Is Pope Francis Bringing Christianity Back?

[MiserereNobis]

You received rep points for this and I would like to "get it" too, I see the gospel, guessing the Catholicism but I have nothing on the OZ, please let me in on it.

 

Those words come from "Little Shop of Horrors."  The movie was directed by Frank Oz.  Seymour has decide between killing people to keep his plant alive and make lots of money, or stay poor and stuck in skid row.  The "chorus" girls (it's a great nod to Greek plays) keep reminding him that the meek shall inherit.

 

A rather obscure allusion, I readily admit

 

[MiserereNobis]

Rory pointed out the difference between public and private revelation.  That's the key.  There is also a difference between the Bible and Sacred Tradition.  Sacred Tradition never contradicts the Bible, but furthers it, develops it, expands it, and explains it.  That's why there have been so many Ecumenical Councils over the past 2000 years, plus Papal declarations.  Using LDS terms, you'd probably call it continuing revelation.  We just use different terms.

 

In fact, with the exception of Joseph Smith and probably Brigham Young, I'd say that, practically speaking, what the Pope does and what the LDS prophet does are the exact same thing:  developing their various faith traditions, applying general principles to specific time conditions, and trying to lead their people to God.

[Yirgacheffe]

Those words come from "Little Shop of Horrors."  The movie was directed by Frank Oz.  Seymour has decide between killing people to keep his plant alive and make lots of money, or stay poor and stuck in skid row.  The "chorus" girls (it's a great nod to Greek plays) keep reminding him that the meek shall inherit.

 

A rather obscure allusion, I readily admit

Ah I was thinking of the merry old land of Oz, (as a kid I read all my grandmothers Oz books) thanks.

[jwhitlock]

Rory pointed out the difference between public and private revelation.  That's the key.  There is also a difference between the Bible and Sacred Tradition.  Sacred Tradition never contradicts the Bible, but furthers it, develops it, expands it, and explains it.  That's why there have been so many Ecumenical Councils over the past 2000 years, plus Papal declarations.  Using LDS terms, you'd probably call it continuing revelation.  We just use different terms.

 

In fact, with the exception of Joseph Smith and probably Brigham Young, I'd say that, practically speaking, what the Pope does and what the LDS prophet does are the exact same thing:  developing their various faith traditions, applying general principles to specific time conditions, and trying to lead their people to God.

 

Understood, with the exception that we understand that the type of revelation Joseph experienced was not limited to him, but has been experienced by prophets since his time and up to the current time.

 

The 1918 revelation to Joseph F. Smith is one that comes to mind; it was eventually canonized as part of scripture. Is there something comparable in the Catholic tradition?

 

In such a discussion comparing the Catholic and LDS faiths, terminology does become important. I find that LDS members and Catholics have very different perspectives, many times, as to what that process of ongoing direction from God actually means.

 

For instance, the Catholic church may officially recognize manifestations or spiritual events, including revelations, but I believe they are not recognized as binding or definitive as far as the theology of the church is concerned. The LDS church doesn't officially recognize any revelation or manifestation received by members; it only recognizes that such things occur and are binding only within the steward ship of the individual receiving them.

 

Also, it appears to me that Catholic theology (and this is probably a gross simplification) consists of the Revelation of God through the scriptures and Christ, pronouncements given by Papal authority, and interpretation by theologians to understand both of those. This appears to be the official Catholic church process of theology; more active revelation as experienced by individuals (including theologians) does not modify that process, but is rather applicable personally or generally as encouragement (not binding commandment) to come closer to Christ.

 

3DOP expanded on this in his post in his thread, but it still sounds almost like the official Catholic church theology works with a different set of rules preclude any definitive new revelation, as opposed to rules that individuals can receive more direct heavenly guidance for their own situations.

 

Again, looking for thoughts from the Catholics here on whether I'm close to the mark, or if not, why not.

[MiserereNobis]

As you must know, if the lds church would have a pope francis type figure, most exlds on the internet would ask the lds church to put their money where their mouth is: begin to sell assets to help the poor.

 

I imagine Mormon temples are rather expensive.  They look beautiful and appear to be made of high quality materials.  Should the LDS church stop building temples and use that money instead for the poor?  Should it sell off current temples?  What about the center of downtown Salt Lake City.  That's some prime real estate there!

