergy do not believe in the traditional Christian beliefs.

I could go on, but I think there is an awful lot of evidence that a very large number of apparently observant Christians, including many members of the clergy, no longer believe.

How many?

Very hard to say — based on what I have seen, I would guess more than 20 percent and less than 80 percent actually reject what we would think of as some of the key beliefs — Virgin Birth, bodily Resurrection, etc.

By the way, this may actually be true of some of the founders of Christianity. Paul of Tarsus nowhere mentions the Virgin Birth. And while Paul seems to believe that the risen Jesus really did appear to him, this was very clearly a spiritual experience: Paul makes no claim to have met Jesus when Jesus was alive on this earth.

Which raises the possibility, seriously considered by critical Biblical scholars nowadays, that all of the appearances that Paul relates in 1 Corinthians may also have been spiritual visions like his own:

And that [Jesus] was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

I.e., that Jesus’ rising “on the third day” may have been a rising into Heaven, not a bodily resurrection here on earth.

So, strange as it may seem, the evidence we have is consistent with the hypothesis that Saint Paul may not have been what many Christians today would consider a true Christian!

Religion is very, very strange, isn’t it?

Dave

When I was a child, I always had a dream of becoming a physicist.When I was in junior high school, the stories about Einstein and those people deeply attracted me.
My high school physics grades were also among the top in the entire district. Unfortunately, during the process of adjusting my scores, I ended up choosing the biology major.
However, the competition for the biology major in China is extremely fierce. Even a doctorate degree can’t change the reality of being a blue-collar worker, let alone anything else.
I can only 躺平.
Now listening to discoveries in astronomy and physics is one of my interests. My other interest is writing novels.
I quite like Hong Kong comics. If you’re interested, you can have a try.I can recommend a lot of wonderful Hong Kong comics to you.

Thanks for your rather comprehensive response.

I don’t know of any current physicist who believes there really was an “initial singularity”: that is merely a sign that the equations break down .. (keeping in mind that the “dense point” was probably not a literal mathematical point, but just a very, very small volume)

Agree to equations breaking down. I don’t much like a singularity as a predecessor of the big bang;

[COED]

singularity
 noun (plural singularities)
1 the state, fact, or quality of being singular.
2 Physics & Mathematics a point at which a function takes an infinite value, especially a point of infinite density at the centre of a black hole

Two problems I see are:

1. If the universe started expanding from what would have to be a truly massive black hole type state, Q: What was ‘outside’ of this object? and

2. How could it go from a black hole type object to super-hot, expanding & cooling?

I solve these Qs for my own amusement by positing an intermediate solution of some sort of super-dense form of matter [nucleus-type, say but super-massive tending to infinite] which suffered some sort of quantum fluctuation [similar to spontaneous fission of a radioactive nucleus], and so transitioned after ~1 second to a massive super-hot plasma cooling as it expanded.

Yeah sure, nobody knows what actually happened and why, or the state of matter in the 1st second after the actual BB event [let alone the predecessor-state]. In this way I suggest a phase-change with the conservation laws preserved = matter can neither be created nor destroyed and whatever is now, always was. I can agree with your suggestion of some sort of

quantum gravitational effects

rgds

PS Einstein suggested that the universe is infinite but bounded, I take the bound to be the CMB, it’s our glimpse of the plasma as it cooled sufficiently after about 380k years for atoms to form and the photons to flash out in all directions. This bound is, of course, massively far away now and going away at light speed, possibly ‘adjusted’ by the universe’s expansion still underway. The video you cited:

“Stunning Study finds Error in Nobel Prize Discovery”
Sabine Hossenfelder

They also redo the calculation for the expansion of the universe
3:19
and find that it currently isn’t accelerating

Your comment started well. Then you wrote this:

And there was no way they could have gotten firearms in a country disarmed by a previous false flag.

I’ve already posted the info on several occasions before, so I won’t do so again (other than to write the following):

i) After the 1996 Port Arthur Massacre False Flag, the Gubmint arranged for a Gun Buy-Back.
Yes, some categories of assault rifle were outlawed and you had to turn them in (although many didn’t).

2) But the vast majority of those guns handed in were returned VOLUNTARILY.
ie: there was no legal requirement/compulsion to give them up.

The fact is that the Gubmint was handing out generous sums of taxpayers money for guns in ANY CONDITION.
So gun owners handed in their misfiring/broken down/grandfather’s WWI era weapons etc, and used the money to BUY NEW GUNS in most cases.
Got it now Mr Selenite?

