Christian Discussion Thread XII: Soter? I hardly know her!

[Tarsonis]

Except that we don't raise most animals solely for meat. Cows will just become all dairy production, Chickens contribute to the the health of a farm with nitrogen rich feces and eating pests that kill plants. Sheep will still have value producing wool. Pig species with reduce drastically but won't go extinct, they can be used for truffle hunting, compost production, and some other tasks.

We'll see animals populations decline, but they won't disappear. The real issue is the damage it'll do to the ranching industry

I believe synthetic milk and eggs are currently being developed to be indistinguishable from their usual counterparts.

This will all come down to the market. If lab grown represents a cheaper land cost, cheaper maintenance cost, and profits to an opening vegan market (who are increasing as a proportion of our population), animals will disappear in first world countries as people chase the profitable methods. I don’t suspect this process of total de-animalisation would take anything less than 100-200 years though for even first world countries.

I doubt people will buy into synthetic eggs and milk like they might cultured meat. Vegans might but for the rest there's no ethical conundrum to consuming eggs or dairy.

In 200 years we might have replication technology which will make most agriculture obsolete

[North Washington Republic]

Not necessarily. In the Tridentine Mass/other traditional Latin rites/Eastern rites a priest may refuse Holy Communion to someone who insists on receiving in the hand. But in the Novus Ordo in the U.S. it cannot be refused. But I haven't been to the Novus Disordo Mass in years and if I ever go to seminary it's going to be the SSPX. So I guess I never would have to worry about it since I would never distribute Holy Communion into the hand.

Yes, that's true. My priest when I'm at school is a stickler to the letter of liturgy and explained why communion had to be distributed in the mouth during the All Saints mass he did last year in the extraordinary form. Which technically he wasn't supposed to do given the regulations at the time, so he said "Just don't tell the Bishop I did this". He's a great guy.

SSPX, huh? Why not FSSP or ICKSP? Both of the latter are invested in Traditional Catholicism without the ambiguous canonical status, which unfortunately hasn't really been resolved yet for the SSPX.

See, I’m the type of person that would tell the Bishop. Breaking the rules isn’t justifiable because he is a traditionalist. Communion in the hand is allowed in the Novus Ordo, no matter how much it pisses off traditionalists.

[Lower Nubia]

I believe synthetic milk and eggs are currently being developed to be indistinguishable from their usual counterparts.

This will all come down to the market. If lab grown represents a cheaper land cost, cheaper maintenance cost, and profits to an opening vegan market (who are increasing as a proportion of our population), animals will disappear in first world countries as people chase the profitable methods. I don’t suspect this process of total de-animalisation would take anything less than 100-200 years though for even first world countries.

I doubt people will buy into synthetic eggs and milk like they might cultured meat. Vegans might but for the rest there's no ethical conundrum to consuming eggs or dairy.

In 200 years we might have replication technology which will make most agriculture obsolete

In the year 2150, I definitely remember that Klingon landing in a corn field.

[Tarsonis]

I doubt people will buy into synthetic eggs and milk like they might cultured meat. Vegans might but for the rest there's no ethical conundrum to consuming eggs or dairy.

In 200 years we might have replication technology which will make most agriculture obsolete

In the year 2150, I definitely remember that Klingon landing in a corn field.

well that's only a 130 years from now.

[Lower Nubia]

In the year 2150, I definitely remember that Klingon landing in a corn field.

well that's only a 130 years from now.

I remember a certain Picard growing grapes...

[Tarsonis]

well that's only a 130 years from now.

I remember a certain Picard growing grapes...

In ST the replicators can make any food but it's only a faximile and is often noted doesn't quite taste them same as others. certain types of agriculture like vineyards will likely continue because of quality controls. Non replicated wine will become something of a valuable commodity while replicated wines will basically be the same as like "yellow tail" fairly decent for 6 bucks, but not anything special.

but mainstay agriculture will be largely reduced as consumption of non replicated cash crops will drop significantly.

[Lower Nubia]

I remember a certain Picard growing grapes...

In ST the replicators can make any food but it's only a faximile and is often noted doesn't quite taste them same as others. certain types of agriculture like vineyards will likely continue because of quality controls. Non replicated wine will become something of a valuable commodity while replicated wines will basically be the same as like "yellow tail" fairly decent for 6 bucks, but not anything special.

but mainstay agriculture will be largely reduced as consumption of non replicated cash crops will drop significantly.

