Lipedema

Sometimes it is hard to obtain a list of the things that can go wrong after or during surgery, though best practice dictates that patients should be provided with full information in order that they may give informed consent to the intervention – it occurs to Coco that perhaps the insurance standard of the utmost good faith should be applied to the contract – but at the ITALF 2024 conference held in the auditorium at the Atheneum Pontificium Regina Apostolorum in Rome we were presented with such a list,

Trattamento riabilitativo termine e getione dei problemi: E Fiengo, Pomezia, RM

Complicanze
Incompleta risoluzione del dolore
Dipendenza dall’indumento compressivo
Parestasie, ipoestasie, iperestasie, e compressioni nervose
Discromie e disturbi circulatori distrettuali
Linfedema secondario
Edema e fibrosi post-operatoria
Cicatrici e alterazioni fasciali
Lipedema regrowth

ITALF 2024 at APRA, Rome. Presentation by E Fiengo, Pomezia

It goes without saying that the list itself is ‘incompleta’ and there are other perhaps much more serious risks which are not listed here, but which are not directly related to the problem which the surgery is attempting to solve, but it is good to hear an acknowledgment that some of the outcomes may be considered to be a complete failure of the surgery itself, for the final condition of the patient will be worse than at the beginning. Surely it is not inappropriate that the words of our Lord may be paraphrased about them:

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves. Matthew 23:15

Coco leaves it as an exercise for the reader to produce a suitable paraphrase. Please leave it in the comments should you think it apt.

Incomplete resolution of pain
Compression garment dependence
Parastasia, hypostasia, hyperastasia, and nerve compression
Dischromia and district circulatory disorders
Secondary lymphedema
Postoperative edema and fibrosis
Scars and fascial alterations
Lipedema regrowth

Luther’s wisdom

It was an interesting discussion about the place of Luther in European and in particular German history, and his continuing influence that prompted me to write, for whilst the conversation was informative, offering perhaps a different perspective than you would be given by an O-level syllabus, there appeared to be a contradiction in it. You may want to listen, or watch for yourself, to judge the matter more carefully

Martin Luther: The Man Who Changed The World from The Rest is History where Tom and Dominic (who?) talk about the man whom we cannot forget.

There is a reference somewhere in the middle of the discussion to the authorities of the age. These authorities are not to be questioned, not because of the civil or political power they hold, though some of them did, and as we shall see do so today, but because they were in the know. They were the cognisant (cognizenci) of their day. Coco does somethings think they are may be more properly described as the gnostics of their day. These people were able to influence the responses of the authorities and the masses to the sometimes new ideas proposed by those who really were in the know, and who had by careful research or experiment been able to demonstrate the veracity of the ideas. A reference may be made to the Copernican revolution; we must not lose sight of this that today we have a different understanding of the revolutions of the planets than any of the three sides of the debate. The science of one year may become the dust of the next.

There was a sense in which the speakers sought to suggest that the day of the cognisant had passed and we now lived in an age where all ideas and thoughts were properly tested for their truth, and that this approach was something introduced by the Renaissance, and built upon by Luther – every man must be free to understand the Word of God by his own conscience: My conscience is captive to the word of God! To go against conscience is neither right nor safe. I therefore cannot, and I will not recant! Here I stand. I can do other. But then we had a reference to the epidemiologist. Apparently in recent years we believed them. They became the authorities who would tell us what to think and how to behave. Today the authority behind them is making a power grab in order to be able to control not only what we think and how we behave, but what we can do and where we can go. Should they succeed then all that is required is a word from them, and everyone must fall into line.

Are we lazy? Is that why we do not question the pronouncements of the cognisant? Are they really cognisant, or are such as these pursuing their own agenda? Darwin when he proposed his origin of the species (note not the origin of life) provided clear tests for his hypothesis. The discovery of DNA finally showed that the hypothesis had failed the tests (though it should have been obvious before then), but still the so-called cognisant continue to speak as if it were valid, and even try to extend it beyond the limits Darwin himself imposed. They are pursuing their own agenda, and those who seek to question them, as they tried to do to Galileo and Luther are shut down.

Are we forgetful? The cognisant of old have often had to give up their ideas in the light of evidence. Those who were wise recognised the limitations of their ideas and were careful to express them in such a way that the limits were clear. Boyle’s Law is universal, but read it carefully before you criticise it where it appears to fail.