 

What do you think?

 

Let's not forget that Christ allowed himself to be anointed with oil that cost a year's wages, despite the indignant complaints of those around him (including the apostles) that it could have been sold and the money given to the poor.

Edited October 25, 2015 by MiserereNobis

[MiserereNobis]

Understood, with the exception that we understand that the type of revelation Joseph experienced was not limited to him, but has been experienced by prophets since his time and up to the current time.

 

The 1918 revelation to Joseph F. Smith is one that comes to mind; it was eventually canonized as part of scripture. Is there something comparable in the Catholic tradition?

 

The Bible is a closed canon, so we do not add to it.  However, the declarations of the Ecumenical Councils are dogma, so even though they are not in the Bible, they are canon (in fact, each declaration of a Council is often called a canon).  There are also ex cathedra ("from the chair" meaning from the chair of Peter) declarations that the Pope can make on his own without a Council which are also infallible dogma.  The last one of these to occur was Pope Pius XII's declaration in 1950 on the Assumption of Mary.

 

The reason I singled out Joseph Smith as an exception was because he was creating (restoring) a faith tradition, so there was little tradition yet.  The leaders who followed him would stay within that tradition, just like the Popes stay within the Catholic tradition (and, are in fact, the guardian of it).  This is germane to my point that, practically speaking, LDS Prophets and Catholic Popes act in a very similar way.

 

 

In such a discussion comparing the Catholic and LDS faiths, terminology does become important. I find that LDS members and Catholics have very different perspectives, many times, as to what that process of ongoing direction from God actually means.

 

True, but sometimes those perspectives appear more different than they actually are because of the terminology, when the basic practicalities are similar.

 

 

For instance, the Catholic church may officially recognize manifestations or spiritual events, including revelations, but I believe they are not recognized as binding or definitive as far as the theology of the church is concerned.

 

The Catholic Church can declare a private revelation as worthy of belief.  While the private revelation itself does not enter into the deposit of faith, of which belief is required, a declaration that it is worthy of belief pretty much says you should believe it, though we're not going to torture you and put you in the iron maiden if you don't (oh, wait, this isn't the anti-Catholicism thread )

 

A famous example of this is the Fatima apparitions, where the Virgin Mary appeared to three children.  The apparitions and the teachings that accompanied them were declared canonically worthy of belief and have been supported strongly by subsequent Popes.

 

 

The LDS church doesn't officially recognize any revelation or manifestation received by members; it only recognizes that such things occur and are binding only within the steward ship of the individual receiving them.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the doctrine of Heavenly Mother originally come from a woman who wrote a song about it and then the LDS church authorities declared that to be correct?

 

This seems similar to declaring a private revelation as worthy of belief.

 

 

Also, it appears to me that Catholic theology (and this is probably a gross simplification) consists of the Revelation of God through the scriptures and Christ, pronouncements given by Papal authority, and interpretation by theologians to understand both of those.

 

Yes, and Ecumenical Councils, where the bishops gather under the direction of the Pope.

 

 

This appears to be the official Catholic church process of theology; more active revelation as experienced by individuals (including theologians) does not modify that process, but is rather applicable personally or generally as encouragement (not binding commandment) to come closer to Christ.

 

Kind of.  I've already given the example of a private revelation being declared worthy of belief.  But there is also the influence that the private revelation can have on the process of Church theology.  St. Francis was told by Christ to "rebuild my Church."  At first he took it to mean a specific church building, but later it became quite clear that Christ wanted to infuse Franciscan spirituality into the Church itself, which has had a profound effect on the Catholic Church.

 

 

3DOP expanded on this in his post in his thread, but it still sounds almost like the official Catholic church theology works with a different set of rules preclude any definitive new revelation, as opposed to rules that individuals can receive more direct heavenly guidance for their own situations.