(Scroll through my commentary archives from a couple of weeks ago and you’ll find what I posted about this matter if you want to know more).
The facts about Gun Ownership in Australia are as follows:

1) If you want a gun, you can have one (provided you don’t have a criminal record or a history of psychiatric problems).

2) There are MILLIONS of legally registered guns in private hands in Australia.

3) I live in Sydney and one particular individual, living around 15 km from me (less than 10 miles away), has FOUR HUNDRED (400) FIREARMS in his possession – all legally owned

4) It is estimated that there are [at a minimum] countless hundreds of thousands of guns also held ILLEGALLY in Australia.

5) There have been reports of theft of military grade weapons from Australian Army bases over the years. And stuff like RPG’s (Rocket Propelled Grenades), and their equivalent, have gone missing.
Said weapons are in the hands of criminals and crime cartels.

6) There is no ‘U’ in the spelling of QANTAS. It is an acronym – look it up.

Summary: The corrupt ZOG owned U.S media has propagated the lie that Australians are disarmed.
This is a complete fabrication.
Any adult who wants one, in ANY state or territory, can have one – as long as they’re isn’t a valid reason for the Gubmint to deny them.

Because crime rates in our big cities are much lower than in America, many urban households choose not to possess a gun.
But in regional areas, a disproportionate number of citizens own them.

And those gun owners in the bush don’t take too kindly to police overreach.
(Watch this 6 min video below and see for yourself):

Video Link

Sure, that scene was taken from a film. But things like that can happen if you mess with a ‘bushie’.
My advice to you, if you’re ever brave enough to venture into the outback:
Don’t fuck with the locals.

Frankly this makes no sense. You will have to explain what you are talking about. I am unfamiliar with these references —- dead people walking around Jerusalem . . . huh?

So called “Big Bangs” are happening right before our eyes. Every “Black Hole” is a portal into another parallel dimension ..

[search input]

define: black hole

[response]

A black hole is a region in space with gravity so intense that nothing, not even light, can escape, formed from the collapsed core of a massive star or other extreme events, acting as a cosmic vacuum where matter gets pulled in past a point of no return called the event horizon ..

[my bolding] So perhaps @CelestiaQuesta could tell us how s/he/it knows about the inside/backside of black holes? I’m inclined to call “bullshit”!

“The internet exists to destroy bad information. Posting bullshit does not work anymore, …” [Thanks Kratoklastes]

skrik wrote to 迪路:

It wasn’t an explosion in space, but an expansion of space itself, creating matter, energy, space, and time from a singularity

[my bolding] Me: Not so sure about the bolded bits.
…
Perhaps might care to comment?

I’m not sure if the words you bolded are your own words or something you pasted from elsewhere.

Anyway, the bolded words are the sort of thing that physicists used to say a half century ago, back in my student days, but we really should not be saying that now.

An accurate statement would be that, when you get very close in time to the Big Bang, our equations simply break down, and we therefore do not know what happened. I know that some people — mainly pop-sci writers but also some physicists — still say things like what you bolded, but I hope it is clear that we really should not jump from “Our equations just break down” to “ creating matter, energy, space, and time from a singularity.”

Of course, it does sound awfully impressive, doesn’t it? Makes it really sound as if we physicists are masters of the universe!

I’m certainly not one to underplay the successes of natural science. In another thread, I have been annoying people by declaring that it is only natural science that has succeeded in uncovering general, non-obvious, substantive, positive, systematic, and well-verified truths about reality.

But that does not mean natural science has all the answers. It’s only that if we can’t answer some deep questions (yet), no one else can, either. I can, in fact, list quite a few questions simply in physics to which we do not (yet) have answers: what happened exactly at the point of the Big Bang is certainly one of those questions.

For whatever it’s worth, my own guess — and it’s only a guess! — is that matter, energy, space, and time were not created from a singularity at the Big Bang. I’m not even sure what that would mean, and I do know the relevant math and physics — I’m writing a book on General Relativity.

I would guess that there was in fact a time before the Big Bang.

Maybe.

skrik also wrote:.

There is a lot of BS flying around, this ‘universe is accelerating in its expansion’ flying along with ‘initial singularity’, ‘cosmic inflation’ and ‘dark energy’, say. Einstein said the speed of light is the cosmic speed-limit, and since I can’t understand ‘accelerating expansion’ or ‘cosmic inflation’, I reject such wild stuff – I’ve got to get my hooks on reality somehow/somewhere so I stick to what I can read and understand.