I was under the impression the difference was purely psychological. As the replicator was basically the same replication (atom by atom recreation)technology as that present in a transporter, and it would be wrong to say that those transported were a facsimile of the “original”.

All this though raises an important, Christian themed, question. Assuming transporter technology existed, would each replicated individual have an independent Christian soul, as if from birth, and would they then require rebaptising, or would their original baptism count?

[Odreria]

Although I’m not able to physically attend church right now, I continue to feel confident that converting to orthodox Christianity is the right decision. If I end up staying at home for a while after this summer I think I will ask the church I went to Pascha at about becoming a catechumen.

[Australian rePublic]

Although I’m not able to physically attend church right now, I continue to feel confident that converting to orthodox Christianity is the right decision. If I end up staying at home for a while after this summer I think I will ask the church I went to Pascha at about becoming a catechumen.

Welcome to the Orthodox Family!

[Hochstift Verden]

Not necessarily. In the Tridentine Mass/other traditional Latin rites/Eastern rites a priest may refuse Holy Communion to someone who insists on receiving in the hand. But in the Novus Ordo in the U.S. it cannot be refused. But I haven't been to the Novus Disordo Mass in years and if I ever go to seminary it's going to be the SSPX. So I guess I never would have to worry about it since I would never distribute Holy Communion into the hand.

Yes, that's true. My priest when I'm at school is a stickler to the letter of liturgy and explained why communion had to be distributed in the mouth during the All Saints mass he did last year in the extraordinary form. Which technically he wasn't supposed to do given the regulations at the time, so he said "Just don't tell the Bishop I did this". He's a great guy.

SSPX, huh? Why not FSSP or ICKSP? Both of the latter are invested in Traditional Catholicism without the ambiguous canonical status, which unfortunately hasn't really been resolved yet for the SSPX.

I used to be heavily enamored with the FSSP when I converted to Catholicism around 4 years ago, but as I research more and more I find it difficult to survive as a faithful Catholic in the canonical structure. It's a bigger problem for clergy, less so for me as a layman. For example, my priest/spiritual director is a former FSSP priest who is now diocesan. It is difficult if not impossible to be a truly faithful, orthodox, traditional priest in the canonical structure of the Latin Church. Currently my priest is not a pastor of a parish so he offers the Tridentine Mass and sacraments exclusively and refuses to offer the Novus Ordo Mass ever again; his last parish assignment red-pilled him. He preached on basic Catholic doctrinal teaching and his parishioners always threw a fit. Even when you present N.O. Catholics with authentic Catholicism, they reject it. Finally he came to the conclusion that trying to teach people who don't want to be taught didn't make any sense. As the Gospel says, "And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words: going forth out of that house or city shake off the dust from your feet." (Matthew 10:14 DRA) My priest never turned back.

The main issue I take with the canonical institutes like the FSSP/ICKSP is that they officially compromise. E.g., the FSSP's agreement with Rome officially gives credence to Vatican II and the New Mass, their priests must concelebrate the N.O. Chrism Mass, they must be available to offer the New Mass upon request, etc. Now, some of these things are just on paper but still. Compared to the SSPX, the FSSP has no common spirituality other than the traditional liturgy. My priest says that when he was in the Fraternity he was taught good dogmatic and moral theology in seminary, but they were not taught why they were using the traditional liturgy. So you get a wide variety of priests in the FSSP, whereas SSPX priests generally have a common understanding of the situation in the Church.

That is not to say that the SSPX is a permanent solution to the crises in the Church or that it is a flawless organization, but as long as the various crises remain in the Church I find the SSPX position to be the most logical for our time.

I'd like to finish with saying it's been years since I was on NationStates so I'm looking forward to getting back into it.

[Luminesa]

It grows in a lab, not on people..

You know, lots of vegans are excited about this.

But, this just means that farm animals have lost their usefulness to people. I imagine if we did fully embrace lab-grown meat a good few animals we raise for meat will decline and possibly go extinct.