What really stood in the way of both Luther and Galileo was not true knowledge, but a wisdom of this world. It is a wisdom which leads the fool to say: There is no god. Paul speaks to the Corinthians about this in quite clear terms:

For it is written: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.1

Now some would like to suggest that this means that all the wisdom of this world is worthless, but let us not so misunderstand what Paul is saying. He makes the context of his remarks quite clear: the world through wisdom did not know God. Paul knew very well that what may be known of God is made known in men, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, as he wrote to the Romans. Paul is not saying that we should not take notice of the world around us, nor is he saying we should not try to understand it. It is in understanding the world correctly that we see the witness that God has left in the world to his invisible attributes as Paul says here.

Paul goes on to say something similar to that which he said to the Corinthians: because, although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man – and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.2

They thought they knew something. They thought they were wise. But the condition of their heart meant that they used their knowledge to invent a wisdom which would led them eventually to say: There is no God. On the way to that point they invent gods for themselves, which are clearly false gods. They cannot hear, they cannot speak, they cannot move themselves but have to be carried on carts. Some see the foolishness of this behaviour but cannot find a satisfactory intellectual argument to support the statement that there is no God until they exalt the wisdom of man, his power of reasoning, his logical mind above the evidence that is around them, and they invent stories to explain it away. Stories which cannot of course be proven to be false for no-one was around to see the fake story unfold.

The wisdom of the world of which Paul speaks here then is that false wisdom which says in its heart that man is self-dependent, that he has no need of a god (other than the false one he makes in his own image but which he often will not acknowledge that he has made). Wisdom is intended to lead us to God, but man in his wisdom corrupts it to turn himself away from God. It is this corrupted wisdom, which Paul describes as the wisdom of this world, of which he speaks here. Paul is fully aware of the proverb which says: The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding

Wisdom in itself is to be valued, to be embraced, when it is not corrupt. So Paul in writing to the Corinthians that he will not use the sophistry (another word for wisdom, which we often use in a pejorative sense when false arguments are used) to persuade them to become believers, but will simply speak the truth to them. And this is the truth that Jesus Christ was crucified. This is a fact which runs counter to all the wisdom of this world, that a god should allow the mortals to crucify him (remember that crucifixion was reserved for the lowest of the low) was foolishness to the Greek and Roman world. So he explains it to the Corinthians:

I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he was seen by Cephas (Simon Peter), then by the twelve. After that he was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. After that he was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all he was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.3

Let us not then be deceived by the foolishness of the sophistry of this world and say in our hearts: There is no God. Rather let us believe the gospel which has been delivered to us that Chris died for our sins. Let us not be wise in our own minds, but receive the wisdom which comes from the fear of the Lord.

But let us also not forget that the study of this world is intended to lead us to God, not away from him for as David said:

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the expanse shows his handiwork.
Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night reveals knowledge.
There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard.
Their sound has gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.
4

1 1 Corinthian 1:14-2:16
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. 16 Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other. 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.
Christ the Power and Wisdom of God
18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:
I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
Glory Only in the Lord
26 For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. 27 But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; 28 and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, 29 that no flesh should glory in his presence. 30 But of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God—and righteousness and sanctification and redemption— 31 that, as it is written, He who glories, let him glory in the Lord.
And I, brethren, when I came to you, did not come with excellence of speech or of wisdom declaring to you the testimony of God. 2 For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling. 4 And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.
Spiritual Wisdom
6 However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, 8 which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9 But as it is written:
Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,
Nor have entered into the heart of man
The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.

10 But God has revealed them to us through his Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.
13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. 16 For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

2 Romans 1

3 1 Corinthians 15

4 Psalm 19

Famine in Africa

Digging riverbeds to find water

The article posted by the BBC Digging riverbeds in Zimbabwe in desperate search for water reminds us of the dire famine in much of south central Africa. The Zimbabwe Partnership Trust has for several years supported communities in Zimbabwe including by financing the drilling of bore-holes to provide water for agricultural projects and schools in remote regions. ZPT is focussed this year very much on the relief of famine in those communities where it has been working through trusted local partners.

Turkeys for Christmas?

Whilst it is voting day in the UK, it is quite a different day in the former North American colonies. One of Coco’s friends pointed him to The False Prophet Rising: Part 2 – The Merging of Church and State https://i.ytimg.com/vi/BaoI5FPWO5o/hqdefault.jpg. It was not something that would normally grab his attention. Listening to the analysis of a Trump speech at the National Religious Broadcasters’ Convention – 2/22/24 reminded him very much of encouraging turkeys to vote for Christmas and not letting them know that they are on the menu. Having no influence as far as the choice of their new president is to be makes the detail of the various presentations in some ways superfluous which is a view contrary to that of the BBC (see US election 2024: Why the world is watching so closely https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/2048/cpsprodpb/CB97/production/_132291125_whitehouse_976getty.jpg.webp).