It does appear that the universe is accelerating in its expansion — this just means that the expansion seems to be speeding up — but that is not certain.

Cosmic inflation is an interesting, plausible idea as to what happened a very, very short time after the Big Bang: it might even be true, though there is no convincing evidence for it.

Dark energy is the simplest explanation for the apparent speeding up of the universe’s expansion. In Einstein’s theory, dark energy definitely could have that effect. Whether it exists in the real world… well, maybe.

skrik also wrote:

I also reject ‘initial singularity’ since I regard the big bang as genuine but ‘merely’ a phase-change, not a ‘creation event’, based on the conservation principles [what now is, always was].

I don’t know of any current physicist who believes there really was an “initial singularity”: that is merely a sign that the equations break down. We strongly suspect that the physical cause of the breakdown is quantum gravitational effects.

Maybe.

The one thing that we are reasonably sure of is what you said here (keeping in mind that the “dense point” was probably not a literal mathematical point, but just a very, very small volume):

The Big Bang theory explains the universe began ~13.8 billion years ago from an incredibly hot, dense point, expanding and cooling to form the cosmos we see today, with evidence like expanding space (Hubble’s Law) and the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) confirming it’s the best model for cosmic origins.

Yeah, that’s pretty much what we actually do know.

I am, by the way, pretty confident in what I am posting in this comment, simply because it is pretty easy to be sure that there are a lot of things we don’t know! (Now if you get me started on the paradoxes of quantum mechanics or the “hard problem” of consciousness…)

Hope you had a Merry Christmas!

Dave Miller in Sacramento

Paul Barbara wrote to Joe Levantine:

To those who try to best Jesus’ description of the realities of this world, wake up, or pay the price come Judgement Day (and make no mistake about it – that day will come).

Can you understand that this message of accept Paul of Tarsus’ psychopathic theology or “pay the price come Judgement Day” comes across as more than slightly insane?

It is very doubtful that this is what Jesus of Nazareth actually taught — it is hard to find in the Synoptic Gospels the claim that belief in Jesus as Son of God is what is needed to save us from eternal torture in Hell. Maybe in John’s Gospel. Certainly in Paul’s letters.

In any case, it is unlikely that Jesus taught this.

And it really is psychopathic — sin is not like a parking ticket that someone else can pay off. If my sins are so great as to justify eternal torture in Hell (they aren’t), how could Jesus’ Crucifixion free me from that sin?

Paul Barbara also wrote:

Jesus did not require believers to be PhD’s or even High Scholl Graduates (I left school a Sophomore)…

That’s no excuse — you’re bright enough to grasp how crazy the whole Pauline teachings are.

And you’re bright enough to grasp why it is certain that the Gospels are fiction.

Dave

Paul Barbara wrote to Kapyong concerning the zombies in Mathew 27:

Humans are both matter and spirit – the spirit never dies. It would have been the spirit which manifested itself, not the body, but it would manifest in a physical-appearing ‘body’

That just doesn’t work — Matthew said explicitly:

And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose…

Real graves, real bodies.

But of course this amazing, truly unprecedented event was not mentioned at all in the other three Gospels or in secular sources like Josephus.

Wouldn’t it really just make more sense to acknowledge that Matthew just made this up, that, indeed, the whole Gospel, along with the other three canonical Gospels, is simply a work of fiction, just like the Gospel of Peter or the Infancy Gospel of Thomas?

Is it really that hard to realize that the Gospels are works of theological fiction, perhaps very loosely based on an actual historical figure, just like the Odyssey or the legends of King Arthur?

Dave Miller in Sacramento

Catdompanj wrote:

As athiests (a religion in itself, blind belief with no proof) can readily point out what they see as absurdities in the Bible, yet go suddenly mute when it comes to ridiculing the Old Testament, hmmmm.

Not me — I have said again and again that as bad as the New Testament is (basically the condemnation of most of the human race to eternal torture), the Old Testament is a manual for genocide (1 Samuel 15, Deuteronomy 20: 16-18, and pretty much the whole of the book of Joshua).

Of course, there is the matter that most Christians, following Jesus, are sorta stuck with the Old Testament.

Catdompanj also wrote::

They also, despite the easy targets (“absurdities”) Hinduism presents, like an Elephant god or an 8 armed female god, avoid criticizing Hinduism. They’ll mock the Christian God as a “flying spaghetti monster”, but ignore the blue, 8 spaghetti armed Shiva. Isn’t that an easier target to ridicule than Jesus Christ if your goal is to point out the absurdities in deism????