Currently, a lot of animals we consume are generally not considered endangered. Domestic cattle, chickens, and pigs are around in pretty enormous populations, and we could still very well keep them for other purposes. However, some animals are not so lucky. The southern bluefin tuna is considered "critically endangered", and much of this is due to overfishing. Their population trend, according to the IUCN Red List, is "decreasing", as well.
https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/21858/9328286

Deciding which animals can be released into the wild and which should be kept in captivity really depends on re-introduction programs available for endangered and vulnerable species, and on how successful they are. To tie this into the Christian virtue of stewardship, it's always good for Christians to pay attention to endangered animals and to stand against overfishing, poaching, illegal hunting, and dangerous forms of fishing. It's a way of taking care of the earth and of making sure all people can have the resources they need to survive.

[Luminesa]

Yes, that's true. My priest when I'm at school is a stickler to the letter of liturgy and explained why communion had to be distributed in the mouth during the All Saints mass he did last year in the extraordinary form. Which technically he wasn't supposed to do given the regulations at the time, so he said "Just don't tell the Bishop I did this". He's a great guy.

SSPX, huh? Why not FSSP or ICKSP? Both of the latter are invested in Traditional Catholicism without the ambiguous canonical status, which unfortunately hasn't really been resolved yet for the SSPX.

I used to be heavily enamored with the FSSP when I converted to Catholicism around 4 years ago, but as I research more and more I find it difficult to survive as a faithful Catholic in the canonical structure. It's a bigger problem for clergy, less so for me as a layman. For example, my priest/spiritual director is a former FSSP priest who is now diocesan. It is difficult if not impossible to be a truly faithful, orthodox, traditional priest in the canonical structure of the Latin Church. Currently my priest is not a pastor of a parish so he offers the Tridentine Mass and sacraments exclusively and refuses to offer the Novus Ordo Mass ever again; his last parish assignment red-pilled him. He preached on basic Catholic doctrinal teaching and his parishioners always threw a fit. Even when you present N.O. Catholics with authentic Catholicism, they reject it. Finally he came to the conclusion that trying to teach people who don't want to be taught didn't make any sense. As the Gospel says, "And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words: going forth out of that house or city shake off the dust from your feet." (Matthew 10:14 DRA) My priest never turned back.

The main issue I take with the canonical institutes like the FSSP/ICKSP is that they officially compromise. E.g., the FSSP's agreement with Rome officially gives credence to Vatican II and the New Mass, their priests must concelebrate the N.O. Chrism Mass, they must be available to offer the New Mass upon request, etc. Now, some of these things are just on paper but still. Compared to the SSPX, the FSSP has no common spirituality other than the traditional liturgy. My priest says that when he was in the Fraternity he was taught good dogmatic and moral theology in seminary, but they were not taught why they were using the traditional liturgy. So you get a wide variety of priests in the FSSP, whereas SSPX priests generally have a common understanding of the situation in the Church.

That is not to say that the SSPX is a permanent solution to the crises in the Church or that it is a flawless organization, but as long as the various crises remain in the Church I find the SSPX position to be the most logical for our time.

I'd like to finish with saying it's been years since I was on NationStates so I'm looking forward to getting back into it.

Welcome back! We hope you'll enjoy your stay!

[Auristania]

Thanks. But he doesn't accept cash donations. Food or nothing

Plan 1) Buy the lamb, go to a butcher, have the lamb cut up into dinner size chunks and donate the food. Maybe butcher's wages ~ $50. Go to a butcher and ask the price.

Plan 2) You budgeted for $200. Goats are cheaper than sheep. Maybe goat price + butcher's wage ~ $200.

Plan 3) Just go to a shop and buy food. If I were God, I would forgive you. Everyone says God is morally superior to me, therefore God will CERTAINLY forgive you.

Plan 4) Sacrifice thy first-born

Plan 5) When the Angel of the Lord says it was just a test, then sacrifice thy first-born anyway.

[Lower Nubia]

Thanks. But he doesn't accept cash donations. Food or nothing

Plan 1) Buy the lamb, go to a butcher, have the lamb cut up into dinner size chunks and donate the food. Maybe butcher's wages ~ $50. Go to a butcher and ask the price.

Plan 2) You budgeted for $200. Goats are cheaper than sheep. Maybe goat price + butcher's wage ~ $200.