Without making any political statement, the suggestion is that Trump does not actually know what he is talking about, though he thinks he does. He has an altogether different purpose in what he says than that which the commentators perceive in it. When you are playing chess the aim of course is to position your pieces in such a way that you may capture the opposing king. This is most effectively achieved if you are able to position your pieces in that way without drawing the attention of your opponent to what you have done. Now in this world chess is not being played with only 0x20 pieces. The more pieces there are the greater the likelihood of being able to move the relevant ones into position without their ultimate purpose being seen, providing of course you have a different good enough reason for so positioning them.

This is the strategy which is being suggested by the commentators, and note, the particular pieces in the game do not ever need to know why they have been positioned apart from the immediate cause. In this case, the immediate cause is that Trump wants the support of the broadcasters in his campaign. None of the pieces need to know what their ultimate use will be. This is especially important in war games of course, for if any of the pieces fall into enemy hands you want them to have no more information than that they had orders to be where they were found.

Coco has a different view of the end times than that which he perceived to be the views both criticised and held by the commentators, but something is going to happen. If nothing else Daniel’s prophecy makes that clear (he could go into further detail but shall refrain here today), but exactly what it is, and certainly when, we do not yet know. It will be obvious enough when the day comes. For Coco the assessment of Trump’s appeal was interesting enough, though it contained nothing new from the prophetic perspective, you may however find it quite interesting from a political for it illustrates how a politician can represent himself to be on more than one side at the same time. Some form of quantum tunnelling is possible to the seasoned political chameleon, but Coco is sure you knew all of that.

Anyway, Coco leaves it to you. The whole show will take less than an hour if you speed it up so that they talk at a reasonable speed rather than a drawl.

For an alternate view of the end times, Wesley aptly express it in his hymn, which also makes reference to the proclamation by trump some 250 years prior to his actual appearance:

Lo! He comes with clouds descending,
once for favoured sinners slain;
thousand thousand saints attending
swell the triumph of his train:
Hallelujah!
God appears on earth to reign.

Every eye shall now behold him 
robed in dreadful majesty;
those who set at nought and sold him,
pierced and nailed him to the tree,
deeply wailing,
shall the true Messiah see.

Every island, sea, and mountain,  
heaven and earth, shall flee away;
all who hate him must, confounded,
hear the trump proclaim the day;
come to judgment!
come to judgment! come away!

Genus reassignment

Times were very hard. The countryside was being squeezed by the urban population, rows and rows of solar panels were being placed not only upon the most productive arable fields but now even upon the pastoral land where sheep may have safely grazed. The panels it was true provided much needed shade from the summer sum, but the diminution of the number of animals put pressure on the economy of the canine population, making life very difficult for the wolves who had families to feed.

As a young wolf Adolphe recognised that the situation was very grievous indeed. How could he raise a family if he could not provide for them was a question he frequently asked himself until one day when he met Flora.

Flora was a Pomeranian who visited the moorland beyond the fields one day. Adolphe was resting in the shade of one of the few trees on the moor when her mistress disturbed him, also looking for shade from the noon-day sun. Adolphe retreated to a safe distance in the bracken, waited and watched. Adolphe never saw her walk. She was always in the arms of her mistress, who treated her more like a cub than a dog he thought. Just then, as it did to Newton when he waited under an apple tree, it occurred to him. It would be a bold experiment, he said to himself, but it may work.

It was many days later that he saw Mutton, a member of the Salish family, running freely among the solar panels. He made her acquaintance and learned that her master was nearby, but she was allowed to run as she will. Adolphe was perturbed by the reference to the master being nearby, and watched carefully. Often the masters carried iron sticks which had deadly accuracy. It was that which he feared.  He bid his time. Mutton and her master continued to visit the area with quite some regularity. Slowly Adolphe got to know her better.

One day her master saw them running together and called her back. She encouraged him to follow, saying that all would be well, as long as he did just the same things that she did.

It was difficult for Adolphe to roll over onto his back to allow the human to rub his belly with a pair of heavy boots, but he noticed that there was no long iron stick on the human’s back. The human allowed them to eat together, though there was not a lot as he had only prepared enough for one dog. Mutton encouraged Adolphe to eat the most.