 

The key is what do we mean by "definitive new revelation."  Over Her 2000 year history, the Catholic Church has declared many many dogmas which are now part of the deposit of faith.  From one point-of-view, some of these declarations could be considered new, insomuch as they were not there before and there was no belief required in them.  In fact, a Catholic of the 6th century might be surprised at some of the dogmas that the Church has today, because those ideas weren't being discussed in his time.  We don't say that these are "new," however, just that they hadn't yet been explored, developed, and explained.  When the time is right (usually because of a dispute that arises), then the doctrine will be defined.  So, like the LDS, we believe that God "will yet [guide the development, explanation, and definition] of many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God"  (yes, I'm amazed that the phrase stuck with me, too -- I must have heard a few times here and there -- but I did have to look it up for the exact wording).

 

In other words, there will surely be more Councils and Papal declarations with the stamp of infallibility to help us better get to God.  And I say the sooner the better -- we need a Council to help clear up some of the ambiguity left over from our last Council, Vatican II

Edited October 25, 2015 by MiserereNobis

[Stargazer]

We won't have another ice age in the next decade. If it is true that our planet was heading back into the next glaciation, it probably was a very slow process. The problem with the warming is that it is really fast. Humanity has never experienced a global warming this fast.   1 degree of warming in just one century is super fast. If you understand evolutionary biology, you will understand that a rapid global climate change will not be good for many animals and plants.

I'm aware of all that. What I'm saying is that something like 8,000 years ago, with the birth of agriculture, humans have been messing with the global climate all unawares, which according to the study I read, has been actively interfering with the return of glaciation. And yes, industrialization on top of agriculture has caused a recent massive spike in warming. No argument here.

I don't disagree that evolution doesn't work this fast, but it doesn't need to. As the arctic warms up, species which have been more comfortable further south will gradually move north. Any many animal as well as plant species will adapt -- while others die off locally. I do wonder how deciduous trees react to a year-round warm climate? Has anyone experimented with planting oaks and maples on the equator?

Well, changes they are a-coming, and despite everything that Pope Francis or even President Monson say, I don't think we're going to be able to stop the juggernaut. We will have to learn to roll with the punches.

That's all I'm trying to get across.

And you could better help the poor of many developing nations if you would give them adequate land to farm, or improved their countries' economies so that there would be well-paying work for them to do. And education. And for many of them, freedom to self-determine.

 

http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/files/gattuso150703.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22066018

Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived?

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v471/n7336/full/nature09678.html

 

The Earth's Sixth Mass Extinction May Be Underway

I would love to check out your references, but time is at a premium at this moment, so will have to look at them later. Thanks for posting them.

Edited October 25, 2015 by Stargazer

[TheSkepticChristian]

I'm aware of all that. What I'm saying is that something like 8,000 years ago, with the birth of agriculture, humans have been messing with the global climate all unawares, which according to the study I read, has been actively interfering with the return of glaciation. And yes, industrialization on top agriculture has caused a massive spike in warming.

 

So when was the next ice age suppose to happen? In the year 4000 AD? 5000 AD?

 

What does past climate change tell us about global warming?

When CO2 levels jumped rapidly, the global warming that resulted was highly disruptive and sometimes caused mass extinctions...there have been several times in Earth’s past when Earth's temperature jumped abruptly, in much the same way as they are doing today. Those times were caused by large and rapid greenhouse gas emissions, just like humans are causing today. Those abrupt global warming events were almost always highly destructive for life,

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

 

Please read a Scientific Paper 

Rapid climate changes more deadly than asteroid impacts in Earth’s past – study shows

http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/early/2014/04/22/G35434.1.abstract

Edited October 25, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Stargazer]

I imagine Mormon temples are rather expensive.  They look beautiful and appear to be made of high quality materials.  Should the LDS church stop building temples and use that money instead for the poor?  Should it sell off current temples?  What about the center of downtown Salt Lake City.  That's some prime real estate there!

 

What do you think?

 

Let's not forget that Christ allowed himself to be anointed with oil that cost a year's wages, despite the indignant complaints of those around him (including the apostles) that it could have been sold and the money given to the poor.

I don't think he was advocating that the RCC do this. I think he was making the same point that some of our ex-lds (and progressives) have been saying stuff like this, and perhaps there will be some backslid Catholics who may be coming forth making similar demands. Or at least that's how I read that.

[Damien the Leper]

Ah...yes. There seems little likelihood that Pope Francis would be mistaken as a disciple of any of those. What about a different, more famous Karl? How do you think Marxism lines up with the Gospel?

Marxism is not utopian either. Marxism, nor libertarianism, harmonize with the Gospel or Kingdom.

[Damien the Leper]

Val has referred to the Pope as Pope Francis elsewhere so perhaps it was an autocorrect of a typo.

I don't think Val intends to be disrespectful to the Pope; now Pres. Monson...Val's not LDS.

I've used both. I love the Pope and I mean no disrespect to him. I won't disrespect Pres. Monson either.

[TheSkepticChristian]

I'm aware of all that.

I repeat 

 

Rapid climate changes more deadly than asteroid impacts in Earth’s past – study shows

http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/early/2014/04/22/G35434.1.abstract

 

The evidence is in the past, not in computer models.  

[Stargazer]

So when was the next ice age suppose to happen? In the year 4000 AD? 5000 AD?

You're very dismissive of this for some reason. And you seem to believe that I don't believe in global warming, or that humans are having an effect upon it. You're wrong as to what I believe, if this is what you think.

You need to understand that we are currently in the middle of an Ice Age, one that has lasted for the past 2.58 million years. During this ice age there have been interglacial periods of mild weather, with the last glacial period lasting from 110,000 to 12,000 BP, followed by the current interglacial period. Back in the 1970's there was concern we were heading into the next glaciation, just based on what was believed to be a reliable duration of interglacials of about 10,000 years. Since the last glacial had ended something like 10,000 years ago, they believed we were about to head into the next glaciation period.

In the time since then, our understanding of these interglacials has increased, and it is now known that while the previous interglacial period (before 110,000 BP) had lasted a mere 10,000 years, it was not necessarily the same as interglacials before that. The previous interglacial period, whose interglacial optimum was from 131 to 114k BP, the Eemian Stage, sea level was about 8 meters higher than today and the water temperature of the North Sea was about 2 °C higher than at present. We're much cooler now than things were then -- without humans to influence it.

You scoff at 4000 AD, but you don't understand that without the moederate AGW starting 8,000 years ago because of the rise of agriculture, we would have been already falling into the next glacial period right now -- in other words, if our distant ancestors had remained hunter-gatherers, we'd be up to our behinds in ice and snow right this moment. The current elevated CO₂ level is in fact ensuring that we won't see the next glacial for at least another 15,000 years.

Here's how things have been going for the last 250K years:

 

I want you to particularly note the previous interglacial, from about 130K to 120k years ago. It spiked high, then came down to a plateau before rapidly dropping off towards what is to us the last glacial period. But what do we see during our interglacial period? We see an initial high spike in temperatures, but then instead of a brief plateau or a gradual downturn, it suddenly goes horizontal! Compare that to the previous interglacials back to 250,000 years ago. I'm telling you, Skeptic, that if it wasn't for us humans monkeying with the climate, initially through agriculture and then later through industrialization, there's a good chance that we'd be being pushed towards the equator by ice right freaking now.

In short, if we're causing this warming climate, which I've become convinced at this point that we are, it might be inconvenient for some of us, but what would have been much worse would have been going back into the deep freeze. What will life be like when we can grow two crops of wheat on the Great Plains each year, instead of only one? Or when the Canadian tundra is capable of a full growing season instead of the abbreviated one it has now? Change isn't always bad, although there are those who think any change will be to the worst.

My entire point is this: if we can't stop the onset of warming, we can at least learn how to deal with it. And I think that the poor of the world may find it not so hard to deal with as the Pope thinks.

 

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

 

Please read a Scientific Paper 

Rapid climate changes more deadly than asteroid impacts in Earth’s past – study shows

http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/early/2014/04/22/G35434.1.abstract

OK, let's assume that rapid climate changes are more dangerous than asteroid impacts. What if we can't stop it? Humans are supposed to be good at adapting -- that's why there are 7 billion of us and growing. We live practically everywhere, in every kind of environment. Don't tell me we can't adapt. It's the stationary plants that may suffer, or the dumb animals who cannot migrate that may suffer. But even then, we can probably do something to help them adapt. And nature has always found a balance.