Well… about the same level of absurdity, I’d say.

But since I have, quite literally, never met a human being who claimed to believe in Hinduism, wouldn’t if be kinda a waste of time to criticize Hinduism?

Catdompanj also wrote::

Believe what you want, but if you athiests had an ounce of integrity, you’d attack all religion on an equal basis, but you don’t. You save all your pithy one-liners for us Christians.

Y’see, nearly all of the actual religious believers that we run into are you wild-and-crazy Christians. So, sure, you are the guys we talk about.

I do have some neighbors who were raised as Shi’ite Muslims, but they are not very serious about it. And some other neighbors who are Jews, but who are also atheists.

I do, from time to time, attack all religions in general, and I have gone on at some length attacking Judaism because of the genocide in Gaza, but, again, the main religious believers I encounter are you silly Christian guys.

By the way, I actually like Christmas carols, I enjoy medieval cathedrals (I’ve been to England and France), and I find Luke’s story of the nativity to be a charming story.

But Paul’s theology that all humans actually deserve eternal torture in Hell?

Or the refusal to acknowledge that the four canonical Gospels are quite obviously works of fiction, just like the Gospel of Peter or the Infancy Gospel of Thomas?

Don’t you really think that deserves as much ridicule as Shiva’s extra arms?

Really?

Dave Miller in Sacramento

I think most observant Christians take those articles of faith central to their belief. For example, see the debate on ‘bread’:

I am trying to understand the Orthodox Church’s teaching on the Holy Eucharist, particularly in relation to the Western doctrines of transubstantiation and consubstantiation.
How does the Orthodox Church articulate the change that takes place in the bread and wine during the Divine Liturgy? Does Orthodoxy accept or reject the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation (as defined by the Council of Trent) and the Lutheran teaching of consubstantiation? Is the Orthodox position better described as a “real presence” without further metaphysical specification, or is there an official term or preferred patristic explanation (e.g., “re-creation,” “trans-elementation,” “mysterious change,” etc.)?

I’m sure Satan will bless you for it.

Humans are both matter and spirit – the spirit never dies. It would have been the spirit which manifested itself, not the body, but it would manifest in a physical-appearing ‘body’. Anyone who can see the immense, total evil of the pedophile, child-sacrificing and war-fomenting Banksters, yet seem totally aghast that there could be a balancing and indeed over-riding force for good in the world, should get a brain replacement (I’m sure Billy (Goat) Gates and his oppo Yuval Ha Ha He can arrange an ‘update’).

Jesus was sent by God to give us all a second chance, at a huge cost to himself. Brought up as a Catholic, and with Jewish blood somehow in the mix, I am self-taught (with a lot of Jewish ‘prompting’ completely unbeknown to me at the time, but now clear). I now regard the Vatican as a cesspit (infiltrated and controlled by Zionists).
Jesus did not require believers to be PhD’s or even High Scholl Graduates (I left school a Sophomore), he spoke in parables, that could be understood by the simplest peasant or goat-herder, and also somewhat protected him also from a premature death by masking his message.
To those who try to best Jesus’ description of the realities of this world, wake up, or pay the price come Judgement Day (and make no mistake about it – that day will come).

epebble wrote to me:

Moving star story is a myth. I was commenting on the general use of stars for navigation. If one wants to be skeptical of Christianity, there are far stronger pillars of faith that may be questioned. viz: Virgin birth, Resurrection, Substitutionary atonement, Transubstantiation …

Well, they are pretty plainly all myths. Increasingly the view among critical New Testament scholars is that the Gospels were never intended to be viewed as literal fact — as I said in another comment, they are “fanfic,” meant to entertain and edify.

For example, John 6:35 says:

And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

This is obviously a metaphor.

This follows the feeding of the thousands: surely it is credible that the feeding of the thousands is just to illustrate the actual teaching?

I am pretty sure a lot of nominal Christians actually think this but have been too cautious to say so out loud.

Dave

迪路 wrote to me:

What I mean is that perhaps due to the acceleration and deceleration phases, the changes in the universe might alternate between acceleration and deceleration… and thus no Big Bang would occur.

Well… I don’t know any competent researcher who is seriously suggesting that.

Most likely, the new claimed results just won’t stand up to criticism. I’m old enough to have seen a lot of this stuff — cold fusion, faster-than-light neutrinos, etc. When it seems to be too good to be true, it usually is.

迪路 also wrote:

In conclusion, things like dark energy and dark matter are far beyond the actual observational capabilities of humans.

Well, we’re trying to figure out what has been happening over a time period of fourteen billion years!

Obviously, pretty challenging, but perhaps not impossible.

迪路 also wrote:

Those scientists in string theory even like to make things more complicated. Rather than trying to understand this, I suggest that humans should first solve the problem of artificial nuclear fusion.

I myself have played around with string theory a bit (though never published anything): it is mathematically and aesthetically very appealing.

Alas, it has never been able to make any connection to experiment. It’s sorta dead now.

I’m not sure the string guys would be of any help with fusion though.

Dave

Do you think Matthew really expected his readers to believe that dead guys came out of their graves and wondered around Jerusalem right after Jesus died (Matthew 27: 50-53).

Indeed.
Those saints rose from their graves at the crucifixion, then later at the resurrection they travelled into town.

So for those 1 & 3/4 days while Jesus was ‘dead’ (Friday noon till Sunday morn) those saints presumably just hung around their graves. (Must have been quite a surprise for those who visited during that time !)

Somehow the resurrection of Jesus is fundamental to Christian belief, but the resurrection of all those saints in Jerusalem is not important to Christians.

Population replacement in full swing in Brussels. The data proves it is a reality and not a right wing conspiracy theory.

https://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=320514

So called “Big Bangs” are happening right before our eyes. Every “Black Hole” is a portal into another parallel dimension that resembles a “Big Bang”. Each dimension (parallel universe) is an extension of a master universe. The master universe an extension of a God particle from an infinite and ancient place that lay beyond the frontiers of any known universe.

Keep listening to Green. He’s as to-the-point on the ‘christian problem’ as there is out there at the moment.

I haven’t read his autobio. (⁠yet). Should, I guess.

It strikes me now that all of the great English dystopian works (⁠Brave New World, 1984, A Clockwork Orange) fall short of how bad the place has now become. Not that I’ve ever been there. In each case, no matter how bad, England was still England, although under U.S. control in 1984 (which is a bizarre point of the background in that book, Ingsoc is clearly from the British Labour Party, how could they export it to the U.S.A.?), in Brave New World, it’s world government control, but except for Mustafa Mond himself, perhaps Bernard Marx, and the Indian Gamma stewards on an airliner, it’s just England under a new system.

Burgess wrote at least two other dystopian S.F. novels, The Wanting Seed, which featured compulsory homosexuality (and was years earlier than A Clockwork Orange), and 1985, which featured Mohammedan infiltration and control. Perhaps they bring us almost up to date on dystopia there.

All worth reading, although from recollection, 1985 wasn’t very well written.

I am puzzled by A Clockwork Orange, the original edition had the Nadsat glossary at the end. I later read an edition where Alex de Large sits in a pub deciding to be a family man.

Burgess claimed that it was his original edition. However, the first edition I read was from a Brit. publisher, and had the Nadsat glossary at the end.

I can see why he would have opposed the glossary, anyone not stupid could work most of it out, but the last chapter seems to have been tacked on, and wasn’t in early editions.

I’m not a professional physicist either. I’m just an enthusiast who often listens to the astronomy channel. The experts must know much more than me.
Anyway, I think the current state of human research into the universe is quite depressing. If you devote 200% of your energy to something, you might actually only get a 1% return, and then publish a paper.
Perhaps in the end, it will still need to return to engineering research.
Our biopharmaceutical industry is like playing a gambling game. You have a 0.000001% chance of investing 10% of your effort and achieving a 1000% return.
To be honest, I don’t have much hope for the future of humanity. Because the distances between galaxies are very large, and the spatial gaps are huge. Under the limitation of the speed of light, humans will probably be confined to the small space of the solar system and live there forever.

I know.
What I mean is that perhaps due to the acceleration and deceleration phases, the changes in the universe might alternate between acceleration and deceleration… and thus no Big Bang would occur.
In conclusion, things like dark energy and dark matter are far beyond the actual observational capabilities of humans.
Those scientists in string theory even like to make things more complicated. Rather than trying to understand this, I suggest that humans should first solve the problem of artificial nuclear fusion.
And there are things like gene editing.
I used to work in the model animal laboratory. I carried out some vector engineering for antibody mice for my listed company.
Human beings have simply not conducted sufficient research in the field of biological science. Moreover, too many ethical restrictions in the biological domain prevent us from advancing too rapidly… It’s really a pity.