On the next occasion the human told Mutton to find her friend. A few hours later they both arrived and ate together again, but this time the human had prepared two meals. The lying on the back took place again, and then – this was not part of Adolphe’s plan – something was placed around his neck. He had not noticed before but Mutton also wore one. A vine was attached to it and held firmly by the human. It was time to go. Adolphe remembered what he had been told. ‘It will be alright. Do as I do.’ Adolphe was about to learn new things.

Some months later they returned to the moor. The vine was slipped from his neck and he and Mutton ran freely again. They returned that day to the human’s den, and so for the rest of the week. Mutton later told Adolphe that he was free to go if he wished. The human would be happy either way. Mutton returned home.

They continued to meet on the moor, then one day Mutton asked to see his den. She did not return home that day. Her master, his friends and their dogs, spent the next several weeks looking for her but to no avail. Though they often found evidence of her recent activity – that she was alive and well that was very clear – there were no sightings. The spy-cam that they set up caught many images of the wolves, including Adolphe, but Mutton never strayed into view.

Five months later Mutton arrived back at her former home with a litter of woolly, wolves. They were perhaps six weeks old. She returned to the moor shortly afterward, but continued to make regular visits to her old master.

The leopard changes his spots

Adolphe reflected on the success of his experiment. How much easier it would be for his offspring to remain hidden from the ever watching eye of the shepherd.

As Farmer Giles raised his gun he heard a voice coming from the flock.

The wolf bleated: Don’t shoot – I have had a genus reassignment!

Lupine to Ovine?

The prophet asked: Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Then may you also do good who are accustomed to do evil. (Jeremiah 13:23) The Lord is speaking against his people in Jerusalem, giving them warnings of what is to come if they will not change their ways. The words sound harsh, but they are full of compassion:

Hear and give ear: Do not be proud, for the Lord has spoken. Give glory to the Lord your God before he causes darkness, and before your feet stumble on the dark mountains, and while you are looking for light, he turns it into the shadow of death and makes it dense darkness. But if you will not hear it, my soul will weep in secret for your pride; my eyes will weep bitterly and run down with tears.

Jeremiah 23:15-17

The people are comfortable in their ignorance. Everyone of them wants to do it my way and not the Lord’s way. Pride and godlessness fill the streets. This soon overflows into violence against others. If we insist on my way, and never give in or consider others, we shall soon come into conflict with those around us. If pride fills our hearts, then we shall soon disrespect those around us who do not have quite the same view of ourselves that we have. The apostle rejoins us to not to think of [ourselves] more highly than [we] ought to think, but to think soberly, as God has dealt to each one a measure of faith. So he warns them that they must change, but so accustomed to them have their wicked ways become, they cannot change them any more than a leopard can change its spots.

But he problem goes much deeper than that, as intimated by the double simile. It is not just a bad habit which we must shake off, it is an intrinsic part of our make up as human beings just as the colour of our skin. The change required is impossible for us, just as impossible as gender and genus reassignments are. Who then can be saved? the disciples asked Jesus, in a different context (Mark 10). A change is required which is fundamental. The Lord provided the answer: With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible. John records for us as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in his name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Just as the wolf cannot become a sheep, even if he were able to grow woollen fleece as a sheep, we cannot by the will of man become children of God. We must be born again, born from above, born of the Spirit, born of God. With man it is impossible, but with God, simply come to Jesus and receive him.

DNA

It is a wonder indeed. How complex is life! 160 billiard pairs in a single molecule. It is right that they wonder what the functions of all of its parts are. Having measured its length, the really hard work now comes when trying to identify the several different parts, and assessing their possible single or multiple functions. As they have said ‘[m]any plants have big genomes and scientists want to find out why’. One can but wish them success.

The BBC reported as much in their article World record broken for living thing with most DNA.

Is it true however that “[t]he genome is the complete set of DNA instructions within a cell containing all the information needed for a living thing to develop and grow”? We do not begin life with only DNA, we begin life as a complete cell, which contains the machinery required to read the DNA*. Does that machinery not also contain information which is not necessarily, and does not need to be, carried by the DNA? We have at least two complex independent, but interdependent, structures within our cells both of which carry the necessary information to enable them to interact with each other in the processes which sustain our life. It is a wonder indeed. One could wish that a mind such as Darwin’s had been introduced to these things, what difference that would have made to On the Origin of Species? Coco leaves the answer to that to better minds than his own.

But what a wonder life is: I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvellous are your works, and that my soul knows very well.

My frame was not hidden from you, when I was made in secret, and skilfully wrought in the womb, king David says in the 139th Psalm, I will praise you.

* Molecular Biology of the Cell. 4th edition: Fertilization

See the paragraph: The Sperm Provides a Centriole for the Zygote [redacted here]

Once fertilized, the egg is called a zygote. Fertilization is not complete, however, until the two haploid nuclei (called pronuclei) have come together and combined their chromosomes into a single  diploid nucleus. In fertilized mammalian eggs, the two pronuclei do not fuse directly as they do in many other species. They approach each other but remain distinct until after the membrane of each pronucleus has broken down in preparation for the zygote’s first mitotic division (Figure 20-34).

Figure 20-34: The coming together of the sperm and egg pronuclei after mammalian fertilization.

The pronuclei migrate toward the center of the egg. When they come together, their nuclear envelopes interdigitate. The centrosome replicates, the nuclear envelopes break  down, and the chromosomes of both gametes are eventually integrated into a single mitotic spindle, which mediates the first cleavage division of the zygote. (Adapted from drawings and electron micrographs provided by Daniel Szöllösi.)

In most animals, including humans, the sperm contributes than DNA to the zygote. It also donates a centriole [Short cylindrical array of microtubules, closely similar in structure to a basal body. A pair of centrioles is usually found at the center of a centrosome in animal cells.] – an organelle [Membrane-enclosed compartment in a eucaryotic cell that has a distinct structure, macromolecular composition, and function. Examples are nucleus, mitochondrion, chloroplast, Golgi apparatus.] that is lacking in unfertilized human eggs. The sperm centriole enters the egg along with the sperm nucleus and tail and a centrosome forms around it. In humans, it replicates and helps organize the assembly of the first mitotic spindle in the zygote (Figure 20-35). This explains why multipolar or extra mitotic spindles form in cases of polyspermy, where several sperm contribute their centrioles to the egg.

Figure 20-35: Immunofluorescence micrographs of human sperm and egg pronuclei coming together after in vitro fertilization.

Spindle microtubules are stained in green with anti-tubulin antibodies, and DNA is labeled in blue with a DNA stain. (A) A meiotic spindle in a mature, unfertilized oocyte. (B) This fertilized egg is extruding its second polar body and is shown about 5 hours after fusion with a sperm. The sperm head (left) has nucleated an array of microtubules. (C) The two pronuclei have come together. (D) By 16 hours after fusion with a sperm, the centrosome that entered the egg with the sperm has duplicated, and the daughter centrosomes have organized a bipolar mitotic spindle. The chromosomes of both pronuclei are aligned at the metaphase plate of the spindle. As indicated by the arrows in (C) and (D), the sperm tail is associated with one of the centrosomes. (From C. Simerly et al., Nat. Med. 1:47–53, 1995. © Macmillan Magazines Ltd.)

Fertilization marks the beginning of one of the most remarkable phenomena in all of biology—the process of embryogenesis, in which the zygote develops into a new individual. This is the subject of the next chapter.


The prior section, though not relevant to this article, is rather interesting:

The Mechanism of Sperm – Egg Fusion Is Still Unknown

containing in the light of more recent controversies in its final paragraph the ominous sentences: As the cell biology of mammalian fertilization becomes better understood and the molecules that mediate the various steps in the process are defined, new strategies for contraception become possible. One approach currently being investigated, for example, is to immunize males or females with molecules that are required for reproduction in the hope that the antibodies produced will inhibit the activities of these molecules. 

Given that it was published in 2002 it can neither be accused of bias in relation to the present controversy not can it be represented as fake news.

– with apologies for the false spellings of uncertain words.

James Webb – multiverse fake

It was a fake image that prompted the concern:

Chris Gale and Barnard Van Loggernberg had commented on the image. Barnard in sublime praise of the God who made all things, and Chris with a reference to the erroneous understanding promulgated by our contemporary propogandists of atheist thought that “A belief is based on what you have been told and what you personally hold as true. A belief doesn’t need to be supported with factual evidence in order for it to exist and be powerful. In short, beliefs are not facts.”

A belief which does not rest upon evidence is nothing more than a dream. Our belief, and consequently our faith, in God rests upon the evidence of demonstrable historical facts not least of which is the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. The multiverse hypothesis rests upon a quirk in our present ephemeral understanding of the physics of our universe which requires as a sine qua non that the other objects cannot be observed or detected, hence neither a proof nor a negation of the hypothesis is possible, We may therefore understand that there can never be found any evidence for the hypothesis, and therefore it is merely a dream.

