(ii) The Acropolis when it was new.
(iii) Athens, 894 CE, in a timeline where the Hellenic era had had an industrial revolution and parliamentary democracy.
(iv) York, 1900, in a timeline where the conciliar movement had curbed papal power, reconciled the Hussites and prevented the Reformation.
(v) North America in the twenty second century in a timeline where the Chinese had colonized the continent in the fifteenth century.
(vi) A technological civilization resisting the advancing desert in present time.
In (vi), rockets aimed at the moon should work according to theory but always fail because, in Gaia's emulations, heavenly bodies are just lights in the sky. These people are encountering evidence that they do not inhabit the material universe but do not know how to interpret it.
5 comments:
Hi, Paul!
One of the few times I seriously disagree with PA is his view of the Conciliar Movement. Taken to its logical conclusion, the CM would have led to the total enfeeblement of the Papacy, reducing the popes to being as helpless and impotent as the Anglican archbishop of Canterbury. Something I, as a Catholic, believe would have been totally opposed to what God desired. If anything, my belief is that a successful Conciliar Movement would have led to Christianity spllitting in far worse and deeper ways than what the rise of Protestantism has done.
Number v interests me, reminding me of PA's Time Patrol story, "The Only Game in Town," about the Mongols and Chinese in Kublai Khan's time discovering North America. And speculating how a conquest and settling of N. America by them would have affected history.
And I thought numer vi esp. pathetic! The emulations not realizing they don't truly exist, at least not outside Gaia's mind. I do see what you mean about how cruel Gaia is being to these emulations.
Sean
Sean,
The Apostles, including Paul as Apostle to the Gentiles, were (believed to be) witnesses to the Resurrection. They founded churches and appointed assistants to help them run the churches. When an Apostle died, his church elected one of his assistants as his successor. In the absence of a witness, the next best thing was someone who had known the witness well and had heard his first hand account in detail. The successors were the first bishops. 2000 years later, someone currently consecrated bishop is no nearer to evidence for the Resurrection than anyone else. All that he can do is read the New Testament like anyone else. So I think that, reasoning from Christian premises, there should no longer be any bishops!
Paul.
Hi, Paul!
NONETHELESS, we do have very early evidence, for example, of the unique authority held by the Bishops of Rome. For example, Matthew 16 shows the roots and beginnings of Papal authority. And the Oxford Fragments of Matthew found in Egypt gives us evidence of that Gospel existing as early as AD 66. Which means it existed even earlier!
And I only need to cite texts such as 1 Clement, St. Ignatius of Antioch's Letter to the Romans, Irenaeus of Lyons AGAINST HERESIES, etc. for further early evidence of how the early Christians agreed the Bishops of Rome held a unique authority different from that ordinary bishops hold.
And while it was the custom for many local churches to elect/nominate candidates for the episcopal office, they also needed to be ordained by other bishops. To me, the supreme witness of Christ is the CATHOLIC Church. Yes, I know, you don't agree! (Smiles)
Sean
(vi) is the one I remember best from my reading of Genesis not long after it was published, probably because of what an immensely sad situation it is.
Kaor, Jim! I agree. Pathetic! Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment