lundi 10 août 2015

St Nicholas of Myra, Old Catholic Parish - a correspondence

Wednesday 4-VIII-2015 14:17
Me to Them

I once thought as you about "Catho-Doxy" - Orthodox not schismatic by calling papacy Primus Inter Pares (only), Catholicism not heretic by filioque.

I got back to Catholic after I had seen agressive statements against "Benedict XVI" (whom I later reconsidered as having been pseudo-Pope Ratzinger) where his fault, if any, was rather opposite direction of his "Orthodox" critics.

In the case of the 10 year old girl who had been forced to abort, he excommunicated the two abortionists, but not the mother who had collaborated in delivering her daughter and twin grandchildren into their hands.

In the Africa question, his problem is / was not denying condoms is an overall solution to AIDS, but rather being too sympathetic on its role as a partial solution.

Once again, the "Orthodox" went against traditional morality, attacked Ratzinger for supporting it too much while I thought he was supporting it too little.

However, even if there were sense in your general position (I think it is refuted by half Roumanian Church being Neohimerites and therefore Modernist Heretics, other half being Antipapal Schismatics with too deep a distrust of Austria - and similarily for other Orthodox Churches, with Romanides complicating the issue further by his attacks on scholasticism), even so it is not very good to honour "Pope Francis".

Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : Ascii Code Gematria

As to your apostolic succession or lack thereof, I leave that to Pope Michael. Meanwhile I have my own problems with SSPX, they seem to consider me Theosophic because I:

* like the two main Inklings (whose 2 friends were, but who themselves were not Theosophists);

* consider stars are moved by angels.

I have wondered if the anonymous commenter under my last post on this matter is the SSPX parish curate of St Nicolas du Chardonnet:

New blog on the kid: - But Parallax Guarentees the Distance of Kepler 452, Right? Right? Don't...

And, if I saw your page because of his praying for me to : 1) remain under patronage of St Nicholas of Myra; 2) but with a more Theosophically minded priest. As for myself, I do not consider it Theosophical to agree with St Thomas Aquinas or mainstream Scholastic Philosophy on Astronomy, angels, Prima Via.

Sunday 9-VIII-2015 05:14
Them to Me:

I'm not sure, I follow what you are talking about as far as the Theosphically minded priest bit. St.Nicholas Parish, while still in the founding phase, is NOT a Liberal Catholic Church. Nothing against Liberal Catholicism generally. But we are Old Catholics. Theosophy for the most part, has never been a big thing with Old Catholics. That would be the Liberal Catholic's thing. .... That's why I love America. émoticône wink

Sunday 9-VIII-2015 11:55
Me to Them

So, someone may think YOU are the cure against theosophy and have prayed for me to find you because they ocnsider ME a Theosophist.

And that someone may also be excommunicating me before God, I just spotted an ocnsider instead of consider.

Sunday 9-VIII-2015 later
Them to Me

I am friends with the one they call, Pope Michael, but I am not under his juriscdiction.

Also, I & St.Nicholas of Myra in Burlington are not under papal rule, or under the Eastern patriarchs either. We are Old Catholics, real simple.

And we are not sedevacantists either. Pope Michael, if I understand right, is a sedevacantist.

We are an Old Catholic Church which derives our apostolic succession from the Old Catholics of the See of Utrecht.

And we are not Liberal Catholics, although I'll be the first to admit, I was initially ordained in that tradition.

Anyway, we are simply Old Catholics. We base our doctrines on the first 7 ecumenical councils of the undivided church beyond that, we would generally but simply describe ourselves as,

"Conservative in Worship",

"Moderate in Doctrine",


"Liberal on most Social Issues".

And we practice open communion to all professing baptized Christians, regardless or church tradition, or church affiliation

So, if the above brief discriptions sound good to you, then by all means, welcome aboard, & we'd love to have, & serve you.

God Love You, Brother! émoticône like

Me to them:

Open communion? Sounds like communion with heretics. So, thanks but no thanks.

Them to me:

Oh, I see, you're just here to simply harass a church that is simply exorcising their first amendment rights because apparently YOU are the arbiter of religious freedom in America, right? Tell the truth. You came to this page specifically to make trouble. Looking at your previous messages, I can now see, you already had an opinion formed, & you were building to something snide. You were looking for something you could find fault with, weren't you? You came here just to harass, didn't you. I mean, let's look at the facts. 1st, you complain we're not, "theosopical" enough for you. Then when I inform you, we are not theosophical. you then call us heretics. Also, your speech is kinda vague, & elusive so's not to be too obvious in your position because, you obviously wanted to bait me. You had no interest in this parish all along. You simply sought out, & targeted a community so you could find some thing to make a beef out of, & then make yourself feel good that you could I guess, I don't know, maybe, tell me off, & give me a what for. If I am wrong then be honest, why are you here? Also, I might point out that, YOUR use of the word "heretic" is extremely vague, & personally relative on YOUR part. So, I suppose now, unless I have our bishop block you, you're just gonna keep messaging this page just to amuse yourself now, right? I tried to be nice, & welcoming to you, the way Jesus would have. And you just threw it back in my face. Kinda rude, don't ya think? Especially since, we never did anything wrong, TO YOU. Oh right. I suppose it's ok to be a rude @$$-hole to anyone who disagrees with you. I suppose, in your belief system, it's ok to troll, & harass someone who's theology is different than your's, right? This is America. Religious Freedom wasn't designed for just YOU, you know? Now, just tell me the truth as to why you came here, & then I never want to see you here, trolling, & harassing here, ever again! YOU GOT THAT?

Monday 10-VIII-2015
Me to them

"1st, you complain we're not, "theosopical" enough for you." False. I never claimed to be theosophical at all, nor to want theosophists.

"Then when I inform you, we are not theosophical. you then call us heretics." Not for not being theosophists, at any rate. Pretty certainly if you look back for simply disagreeing about "open Communion table" as they used to say back when I was a Lutheran.

The truth is: I happened to find you, and I happened to guess someone who THOUGHT I was theosophical had prayed for that. And if you wnat no more from me, how about contacting SSPX and telling them you did not find me theosophical? But if you DID find me theosophical, how about telling me wherein?

Added later

Wait - you are NOT the guys who commented anonymously on the post and considered both me and St Thomas Aquinas as "closer to Eastern gnosticism than the Western Catholic tradition of the intelligibility of the world"?

ARE you?

And what I told the guy was this, not using the word heretic, and not considering St Thomas as a Saint could in theory be or once have been just schismatic:

You have unmasked yourself as being not a Catholic.

A Catholic would not have such a disrespect for a canonised saint and a Church doctor, nor especially in metaphysical questions for precisely the Church doctor who along with St Augustine is the most interrested in philosophy.


Actually, it was probably the phrase "open communion sounds like communion with heretics" - but it does. If they allow Anglicans or Calvinists to Communion, they allow heretics to Communion.

However, if they were not among the anonymous commenters on my post, how come they made ANY connexion with my thinking them "not theosophical enough"?

Why I went to them was not to get Communion, but to get a witness. Pope Michael can vouch for me before God, perhaps, but he is not respected by St Nicolas du Chardonnet, and this gives me an isolated position. So, I wanted an EX-theosophist or one ordained indirectly by such, who would know WHAT theosophy is, to witness about what Theosophy is NOT - obviously in favour of St Thomas Aquinas and of me.

Whoever the anonymous commenter was, who rejected both me and St Thomas Aquinas, I ought to thank him for rejecting St Thomas Aquinas as well, while rejecting me, since in doing so, he is making his rejection of me less credible before those who accept St Thomas Aquinas as a Saint.

If a thesis is so theosophical it makes St Thomas Aquinas a theosophist because in fact he shared it, it is probably not theosophical at all, but its attacker does not know where theosophical errors end and orthodoxy begins.

jeudi 28 mai 2015

I was tagged about Karl Keating on Behemoth

Here is first the link to his article:

Catholic Answers : Was Job's Behemoth a Dinosaur?
Karl Keating
May 25, 2015

Here are my answers under the link, on Catholic Creation Alliance, with appropriate quotes:

Karl Keating's article:
"We are told that Behemoth “finds shade in the marsh.” According to Wikipedia, marshes “are often dominated by grasses, rushes, or reeds. If woody plants are present they tend to be low-growing shrubs. This form of vegetation is what differentiates marshes from other types of wetland such as swamps, which are dominated by trees.”

"So marshes are characterized by short plants. According to Wikipedia, the titanosaur was up to 130 feet long (not up to 200 feet long, as the Kolbe Center article suggests) and as much as 24 feet tall at the arch of the back. How could an animal that big “find shade” among plants that were only waist-high to a man? (Please, no jokes about elephants hiding in strawberry patches.)"

Hans Georg's answers:
Sauropod kind of which Titanosaur is one of the largest (it would seem sauropods qualifying as Mokele Mbembe are smaller) might have included size varieties incapable of finding shade in a marsh before the flood, or even not so, if plants were huger (we have seen huge fossil ferns, haven't we. This does not mean that those surviving after flood need also have been that large.

Also, finding shade in the marsh may refer rather to finding it in muddy waters than finding it under plants. But Mokele Mbembe seems to be right size for finding it under mangrove trees too.

Karl Keating's article:
"Then there is the remark that Behemoth “is not frightened by the Jordan River rushing into his mouth.” I can see how this might be true of a hippo, but it hardly sounds like a useful description of a titanosaur."

Hans Georg's answers:
Once again, Behemoths come in different sizes.

The remark on "largest among God's ways" may refer to Titanosaur size, the remark on not frightened by the Jordan River rushing into its mouth, if at all referring to opening the mouth while bathing in it as it could also refer to a comparable size between Jordan river and mouth, may refer to smaller specimens.

Karl Keating's article:
"The water moves so slowly that a child can stand in the shallows without danger of being knocked over. No titanosaur would be “frightened” by the water’s speed."

Hans Georg's answers:
Could refer to fright of water amount - Behemoths could [if so] not be waterboarded by a Jordan River sized influx.

Karl Keating's article:
"The Kolbe Center article says that the description in the book of Job is sufficient for us to “confidently identify” Behemoth as a titanosaur."

Hans Georg's answers:
Here I disagree with Kolbe centre. I think Behemoth means a kind, like dog. Titanosaur would be a breed, like Great Dane.

I think Kent Hovind would have done a better job (excuse pun, please!) than Kolbe Centre arguing the point.

Karl Keating's article:
"There are two things we can say “confidently” about this article, though:"

Hans Georg's answers:
If you care to put your confidence in vanities.

Karl Keating's article:
"it demonstrates that the Behemoth, whatever it was, wasn’t a dinosaur,"

Hans Georg's answers:
False, bungling a demonstration that it was a dinosaur doesn't amount to inadvertently proving it wasn't.

Karl Keating's article:
"and it does a disservice to the Church by promoting a preposterous argument."

Hans Georg's answers:
Keating does a disservice to the Church and to truth by being so very preoccupied with what is "preposterous" in the sight of secularists, or even in his own view, since he probably shares their ridicule for it.

Disservice to the Church is putting it very mildly.

I think that attitude was how Pharisees, preoccupied with what Pilate would consider preposterous, as well as Huigh Priests, started attacking Christ over feeling He was "doing a disservice to Qahal Israel".

I haven't read the article by Kolbe Centre, it may be less bad than the purported refutation with provided quotes and citations made it appear.

Here is their article:

Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation : Historical Evidence for Dinosaur and Human Co-existence

Here are their advisers, I have a suspicion "admin" might mean software architect, i e Robert Bennett (two T!) and I feel a certain sadness that they seem to need a psychiatrist among advisers as well:

Kolbe Center Advisors

PS, I had an exchange with Hugh Owen on Kolbe Center for Study of Creation, and before going into details, I must first say the essay (by an anonymised young man, possibly making his first publishing) was far better in general than as to the blunder of verbally in one sentence identifying Behemoth with Titanosaurus rather than with Sauropods in general. It's an amazing piece of art studies compared to palaeontological art. I think I will have to share this with my favourite palaeontological artist Nobu Tamura./HGL

dimanche 24 mai 2015

A Video with Walter Hooper and One or Two Differences with him

Usually comments under a video are first done under the video in comboxes and then put on assorted retorts blog or its French sister blog répliques assorties. Now, this time comboxes were closed. I posted first link to video to my FB wall, not thinking I would comment, it was all so good or at least innocent as far as it went : then about ten minutes before the end, Walter Hooper started saying things that made me stop. So I posted these under the link on the FB wall. Which means it technically comes under this blog.

Which fits, because I mentioned Walter Hooper earlier here.

Walter Hooper: A Disciple of C. S. Lewis Who Became Catholic - The Journey Home (7-21-2003)

46:29 Walter Hooper misquoted CSL and Declaration of Independence.

Decl. didn't state and CSL didn't quote it as "right to happiness by any lawful means" BUT as "[right to] pursue happiness by any lawful means".

The distinction is important. We all pursue happiness, we do not all get it.

We "have a right" to buy a journey to a tourist resort, we do not have a right to rule over it so as to eliminate anything in it which might make us unhappy. We have (more or less, cfr. St Francis of Sales on this one) a right to play poker about 1 pound sterling bets, but we do not each have the right to be the one who wins the 5 pound sterling around the table. We have a right to wax our moustaches, but not a right to be found handsome by the lady we prefer because of our moustaches. They have a right to shave their legs (perhaps, and moreover "don't need it if they are blondes", some non-blondes asked me what I shaved my legs with and then understood my body hair doesn't show because I am blonde), but they do not have a right to be found handsome by whatever man they prefer because they shaved their legs.

We have a right to buy and sell, but not an automatic right to be the seller sufficiently favoured by buyers to live without economic worries.

In other words, we have a right to hope for good luck, but we are not cheated if we don't get it.

However, I would add, some seem at times to have arranged so someone doesn't get the luck which is coming his way, that is called envy. And sometimes it uses illicit means and makes a life unnecessarily full of miseries.

Testing someone about his willingness to abide by this principle is beyond a certain point not a lawful means or way of caring for his happiness and certainly the gloating over people one "educates" or "larns" is not a lawful means for one's own happiness. Indeed, in The Four Loves, CSL describes men in authority whose affection for men under their authority or previously so becomes a tyrannical exaction of them admitting such authority, sometimes even when it is no longer there.

47:10 "The homosexual wants to marry another homosexual"

Well, take a gay couple and a lesbian couple, ideally living in two different places, let them do a partner switch, one man from the gay couple moving to where the lesbian couple lives, one woman from the lesbian couple moving to where the gay couple lives. That could be arranged.

Of course, when a homosexual does make a real marriage, it doesn't always happen that the other person in it is also homosexual. The wife of Josh Weed is or was somwhat of a tomboy but as far as I know she was never lesbian.

As I am from Sweden, there is a gay couple and a lesbian couple over there, both claiming to be Christians, and both VERY much in the media. I had to deal with this problem of moral theology before leaving. It was omnipresent. Even if you are not in Swedish Church, if you live on the territory, they send you their material for free, and in one issue the son of the better known gay with one of the lesbians was featured.

47:30 a bit before "you are broken and you need healing"?

WELLLL ... that is my issue with Vatican-II-ism on this level.

They are sinners and need conversion. No one should tell them they are "mentally ill" and need therapy.

If they are in any way willing to abide by the commandments, whether by letting a marital choice override their inclination and its consequences or whether by letting perfect chastity or an attempt to do it so, that should be enough for a curate to accept they are sane.

53:31 "Mother Teresa"?

It seems she recommended NFP to the poor in Calcutta.

I would not canonise her if I were Pope, and for whoever did pretend to do so, I would not think he is or was Pope.

Pope Michael has not canonised her. Papal Claimant Alexander IX has retroactively excommunicated her. Probably also for not being a Christian missionary, for n ot trying to convert from Hinduism or Islam. He's a Feeneyite and canonised (or succeeds one who canonised) or (in either case) pretended to canonise Fr Leonard Feeney.

I am not totally agreeing with Alexander IX, she may not be in Hell at all, but she was weak and - not canonisable, I would say.

mercredi 13 mai 2015

For the Rape Victim in Paraguay

In this case, what should a catholic do?

NBC News : Paraguay Rape Victim, 10, Denied Abortion; UN Raps Government
First published May 12th 2015, 11:59 am


I would ensure the VICTIM, which is the child, has FULL protection from further RAPES by abortionists-- as well as accorded access to care for her and her child-- a legislature fund, and that this monster takes no further part in society, the girls life or the baby. The UN might tell us that the 10 year old child would be better served by ABORTIONISTS and will bully Paraguay by denying the poor their ROTTEN cargoes of food for the poor- BEWARE the tyrany of the western media- corporate- gates triad-- very dangerous

Hang the rapist.

Pray the child isn't the one punished for the crime.

take not the life of the baby, the ten year old of the misplaced Dad of the Baby. All are in God's image

I wrote on this last week. At 21 weeks the child has to give birth.

She ought to be closely monitored and given a c section under general. And advised/counseled/supported in terms of birth options and whether she wants to raise the child.

Can the child actually have a viable birth. Surely her pelvis is too underdeveloped? Child brides in Africa end up with fistulas between vagina and anus and faecal incontInence after prolonged birth resulting in dead baby, and then being cast out of tribe and divorced due to not producing live baby and being unclean.

Remove girl to safe place with another member of the family who can support her and baby while she grows up. She has already been violated once; another violation by adults will only increase her feeling of being used by them. If cost is a problem, get the father to pay, or let the state step in,

I read that carrying the child full term and having a cesarean section is safer for both the girl and the baby. God protect them.

O my God the monster she is only a baby herself

"Paraguay has refused to provide treatment to save the life of the girl, who is five months pregnant, "including safe and therapeutic abortion in a timely manner.""

Exactly HOW is an abortion supposed to "save the life" of this poor wee lassie?

[Perhaps like a Caesarian would, namely ONLY in cases when small and not sufficiently elastic pelvis would make natural birth a lethal procedure. Not known in advance, I presume.]

"...and therapeutic abortion..." Now I've heard everything!

The fistula issue mentioned above is not about child brides - in parts of Africa mothers of all ages suffer this horror which is entirely due to female genital mutilation. Matercare I believe is the charity with the most information about this. As for this child - abortion would only make things worse - violating the girl a second time and murdering an innocent while having no effect at all on the rapist. Abortion is an evil and cannot bring good to this situation. The idea that because of her age her pelvis may not be developed enough is questionable. If it were an issue - doctors and midwives would be aware of it but I suspect that God knows what He is doing. Once a young woman reaches puberty and can physically conceive I have no doubt that in most cases she will be capable of giving birth naturally. And this would be the most natural and beneficial outcome for this girl and her baby. The rapist has done his part and should be dealt with by the justice system. His sentence should include a financial levy towards the upkeep of both his victims.

Girls Not Brides Blog: Fistula, a silent tragedy for child brides
A longer version of this post appeared in the Life and Style section of ThisDay newspaper, Nigeria, on June 2, 2013.

We are going to hear many more examples of tragic cases like these, the object of which reportage is not to rouse pity for the victim(s) but to use their tragedy to vilify and excoriate those who are pro-life; to bracket them along with the rapists as heartless, cruel monsters, as violators of children's "rights", as intolerant fanatics - and thus crush all resistance to the global imposition of "abortion rights". That this child's plight is dreadful is beyond doubt, but as long as there are ways of saving and healing her without the destruction of the life she is carrying, these should be the primary recourse.

Allow her a Caesarian later, if that is necessary to save her, might even not be the case.

LifeNews : 11-Year-Old Rape Victim Gives Birth to Twins, Babies Saved Thanks to Abortion Ban
Steven Ertelt May 23, 2014 | 4:58PM Washington, DC

"Can the child actually have a viable birth."


"Surely her pelvis is too underdeveloped?"

Maybe, that is where Caesarian Section might come in. On the other hand, pelves while growing [at that age! I meant to say] are more elastic than they become later.

In extreme cases, nine year olds can get pregnant (while at other extreme a girl might not be able until 18, while 12 and some months is the normal age), which God would not have made that way if it were automatically lethal.

"she is only a baby herself"

No. One can get a baby, one is certainly a baby no longer oneself.

PÓC , from your article:

"pregnant at 12 and developed an obstetric fistula after prolonged labour and her baby’s death"

Is that what happens every time when a girl gets pregnant at twelve? Or just sometimes?

"Fistula is a condition that affects hundreds of thousands of women, sadly 90% of them in Africa."

I think in Africa there would be more women than that who start motherhood at 12. In the case mentioned, there are other circumstances that shouldn't be, for moral reasons.

"who was married to her uncle at 9"

At 9 – below Canonic age of Catholic Church [traditionally 12, dispensations only papal and given only one half year below]. Muslims are wrong on this one.

To her uncle – too close relatives. At least under New law. Muslims are wrong on this one too.

Was married – I don't know if she was given a choice or not. If not, that is wrong too.

BUT the case of Hadiza's fistula is not a medical indication that the rape victim of Paraguay should have abortion, not even necessarily a Caesarian, that would be a further question, when birth gets started.

She is not named, but her stepfather is:

"Gilberto Benitez Zarate is accused of raping his 10-year-old stepdaughter."

Divorce and remarriage? Would he have done so if the daughter had been his? More important, would her real father from whom she was separated, have done so?

From the article by life site news now:

"However, she said her daughter would need to change schools to avoid being bullied by other pupils."

Wouldn't school compulsion be to blame for that, if so?

lundi 11 mai 2015

Overpopulation Still Falsehood

1) Creation vs. Evolution : Natural Law is Constant : St Augustine Presumably Refuting Sarfati on Sibling Marriages [after second generation of mankind] · 2) New blog on the kid : Moral or Ceremonial : Was it Against Moral Law to Eat Porc Between Moses and Jesus or St Peter? · 3) HGL's F.B. writings : Overpopulation Still Falsehood

J. H:son
shared a picture of, possibly, Shanghai or Hong Kong . Or somewhere . Text on pic : « Overpopulation is a myth » - « what kind of idiot said that ? » Said by two people to each other too far from each other in crowd to hear each other.

At first
selecting the few comments on thread I answer to. Will be quoting more in full when I come in.

J. H:son
Overpop is easy to define! It exists when the pop of an animal exceeds the carrying capacity of the natural environment in which it exists.Without the fossil fuels that we eat,we are undeniably massively overpopulated and heading for whatever hell awaits on the other side of peak oil!

J. P.
A picture of a congested city is just as much a strawman, and you know it. The entire 7 billion people on earth coulf fit in New Zealand. NZ would then be overpopulated, but there is more than enough arable land to sustain 7 billion people. I mentioned this to someone once and they responded 'but all the arable land isn't in NZ!' *facepalm* It doesn't all have to be in NZ for it to be sufficient.

J. H:son
Agreed J. P.,but take out the fossil fuel inputs and we still are hugely overpopulated now,by a factor of at least 3

… You eat 10 calories of fossil fuel energy for every calorie of food you consume,that's not sustainable and 7.3 billion cannot be fed using organic methods of agriculture,not in this universe!

… And now Finland arrives to comment.....and find itself another strawman! Density doesn't matter it's sustainability that does! I'm sure you've all seen that graphic about how much of the Sahara needs to be covered in solar panels to power the world? What it fails to address is the amount of resources,metals ,fossil fuels ,man hours,etc etc etc etc that would need to go into producing the infrastructure necessary.It simply doesn't scale and work! And that's dis-regarding the place where it is geopolitically and the occurance of sandstorm to bugger everything up 10 times a year!

… And away they go to look for something to refute me with,good luck on that people.......

J. P.
I've never heard of a fossil fuel/caloric connection, I assume you're talking about fossil fuels used for industial agriculture? Do you have an article I could read for that? Wouldn't conversion to renewable energy allow for the same levels of food production in that case?

A. D.:
shared pic from oz.

J. H:son
Yes A. D.,but on average what kind of a population would oz be able to support sustainably without fossil fuels? in reflection,oz is one of the few places that are not overpopulated,even though the interior is a huge dry,basically lifeless desert,because the fringe of the continent is so fertile! The Darwin river system is screwed though,due to over-exploitation...

A. D.
Did you know J. H:son, that Italy and Russia and somewhere else i can't remember right now are dangerously underpopulated, and the term demographic sueside has been used on those places

J. H:son
M. A. P. ,as I said to about 50 people on this page,invitation to suicide is not a clever or winning debating tactic and we don't advocate genocide anyway,just responsible breeding,don't we V. de V.?

V. de V.
Yes responsible breeding especially where familes cannot afford to have larger familes. My cleaning lady who works once a week for me only, says when I ask how she manages, that god will find a way. As I see it, it's my government with their child care grants that's doing gods' job as I ain't seeing any money transfered from his account at church HQ to her account.

I am quoting more in full. Inverting order of commons to get better understanding from readers, since I added two on a row without seing one came between. Then added another to answer that one.

Crowding is not a matter of how many people there are, but how few of them live on the land. I e, how many tractors there are.

E. M.
Even if overpopulation is not a myth why do the trolls put such little faith in science's ability to solve the problem of a projected scaricity of resources?

J. H:son "Without the fossil fuels that we eat,we are undeniably massively overpopulated and heading for whatever hell awaits on the other side of peak oil!"

The fossil fuels you EAT? I wouldn't do that if I were you!

J. P. " Wouldn't conversion to renewable energy allow for the same levels of food production in that case?"

I hope you mean conversion to renewable energies like human arms and legs and animal's legs and hooves?

Because, replacing these with either petrol (non renewable presumably, I think it came from Flood of Noah) or rapeseed oil (renewable), does not augment the number of mouths that can eat, but only diminish the number of hands working with what the mouths eat.

V. de V.
Hans, consumed via the food produced by that fossil fuel.

J. H:son "Not just involved in machinery,but agri-chemicals, refrigeration,transport,full cycle"

Transport and refrigeration : mainly a question of mouths not living near where food is grown.

Agri-chemicals may well be replaceable. Pesticides with birds and ladybirds, fertilizers (most of which are old Guano anyway) by local human and animal dung and food waste.

V. de V., what do you mean "produced by"? If you cook 1 ton of strawberry jam in a factory on fossil fuels, you can as well cook 10 kg of strawberry jam in someone's home on normal fuels, like wood. The strawberries don't grow on fossil fuels per se.

[Meant to add, 100 different homes over.]

J. H:son
I think you know what I mean HGL!

'Because, replacing these with either petrol (non renewable presumably, I think it came from Flood of Noah)'

You didn't REALLY mean that ,did you?

I very certainly do.

HGL (here is somewhat inverted order)
I very certainly do mean that.

And I have already answered what I think you may reasonably be meaning.

J. H:son
Then you are unworthy of being replyed to!

Ah, well, you did reply.

J. H:son
There are 10 calories of fossil fuel energy in every calorie of food that you eat. That is how you eat fossil fuels HGL!

"There are 10 calories of fossil fuel energy in every calorie of food that you eat."

Now you are counting in pilpuls, like how much and what energy transport took, etc.

HGL (back to normal sequence, as posted)
V. de V. "Yes responsible breeding especially where familes cannot afford to have larger familes"

  • 1) Are you paying her what she should have?
  • 2) Is her husband out of work or underpaid through no fault of his own, like the capitalist and industrial structure?

G. C.
J. H:son 10 calories of fossil fuel energy in one calorie... Not sure how you have accurately quantified this "Guardian Newspaper" again ?...... or is it like the one long haul flight per year that is allowable to YOU although you have two as it's not a one way trip. You must also be forgetting the carbon dioxide that is removed from the air by any plant growth and the structure of the food itself being carbon based.

J. H:son
G. C. ,Irrelevant .....

G. C.
Yes of course you are a Borg drone trying to assimilate us all into your collective of twats.

V. de V.
G. C. you are quickly becoming irrelevent to the conversation. You are the weakest link, goodbye.

G. C. , he is talking about calories of transport, mainly, and of industrialised modes of preparation, which means that could be fixed by living closer to the food, and by preparing in more decentralised fashion too, with grown fuels.

I searched for someone who could be V de V in public. From clues in username, one can guess in this direction:

Wiki : William Waldorf Astor III, 4th Viscount Astor,_4th_Viscount_Astor

Which is of course somewhat speculative, but not out of possibilities.

BUT, I seem to have been wrong. Just checked in V de V's profile.

dimanche 10 mai 2015

A Pope is NOT a Masonic Venerable NOR a Pentecostal Pastor

David Bawden/Pope Michael (with shared meme):
very simple

I'm old school


Share if you're proud to be old school

key word : MY elders.

A Mason or Jew or Protestant outside my family who is older than me is not MY elder. Mason as in freemason, not as in legitimate physical builders, of course.

Nisi Dn9 edificaverit domum ... which He clearly doesn't when it comes to the building project of Speculative Masonry ... in vanum laboraverunt q edificant eam ...

Btw, if you enjoy the title "Your Holiness" from me, I advise to not behave as if running the Church with lots of Masonic behaviour.

INCLUDING to really answer on behalf of someone else who is not answering, but who thinks someone needs a lesson.

And if you say you have NO idea of what has gone on between me and Chris Ferrara (who is indeed 63 and older than I, and supposed to be a Catholic, except according to you he isn't, as long as he is not acknowledging you as Pope), well, might be you were acting out the pastoral someone else is trying to hold on me, and trying to do by praying for me to be corrected.