Plan 3) Just go to a shop and buy food. If I were God, I would forgive you. Everyone says God is morally superior to me, therefore God will CERTAINLY forgive you.

Plan 4) Sacrifice thy first-born

Plan 5) When the Angel of the Lord says it was just a test, then sacrifice thy first-born anyway.

And we’re back for another episode of: “CDT out of context!”

Tonight, wages of butchers? Sacrificing your new born? Cost of a cut of lamb? Find out!

[North Washington Republic]

Yes, that's true. My priest when I'm at school is a stickler to the letter of liturgy and explained why communion had to be distributed in the mouth during the All Saints mass he did last year in the extraordinary form. Which technically he wasn't supposed to do given the regulations at the time, so he said "Just don't tell the Bishop I did this". He's a great guy.

SSPX, huh? Why not FSSP or ICKSP? Both of the latter are invested in Traditional Catholicism without the ambiguous canonical status, which unfortunately hasn't really been resolved yet for the SSPX.

I used to be heavily enamored with the FSSP when I converted to Catholicism around 4 years ago, but as I research more and more I find it difficult to survive as a faithful Catholic in the canonical structure. It's a bigger problem for clergy, less so for me as a layman. For example, my priest/spiritual director is a former FSSP priest who is now diocesan. It is difficult if not impossible to be a truly faithful, orthodox, traditional priest in the canonical structure of the Latin Church. Currently my priest is not a pastor of a parish so he offers the Tridentine Mass and sacraments exclusively and refuses to offer the Novus Ordo Mass ever again; his last parish assignment red-pilled him. He preached on basic Catholic doctrinal teaching and his parishioners always threw a fit. Even when you present N.O. Catholics with authentic Catholicism, they reject it. Finally he came to the conclusion that trying to teach people who don't want to be taught didn't make any sense. As the Gospel says, "And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words: going forth out of that house or city shake off the dust from your feet." (Matthew 10:14 DRA) My priest never turned back.

The main issue I take with the canonical institutes like the FSSP/ICKSP is that they officially compromise. E.g., the FSSP's agreement with Rome officially gives credence to Vatican II and the New Mass, their priests must concelebrate the N.O. Chrism Mass, they must be available to offer the New Mass upon request, etc. Now, some of these things are just on paper but still. Compared to the SSPX, the FSSP has no common spirituality other than the traditional liturgy. My priest says that when he was in the Fraternity he was taught good dogmatic and moral theology in seminary, but they were not taught why they were using the traditional liturgy. So you get a wide variety of priests in the FSSP, whereas SSPX priests generally have a common understanding of the situation in the Church.

That is not to say that the SSPX is a permanent solution to the crises in the Church or that it is a flawless organization, but as long as the various crises remain in the Church I find the SSPX position to be the most logical for our time.

I'd like to finish with saying it's been years since I was on NationStates so I'm looking forward to getting back into it.

The second Vatican Council is a valid council. To reject it is being schismatic. Doesn’t matter if you are coming from a conservative or traditionalist point of view. Schism is schism.

[Hochstift Verden]

I used to be heavily enamored with the FSSP when I converted to Catholicism around 4 years ago, but as I research more and more I find it difficult to survive as a faithful Catholic in the canonical structure. It's a bigger problem for clergy, less so for me as a layman. For example, my priest/spiritual director is a former FSSP priest who is now diocesan. It is difficult if not impossible to be a truly faithful, orthodox, traditional priest in the canonical structure of the Latin Church. Currently my priest is not a pastor of a parish so he offers the Tridentine Mass and sacraments exclusively and refuses to offer the Novus Ordo Mass ever again; his last parish assignment red-pilled him. He preached on basic Catholic doctrinal teaching and his parishioners always threw a fit. Even when you present N.O. Catholics with authentic Catholicism, they reject it. Finally he came to the conclusion that trying to teach people who don't want to be taught didn't make any sense. As the Gospel says, "And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words: going forth out of that house or city shake off the dust from your feet." (Matthew 10:14 DRA) My priest never turned back.