Because there is virtually no chance at all that we are going to be able to stop global warming. Unless we can suddenly transition onto all-nuclear power plants to provide power -- but even then, our farming methods would still keep the climate warm. We're stuck with it.

And stop trying to convince me of things that I keep saying I am convinced of. It's very tiresome.

Edited October 26, 2015 by Stargazer

[Dgal]

Pope Francis, though, seems to have a romanticized view of poverty that borders on considering it a wonderful thing.

 

Well, he is a Jesuit. He has taken a vow of poverty.

[Robert F. Smith]

..............................................................................  

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the doctrine of Heavenly Mother originally come from a woman who wrote a song about it and then the LDS church authorities declared that to be correct?

......................................................................................   

Wrong.  Although Eliza R. Snow was brilliant and very influential (she was a plural wife of Joseph Smith and sister of the Prophet Lorenzo Snow), she and other women had already been instructed in the doctrine of Heavenly Mother by Joseph and others (when Joseph was killed, she became a plural wife of Brigham Young).  She was the poet laureate of Mormondom in her day, and that particular poem set to music is one of our most beloved hymns -- which can be considered official liturgy in my estimation (see the intro to our LDS Hymnbook).

[Robert F. Smith]

Marxism is not utopian either. Marxism, nor libertarianism, harmonize with the Gospel or Kingdom.

Actually, Marxism is very utopian and millenialist -- in which communism means automatic harmony in a wonderful classless society, which Lord Bertrand Russell considered a religious view.  And, of course, Russell considered religion to be dangerous.  Very dangerous.

[TheSkepticChristian]

The current elevated CO₂ level is in fact ensuring that we won't see the next glacial for at least another 15,000 years.

 

Okay fair enough, but it is already enough. Taking medicine is good, taking too much medicine is not good. 

So our current CO2 levels are enough, but it will be bad if they keep rising. 

 

 

OK, let's assume that rapid climate changes are more dangerous than asteroid impacts. What if we can't stop it? Humans are supposed to be good at adapting -- that's why there are 7 billion of us and growing. 

 

Yes we can adapt, we are very intelligent. However, it will affect the poor, and thousands of animals and plants. Climate Change will cost $43 trillion dollars, it will be very expensive. Read Paper 

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2807.html

 

 

Because there is virtually no chance at all that we are going to be able to stop global warming. Unless we can suddenly transition onto all-nuclear power plants to provide power -- but even then, our farming methods would still keep the climate warm. We're stuck with it.

 

We need Science. We need to make fusion work, that is the solution. 

[Robert F. Smith]

........................................................................

Because there is virtually no chance at all that we are going to be able to stop global warming. Unless we can suddenly transition onto all-nuclear power plants to provide power -- but even then, our farming methods would still keep the climate warm. We're stuck with it.

....................................................................   

Yes, and a lot of humans are going to die from the catastrophic effects of global warming.  Perhaps that is the apocalypse.

[Robert F. Smith]

Okay fair enough, but it is already enough. Taking medicine is good, taking too much medicine is not good. 

So our current CO2 levels are enough, but it will be bad if they keep rising. 

 

 

 

Yes we can adapt, we are very intelligent. However, it will affect the poor, and thousands of animals and plants. Climate Change will cost $43 trillion dollars, it will be very expensive. Read Paper 

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2807.html

 

 

 

We need Science. We need to make fusion work, that is the solution. 

We won't be able to adapt quickly enough, although fusion is an answer in the long term -- it will give us unlimited energy and allow us to do some terraforming (on a grand scale).  Billions will die in the interim.

[jwhitlock]

 

In other words, there will surely be more Councils and Papal declarations with the stamp of infallibility to help us better get to God.  And I say the sooner the better -- we need a Council to help clear up some of the ambiguity left over from our last Council, Vatican II

 

Thanks for the clarifications.

 

From the LDS end, Robert Smith cleared up the misconception about Eliza R. Snow's poem.

[TheSkepticChristian]

We won't be able to adapt quickly enough, although fusion is an answer in the long term -- it will give us unlimited energy and allow us to do some terraforming (on a grand scale).  Billions will die in the interim.

 

That is a scary possibility. The worst possibility is that our planet becomes like Venus, but thank goodness there is not enough evidence for that.   