Either case, not a good show for a Pope.

jeudi 30 avril 2015

One Unpleasant Admin Type (pretending to be Trad Catholic, perhaps pretending to be admin too - see his correction below)

MR (not visibly identical to one other MR)
stop supporting wackos, we are getting tired of nonsense discussions here, otherwise we are going to ban you from the group

this is a Traditional Catholic group, and some of us certainly are sedes but supporting nuts is another story

why are you using two profiles to comment? this leads to suspicion, you are going to be allowed to use only one, so please chose the one you like to use

your comments are going to be observed

My response to this MR:
"stop supporting wackos"

If I thought them wackos I would not support them.

"we are getting tired of nonsense discussions here"

Some of you have shown so, are you an administrator or is it an empty threat?

Otherwise, you attitude is like that of bourgeois pagans in Athens who were not loving Socrates at all. As you know, the Catholic view of them is that their view was more erroneous than his.

"otherwise we are going to ban you from the group"

I am used to it.

That is one reason why I save discussions on blogs, so as not to have completely have wasted my time in a group hostile to me onto which I was added by some wellmeaning friend.

For instance I was friends with a well known blogger Rosman, a modernist Catholic, he obviously wanted to have me confronted with a real discussion with atheists, here is what happened:

HGL's F.B. writings [this blog] : I am not sure you know Artur Sebastian Rosman

"this is a Traditional Catholic group, and some of us certainly are sedes but supporting nuts is another story"

The title of the group mentioned nothing about not being a nut or not supporting a nut.

You see, trying to exclude nuts is incompatible with the cathollicity of the Church. All ages (yes, angels created before man to bliss after Harmageddon), all nations, all of the revealed doctrine. That much even you knew, but what about ALL CLASSES OF MEN?

So, excluding nuts is more like a Jewish Talmudic Yeshiva than like a Roman Catholic group.

"why are you using two profiles to comment?"

Already answered, since I was added under both profiles. Why do I have two profiles in the first place? Because some Pharisees perhaps of different confession than you, but certainly of similar morals, blocked me from my first account, and I got it back after creating a second one. Since I have exactly the same name on BOTH profiles, commenting under the two of them cannot be compared to creating different persons with different names. The profile Hans Georg Lundahl is a bit too similar to the profile Hans Georg Lundahl to be really efficient as a sock puppet. So, "this leads to suspicion" = a statement amounting to complete absurdity.

"you are going to be allowed to use only one, so please chose the one you like to use"

If this is your take, what about - neither?

"your comments are going to be observed"

Oh yea? Like previewed before showing in public? No thanks to that. However, if you meant "observed" as in people paying attention to what I say, I have nothing against that for a change. That is one more reason why I republish debates on my blogs so that more people can observe my comments. Now, your turn.

He seems to have
first let me stay and debate a few hours more, then excluded me. Without further ado. However, when opening my other profile I was a bit unreasonably annoyed, since ...

I got same text
on said this my other profile and answered “Already answered:” linking to this post while it only contained above. Whereupon:

Hey Wacko Stop writing me, or I will report your account to Facebook and the NSA

NSA? I was answering your repeated (or initially doubled?) message. I was annoyed by YOUR writing me that, now that is said, I have no more reason to write you, except if you instead of satisfying my curiosity on NSA go off another tirade of bad manners.

I´m An Administrator in a Group you used to be a member, so I wrote you to warn you, i have no other interest in comunicate with wackos as you, hippie

thanks for taking my word of "neither", the other MR was getting clearly annoying, on both of my profiles.

As to hippie, I'd rather be that than Pharisee, but on the other hand, what do you know about me?

I couldn´t care less about you

Bad manners to presume things about people you couldn't care less about.

If you want to say sth about someone, first care enough to find out what's there to say.

Apart from that little lesson, what a relief!

if the other MR is: MR, he is the new group admin you should correct your blog, the part of ¨perhaps pretending to be admin too¨ or maybe not your 2 or 3 followers wouldn´t care much

so have a good life hippie, i´m not going to waste my time with wackos

Your correction will be inserted. With anonymising of him too.

Thanks Hippie your 2 folwers will be pleased

How do you know they are two?

I thought you referred to public followers, there are none on that blog.

“Il n'y a aucun membre pour l'instant. Soyez le premier !"