The main issue I take with the canonical institutes like the FSSP/ICKSP is that they officially compromise. E.g., the FSSP's agreement with Rome officially gives credence to Vatican II and the New Mass, their priests must concelebrate the N.O. Chrism Mass, they must be available to offer the New Mass upon request, etc. Now, some of these things are just on paper but still. Compared to the SSPX, the FSSP has no common spirituality other than the traditional liturgy. My priest says that when he was in the Fraternity he was taught good dogmatic and moral theology in seminary, but they were not taught why they were using the traditional liturgy. So you get a wide variety of priests in the FSSP, whereas SSPX priests generally have a common understanding of the situation in the Church.

That is not to say that the SSPX is a permanent solution to the crises in the Church or that it is a flawless organization, but as long as the various crises remain in the Church I find the SSPX position to be the most logical for our time.

I'd like to finish with saying it's been years since I was on NationStates so I'm looking forward to getting back into it.

The second Vatican Council is a valid council. To reject it is being schismatic. Doesn’t matter if you are coming from a conservative or traditionalist point of view. Schism is schism.

Before you make such a bold pronouncement maybe you should study the issue. Vatican II doesn't define doctrine nor condemn heresy, which is the usual particularity associated with ecumenical councils. Even Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI both stated that the council was "pastoral" and non-binding in matters of faith and morals. Also you are conflating schism with something else. Schism is the actual rejection of the authority of the Petrine office; something which I do not do. The current Code of Canon Law confirms this. For more information you can check out Fr. Gregory Hesse, STD, JCD.

[North Washington Republic]

The second Vatican Council is a valid council. To reject it is being schismatic. Doesn’t matter if you are coming from a conservative or traditionalist point of view. Schism is schism.

Before you make such a bold pronouncement maybe you should study the issue. Vatican II doesn't define doctrine nor condemn heresy, which is the usual particularity associated with ecumenical councils. Even Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI both stated that the council was "pastoral" and non-binding in matters of faith and morals. Also you are conflating schism with something else. Schism is the actual rejection of the authority of the Petrine office; something which I do not do. The current Code of Canon Law confirms this. For more information you can check out Fr. Gregory Hesse, STD, JCD.

LOL, when is as a trad, I listened Fr. Hesse. And looking back at it, he was borderline schismatic. The Novus Ordo is as Catholic as the Tridentine Mass. Priests committing liturgical abuses doesn’t invalidate the Novus Ordo as a whole. To say that the Novus Ordo is less Catholic or not Catholic at all is being schismatic.

[Tarsonis]

The second Vatican Council is a valid council. To reject it is being schismatic. Doesn’t matter if you are coming from a conservative or traditionalist point of view. Schism is schism.

Before you make such a bold pronouncement maybe you should study the issue. Vatican II doesn't define doctrine nor condemn heresy, which is the usual particularity associated with ecumenical councils. Even Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI both stated that the council was "pastoral" and non-binding in matters of faith and morals. Also you are conflating schism with something else. Schism is the actual rejection of the authority of the Petrine office; something which I do not do. The current Code of Canon Law confirms this. For more information you can check out Fr. Gregory Hesse, STD, JCD.

I've studied the issue, and written several papers on it. Vatican 2 is a valid Ecumenical council. While differing from previous Ecumenical Councils in that it was not set out to expressly to deal with theological issues, there are ecclesiastical and theological proclamations made by it. Vatican 2 is binding for all Catholics, and in accordance with canon law, to deny this is to deny the authority of the Holy See.

Do not waltz in here and tell people to study. They've been here far longer than you have. Their credentials are established to the community, yours are not.

[North Washington Republic]

Before you make such a bold pronouncement maybe you should study the issue. Vatican II doesn't define doctrine nor condemn heresy, which is the usual particularity associated with ecumenical councils. Even Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI both stated that the council was "pastoral" and non-binding in matters of faith and morals. Also you are conflating schism with something else. Schism is the actual rejection of the authority of the Petrine office; something which I do not do. The current Code of Canon Law confirms this. For more information you can check out Fr. Gregory Hesse, STD, JCD.

I've studied the issue, and written several papers on it. Vatican 2 is a valid Ecumenical council. While differing from previous Ecumenical Councils in that it was not set out to expressly to deal with theological issues, there are ecclesiastical and theological proclamations made by it. Vatican 2 is binding for all Catholics, and in accordance with canon law, to deny this is to deny the authority of the Holy See.

Do not waltz in here and tell people to study. They've been here far longer than you have. Their credentials are established to the community, yours are not.