[Stargazer]

Okay fair enough, but it is already enough. Taking medicine is good, taking too much medicine is not good. 

So our current CO2 levels are enough, but it will be bad if they keep rising. 

 

Yes we can adapt, we are very intelligent. However, it will affect the poor, and thousands of animals and plants. Climate Change will cost $43 trillion dollars, it will be very expensive. Read Paper 

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2807.html 

 

We need Science. We need to make fusion work, that is the solution.

I won't argue with you; you are correct that there will be upheavals if things keep going the way they seem to be going. But I don't think we have any guarantees that things will continue the way they seem to. The world's climate is cannot by any stretch of the imagination be reduced to a simple model. What I am most afraid of is the tendency of politicians to be swayed by "solutions" that look good from some politically correct viewpoint but that don't actually work in reality. And I am afraid that such "solutions" may cost enormously in terms of human suffering, money, and opportunity, and then don't work, or make things worse.

And I absolutely agree with you that we need science to make fusion work. I believe that this will eventually be successful in development. But how long will it take?

To be totally speculative, and I can't even imagine how it could be done, imagine the great use it would be to have a black hole for energy production!

If we could create (or capture) a small black hole, then we could feed matter into its event horizon in a controlled flow, and thus produce prodigious amounts of energy. In fact, we could feed waste material of all sorts into its event horizon and kill two birds with one stone. It seems possible to capture a small black hole because black holes actually have electrical charges, and we could contain such a hole by surrounding it with a magnetic bottle (actually, a spherical bottle). In order to be successful, however, the hole would have to be quite small, or else the energy needed to keep the hole centered within a magnetic field, and to keep the system in a stationary position would be prohibitive. Fortunately, the energy available from allowing matter to fall into the black hole could easily be used for this stationkeeping. The problem inherent to this idea is that due to Hawking Radiation, very small black holes (with the mass of, say, Mauna Kea in Hawaii), would evaporate in very short order (in seconds), radiating unimaginable amounts of energy, meaning that any such holes that might have been created in the Big Bang disappeared long ago. You'd have to have a black hole with a mass around that of the Moon in order to be stable enough to be usable. So, looking at the mass of the Moon as a lower-limit on size (and possibly an upper limit as well!), that seems like quite a tall order.

In fact, the most convenient way to go about this would be to take the Moon and squeeze it down until it collapsed into a black hole. A black-hole Moon would still be able to raise tides on Earth as before, so that's good, but it would no longer shine in the night (because it would be about a tenth of a millimeter in diameter, and surrounded by the structure of a magnetic bottle energy injection and collection system. And no more solar eclipses! Nuts.

[Stargazer]

Yes, and a lot of humans are going to die from the catastrophic effects of global warming.  Perhaps that is the apocalypse.

If things go that way, that human die-off will take place over a good deal of time, not in just a few years. That's got nothing to do with the apocalypse.

[TheSkepticChristian]

 What I am most afraid of is the tendency of politicians to be swayed by "solutions" that look good from some politically correct viewpoint but that don't actually work in reality. And I am afraid that such "solutions" may cost enormously in terms of human suffering, money, and opportunity, and then don't work, or make things worse.

 

but climate change damage will be more expensive than anything else. Climate Change will cost  $43 trillion dollars in damage.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2807.html

 

Climate Change will probably not end humanity, but it will cause significant damage. 

 

And I absolutely agree with you that we need science to make fusion work. I believe that this will eventually be successful in development. But how long will it take?

 

We need more scientists and more science funding.

 

 

If things go that way, that human die-off will take place over a good deal of time, not in just a few years. That's got nothing to do with the apocalypse.

 

Our planet is warming fast. It could get 2 degrees warmer in just a couple of decades.

Edited October 26, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Robert F. Smith]

.......................................................................

In fact, the most convenient way to go about this would be to take the Moon and squeeze it down until it collapsed into a black hole. A black-hole Moon would still be able to raise tides on Earth as before, so that's good, but it would no longer shine in the night (because it would be about a tenth of a millimeter in diameter, and surrounded by the structure of a magnetic bottle energy injection and collection system. And no more solar eclipses! Nuts.

"Blue Moon,

You left me standing alone."