Fake image - it should not be difficult to spot

It should not be difficult to spot the errors in the images….

The source is acknowledged, but to follow the link is not recommended.

JAMES WEBB SPACE TELESCOPE User: Astronomy Girl

Two Old Men

Tolstoy appeared on my listening list this week, which was somewhat intriguing. Why would Tolstoy appear? But I had been listening to John Lennox, and Tolstoy’s short story illustrated one of Lennox’s brief characterisations of the distinction between true and false religion, between true and false love. The resurrection of the Lord Jesus, which is celebrated by many in the West, but in the East, and so not also for these two old men, for another five weeks, is the evidence of this distinction. The tomb in which he was lain is emptied, and despite attempts to cover up the resurrection it is well attested in history.


Two Old Men: Tolstoy

Tolstoy’s two old men had in their younger years agreed together to go on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. He tells us of their adventures on their way, after Elisha had finally persuaded Ephraim that they must go else they shall become too old to do so. They also faced difficulty and adversity, not always their own. Elisha had set out in thankfulness for the forgiveness that he knew resided in the faith of the Lord Jesus. Ephraim set out in the hope that his obedience and pilgrimage would count him in good stead in the final reckoning.

This is the essence of faith in Jesus. In his death he cried out: Finished! He did everything, and obtained everything, that would be required to make us acceptable to God. When we walk with Jesus we walk knowing that we have already been accepted by God, and so do not need to earn any points. Jesus has enough for all of us. If we try to walk any other way, we are in a continual struggle to earn enough points to become acceptable to God, and are only certain of one thing – failure to earn enough.

John Lennox puts it slightly differently, and use a cook book in his illustration. Tolstoy speaks in the same way. Elisha fails to reach Jerusalem. Ephraim arrives and returns home, convinced that somehow Elisha overtook him on the way.

Chris was born. Christ died. Christ has risen. Christ will come again.

Extremist?

Given the changes to the definition of extremism, Coco thought he should examine his own position to check whether or not his views fall under the censorship of any part of the definition now put forward. According to the BBC report:

Under the new definition, which comes into force on Thursday, extremism is “the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that aims to:

  1. negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others; or
  2. undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights; or
  3. intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve the results in (1) or (2).”

The previous definition, introduced in 2011 under the Prevent strategy, described extremism as “vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and belief”.

The government says the new one is “narrower and more precise” and will help “clearly articulate” how extremism is “evidenced” in behaviours.

It also says there will be a “high bar” to being classed as extremist and the policy will not target those with “private, peaceful beliefs”.

The opening words are familiar territory to those who are involved charitable activity ‘promotion and advancement’. So, for example the actual doing of education is not charitable, but the promotion and advancement of it is (or at least under the new charity law could be provided it also conferred public benefit). From the very outset then Coco concludes that the new definition of extremism does not include any of the acts which may arise out of an ideology which is based on hatred, violence or intolerance, it merely ostracises the promotion or advancement of such an ideology.  Coco then feels quite safe, it is not what Coco does that matters (unless it infringes other aspects of criminal or civil law), but rather only the seeking to persuade someone else to share the same views that he holds. Perhaps then there is no need to go any further, but Coco wishes to do so, for if Coco has misunderstood the first few words, then there is still a risk that he may fall foul of what is later enshrined in the definition. Even in writing this, Coco wishes to persuade you of certain things, and so promotes and advances ideas with which you may disagree or agree.

The second part of the definition speaks of an ideology which may be characterised by any one of three options: violence, hatred or intolerance. Note the use of or here, only one of these characteristics is required before we move on to the three tests that have been set out. We need definitions here of all three words, for each of the words may be used in common, or specialist ways and in different contexts though carrying the same meaning carry a different force. Coco may well respond violently when asked to partake in the degustation of a tomato sandwich where the bread has been spread with the contents of even a newly opened jar of Nutella, displaying both his hatred of such a combination and intolerance of those who would even consider it, just as much as another Coco would perhaps have recoiled from the wearing of even the most elegant of attires in only purple and pink.

However, to be more serious about the matter, whilst violence may almost always be considered to be a negative activity, hatred and intolerance are not always so, as may be understood from the hideous examples given beforehand. Are hatred and intolerance towards those who cause harm in our society (do not require Coco to try to define what harm may mean here, or to limit its extent) to be denigrated or applauded? Should we not all be intolerant of that which causes harm? The fly-tipper who poisons our drinking water, is he to be hated or loved? Are we to discourage his activity or to encourage it? Coco does not think that he needs to supply the answer to those questions.