Well, I’m always up to study more. Anyway, you’re right. The second Vatican Council was a Catholic council. SSPX are being no better than the Old Catholics that rejected Vatican I.

Speaking of Old Catholics, I’ve been reading about independent sede Bishops, and A LOT of them got their holy orders from Old Catholic Bishops.

[Sundiata]

Yes, that's true. My priest when I'm at school is a stickler to the letter of liturgy and explained why communion had to be distributed in the mouth during the All Saints mass he did last year in the extraordinary form. Which technically he wasn't supposed to do given the regulations at the time, so he said "Just don't tell the Bishop I did this". He's a great guy.

SSPX, huh? Why not FSSP or ICKSP? Both of the latter are invested in Traditional Catholicism without the ambiguous canonical status, which unfortunately hasn't really been resolved yet for the SSPX.

I used to be heavily enamored with the FSSP when I converted to Catholicism around 4 years ago, but as I research more and more I find it difficult to survive as a faithful Catholic in the canonical structure. It's a bigger problem for clergy, less so for me as a layman. For example, my priest/spiritual director is a former FSSP priest who is now diocesan. It is difficult if not impossible to be a truly faithful, orthodox, traditional priest in the canonical structure of the Latin Church. Currently my priest is not a pastor of a parish so he offers the Tridentine Mass and sacraments exclusively and refuses to offer the Novus Ordo Mass ever again; his last parish assignment red-pilled him. He preached on basic Catholic doctrinal teaching and his parishioners always threw a fit. Even when you present N.O. Catholics with authentic Catholicism, they reject it. Finally he came to the conclusion that trying to teach people who don't want to be taught didn't make any sense. As the Gospel says, "And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words: going forth out of that house or city shake off the dust from your feet." (Matthew 10:14 DRA) My priest never turned back.

The main issue I take with the canonical institutes like the FSSP/ICKSP is that they officially compromise. E.g., the FSSP's agreement with Rome officially gives credence to Vatican II and the New Mass, their priests must concelebrate the N.O. Chrism Mass, they must be available to offer the New Mass upon request, etc. Now, some of these things are just on paper but still. Compared to the SSPX, the FSSP has no common spirituality other than the traditional liturgy. My priest says that when he was in the Fraternity he was taught good dogmatic and moral theology in seminary, but they were not taught why they were using the traditional liturgy. So you get a wide variety of priests in the FSSP, whereas SSPX priests generally have a common understanding of the situation in the Church.

That is not to say that the SSPX is a permanent solution to the crises in the Church or that it is a flawless organization, but as long as the various crises remain in the Church I find the SSPX position to be the most logical for our time.

I'd like to finish with saying it's been years since I was on NationStates so I'm looking forward to getting back into it.

I don't mind the mass in English or any other language, other than that, I largely agree. Still, I prefer the mass in Latin and don't reject Vatican II.

[The Archregimancy]

Although I’m not able to physically attend church right now, I continue to feel confident that converting to orthodox Christianity is the right decision. If I end up staying at home for a while after this summer I think I will ask the church I went to Pascha at about becoming a catechumen.

Good, good.

Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen.

[Luminesa]

A meeting between Pope Francis and First Nations leaders has been scheduled for December!:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6084245

Let us pray that this meeting will be productive, will allow for voices to be heard, and will start both sides on the road to peace.

[Salus Maior]

More Churches are being torched in Canada.

[Old Tyrannia]

More Churches are being torched in Canada.

People's frustration with the church's response to the recent revelations over residential schools in Canada is perfectly understandable, but it's regrettable that anyone would resort to actions like this that primarily harm lay Catholics within their own communities. From the article it doesn't sound like the fire being reported has been confirmed to be intentional yet, but in light of the other arson attacks on churches in recent days it seems quite likely.

[Salus Maior]

More Churches are being torched in Canada.

People's frustration with the church's response to the recent revelations over residential schools in Canada is perfectly understandable, but it's regrettable that anyone would resort to actions like this that primarily harm lay Catholics within their own communities. From the article it doesn't sound like the fire being reported has been confirmed to be intentional yet, but in light of the other arson attacks on churches in recent days it seems quite likely.

I mean, in like a few weeks 8 parishes have been set on fire throughout Canada so I think it's pretty obvious that it's arson.