Hatred and intolerance are necessary parts, when correctly understood, of the ideologies which allow us to live together. Coco listened to the rant of one who said, quite eloquently in many different ways, but only said one thing: ’I don’t mind it if you are a religious freak, but don’t push it in my face’ all the while pushing her own ideology in the face of those who disagreed with him (the alternating gender of the pronouns is used to indulge the satisfaction of the ignorance of Coco’s publishers).

Moving on however there are some helpful tests which are designed to enable us to understand what kinds of violent, hateful or intolerant ideologies fall within the scope of the definition. It will be clear, Coco opines, from these that the intolerance towards the provisioner of tomato filled Nutella sandwiches does no violence to this definition of extremism, however extreme the culinary landscape of the provisioner. Note again that the tests are not cumulative, it is only necessary to fall under one or any of them to meet the definition.

So, Mr A (and it is only a Mr A who would hold this view) who owns a white van has an ideology that is intolerant of every other road user. He believes that everyone else should move out of the way for him, that it is his right to tailgate everyone who is ahead of him on the road, sounding his horn at them until they move aside to let him past. Providing that he does not talk about this or encourage others on a Friday night to behave in the same way, he is ok. But if he promotes such a view in any way he falls foul of the first test. In terms of the definition: He promotes or advances an ideology based on intolerance, that aims to negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of other [road users]. Is he an extremist? Is the Club of White Van Owners an extremist organisation? Coco must declare a conflict of interest. Coco knows and has known white van owners who are not members of the CWVO.

Supposing the organisation passes the first test, the second is a slightly higher bar. It speaks of seeking to undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights. The use of the term UK does perhaps limit the scope of the article somewhat but not entirely, for the formation of the UK did not overturn any of what had gone before. The formation of the UK built upon what already existed. So, we have to ask, as no definition of ‘liberal parliamentary democracy’ is provided, what is meant by it. But before we do that we have the words undermine, overturn or replace. We presently have a first past the post system in relation to voting for individuals.

In Wales the Senate are seeking to replace that with a system of voting for an organisation rather than an individual. Does that mean that the Welsh Senate is an extremist organisation? It is clear that they are seeking to promote the new system. It is also clear that the new system replaces the current system of parliamentary democracy, though not in the entire UK, so they may escape (which does beg the question of whether if an organisation limits its activities to one of the nations of the UK it can ever fall under this test). Before we apply this test the Senate must also fall under one of the earlier hurdles, is the ideology on which the replacement is based violent, hateful or intolerant? You may or may not be surprised to find that the answers are all yes. It is violent, for it does violence to the current system of voting. It is hateful for it introduces a new system which retains nothing of the old: such an action provides evidence that the old system is hated. It is intolerant, for the new system is to be introduced despite opposition from others. Coco concludes, the Welsh Senate falls under this definition of extremism an extremist organisation. You are free to disagree.

There are others who would seek to undermine, replace or overturn (though they may be quite happy to say undermine, replace and overturn) the current system. Some seek proportional representation. Some seek the abolition of hereditary positions. Some seek a second elected chamber. Some seek their own exaltation. The analysis, which Coco apologises is not comprehensive, of the terms violence, hatred and intolerance apply to them as they do to the Senate.

But we must turn to what is meant by the UK’s system. The current system has historical roots. How far back do we look when we consider what is fundamental to the system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights. Coco offers some possibilities: Do we look back over a thousand years to Alfred who based the system of law in this land upon the Ten Commandments of the Law of God? Or do we look back perhaps only to Charles I? Or is it to those who due to his intolerance overthrew him? Or to the Restoration? Or to 1662 when the intolerance of the State was exhibited for the whole nation to see? Should we look to the system before or after the Glorious Revolution? What of the changes in the 18th century which saw an Evangelical Awakening which saved this land from the kind of revolution seen across the Channel? What of the reforms of the 19th century? There has been a progression in the development of the current system. Some of it has been positive, and some of it has been negative. Are we to seek to better it, or to leave it as it is. Any effort to better it falls under the test of undermine, overturn or replace. Even to refuse to participate in the system, or rather to encourage, promote or advance the ideology that non-participation is a means to do this, will cause the organisation to fall under this test and so be an extremist organisation.

Much of the change over these thousand or so years has been promoted by religious and social changes. The 20th century has seen many changes also some of which have been a disaster for the system. The promotion of the ideology of individual choice comes into conflict with the ideology of mutual respect as may be clearly seen in the parable of the CWVO. The constant call for the balancing of rights is only there because one man’s right is another man’s restriction. If it belongs to you, it does not belong to Coco. Coco must remember that.

Perhaps the greatest hurdle we have is that words no longer mean what they used to mean. The only pronoun of whose meaning Coco is certain is it in this post-modern world. How then can we be sure of the meaning of liberal parliamentary democracy. Our current system is not a different system than that of earlier generations. It is not descended from the earlier forms. It is the same system, though it has, we might say, matured though not in the way of a maturity which endows wisdom, but rather like a cheese or a cask of the distilled wine of Scotland would mature. Do you want strong, mature or extra mature cheese? Is it five, ten or eighteen years you sit waiting by the cask before you discover how great or small the angel’s share was? The maturing, and changing, must and shall continue.

Why ascribe the adjective liberal? What need is there for this? How does it change the meaning of parliamentary democracy? Then we have the use of the word democracy itself. Would the fathers of democracy recognise the system of patronage that we have as democratic? Again, Coco begs leave not to answer the questions for you, dear reader, may find them quickly enough without difficulty. Perhaps you consider that the answers do not matter; perhaps you are right, but should you ever have to stand in court before a judge to defend yourself from the extremist charge, you shall find that the judge holds the view that the meanings of words do matter.

You may also notice the use of and in this second test, which perhaps would put Coco’s previous analysis in the shade. The second test is not whether the ideology would aim to undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy or democratic rights but ratherboth the system and the rights. Coco wonders whether this is merely a drafting error, but given the very careful use of or elsewhere Coco is probably mistaken and the use of and here is deliberate. It severely limits the scope for the test, for it requires the aim to be directed at both the government and the people at the same time. An organisation which seeks only to change the system of government or only seeks to change the rights of the people cannot fall under this test.

The third test though it appears to be a new one, it is a restatement of the others in a different form. It is there, so it seems, to catch those organisations who think that they can be one or more steps removed from the organisations that themselves would fall under tests one or two. An organisation may intentionally create an environment within which others who are intent upon extremist activities may operate and raise the resources that they need without detection.

The definition moves a long way from the old one of 2011, which was open to abuse by many who would wish to silence another for merely expressing a contrary view to their own. It however, as Coco hopes you may understand, raises a new set of questions, and is perhaps too widely drawn. A clear statement of the meanings of the words used is required.

Coco rejoices that the official commentary on gov.uk, provides better guidance and some examples of what they think the definition means, but notice that whilst paragraph 3 provides examples of what could constitute extremism it is not exhaustive, neither is it part of the definition. It does not qualify the definition, it merely illustrates it. It is open to others to challenge and perhaps expand the range of activities which the definition is intended to cover, as in part Coco has shown is possible here. In other words you may illustrate the definition in different colours.

In the meantime, did Coco pass the test? If you allow Coco to be both Judge and Jury in the matter, yes, of course: Coco passed the test. The question remains, what does passing the test mean? Is it a negative result or a positive result which provides a pass?

The Lord, the most loving and caring, person this world has known, who even when they crucified him called out, Father forgive them, they do not know what they are doing, said: If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And whoever does not bear his cross and come after me cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:26-27

Anti-scientific?

It was a recommendation of and a listening to Professor Angus Dalgleish, physician, oncologist, pathologist, medical researcher and author that prompted the thoughts.

The Professor makes a good point. There is a lack of consensus in many areas of science, and perhaps especially true in the context of cosmological and the design of bio-chemical machines, where radically contrary views may be held by main-stream scientists, but who rise up together when anything approaching a Biblical perspective on the known facts is introduced to silence the proponents of what is an alternative and more credible explanation than their own. Even Coco’s use of the word design in the preceding sentence will provoke the ire of such opponents of the scientific method to which they pretend to adhere but abandon when it does not suit their ideology or philosophy.

It is difficult however for the layman to assess and test the different points of view and ultimately comes down the question, as Coco read elsewhere in a different context, ‘who are you prepared to believe?’ whilst at the same time keeping only a tenuous hold on the current scientific thinking, for as has been seen very clearly in the last 500 years at least, current scientific thinking can be rapidly overturned by a new and aberrant ‘fact’ or a new explanation for a well-known fact that had previously not been adequately explained.

What Coco would suggest however is that we should not believe those who seek only to silence the opposition and are not prepared to let you listen to any alternative presentation or explanation.

The first one to plead his cause seems right, until his neighbour comes and examines him. Proverbs 18.17


Anti-scientific woke