samedi 28 mai 2016

Craig Crawford is back in the fray on angelic movers!


1) Debate on Angelic Movers - and 1054, Photius · 2) Craig Crawford is back in the fray on angelic movers!

Craig Crawford
The responses are too long. Not interested in a lengthy scholastic debate over the schism of the Latin West, which is off-topic here.

The Scriptures explicitly say that God is the mover of the celestial objects, and nowhere mentions the necessity of the angels in this task. The notion that angels are charged with the task of providing motion to the heavenly bodies is patently absurd. The fathers did not need to spend much time focusing on or refuting something that was such a ridiculous notion.

St. Augustine - On the Trinity, Book VIII

"Neither as we think of the pure angels as spirits animating celestial bodies, and changing and dealing with them after the will by which they serve God; not even if all, and there are "thousands of thousands," were brought together into one, and became one; neither is any such thing God."


Since you attempted to enlist St. John of Damascus to your cause (ineffectively):

St. John of Damascus - Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith:

"The course which the Creator appointed for them to run is unceasing and remaineth fixed as He established them. For the divine David says, The moon and the stars which Thou establishedst, and by the word 'establishedst,' he referred to the fixity and unchangeableness of the order and series granted to them by God."


St. John, following the sayings of Scripture, says the Creator appoints the movement of the celestial bodies. Nowhere is any mention of the necessity of the intervening action of angels spoken of.

Thomas Aquinas is in error. Even your fellow Roman Catholic, Robert Sungenis rejects these absurd notions of angels giving movement to celestial bodies.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Craig Crawford taking it bit by bit:

"The Scriptures explicitly say that God is the mover of the celestial objects,"

At least for their common movement westward each day.

"and nowhere mentions the necessity of the angels in this task."

But does mention stars (i e celestial bodies, not just fixed stars, since difference between planets and fixed stars is beyond Hebrew culture) actually having some conscience - either we must assume that means stars are beings intermediate between angels and us, corporeal, but bodies of celestial matter (Ramandu/Coriakin hypothesis, if you get allusion), which was condemned by St John of Damascus and by Bishop Stephen Tempier of Paris, and explicitly rejected by St Thomas Aquinas, OR stars beyond attached to a conscience about as a bike is attached to that of a biker - in which case angels are moving them.

"The notion that angels are charged with the task of providing motion to the heavenly bodies is patently absurd. The fathers did not need to spend much time focusing on or refuting something that was such a ridiculous notion."

I see no "patent" absurdity and feel free to differ. Unless you prefer to start giving scholastic proofs why this would be absurd.

St Augustine:

"Neither as we think of the pure angels as spirits animating celestial bodies, and changing and dealing with them after the will by which they serve God; not even if all, and there are "thousands of thousands," were brought together into one, and became one; neither is any such thing God."


He just said clearly, angels who deal with stars are not God, but they are there.

It is funny to deal with someone citing what he has not learned to read.

Like St Francis of Assisi called "Mr Sun" brother, not Father. Like St Thomas Aquinas in a popular seermon on the Creed compared a man worshipping the sun as God to a poor man approaching the palace of a king and taking a simple palace guard in fine livery for the King.

So, apart from Sts Francis and Thomas, you just provided me with another authority, a patristic one, from St Augustine. Nice! Keep it up!

As to your quote from St John:

"The course which the Creator appointed for them to run is unceasing and remaineth fixed as He established them. For the divine David says, The moon and the stars which Thou establishedst, and by the word 'establishedst,' he referred to the fixity and unchangeableness of the order and series granted to them by God."


This clearly teaches that God provides the form of the orbit, but does not teach that there be no angel providing its propulsion, according to that order given by God. Indeed, the word "run" reminds of a psalm where the sun is considered comparable to a hero running forth. In other words, though St John of Damascus clearly rejected stars having souls, he did NOT clearly reject stars being moved by angels.

"St. John, following the sayings of Scripture, says the Creator appoints the movement of the celestial bodies."

Yes, APPOINTS. Meaning someone is executing that APPOINTMENT. That someone being for each star an angel.

"Thomas Aquinas is in error."

You have given neither Patristic nor Biblical proof thereof.

"Even your fellow Roman Catholic, Robert Sungenis rejects these absurd notions of angels giving movement to celestial bodies."

Because he prefers the "appointment" of God being some kind of clockwork mechanism of inertia and gravitational pulls. Sts Augustine and John, Francis and Thomas give him no support therein.

I wonder if, considering Bergoglio as pope or perhaps rather Ratzinger as still pope he can fully count as Catholic.

Especially since he adds error to the mix.

jeudi 26 mai 2016

My readers are very predominantly Russia and Ukraine.


For a number of blogs, those most recently updated and also two earlier main blogs, these are the stats for today:

Pageviews yesterday (all 24 h of relevant time zone) 655
Pageviews today [23.V.2016] (so far) 200

855
427,5 in medium

Russia 21 20 1
Ukraine 4 5
Ukraine 5 10
Russia 21 40 11
Ukraine 9 20
Ukraine 7 27
Ukraine 1 28
Russia 21 60 29
Ukraine 12 70 31
Ukraine 4 35
Ukraine 1 36
Ukraine 1 37
Russia 21 90 38
Ukraine 2 40
Russia 22 110 42
Ukraine 1 43

153, of which Russia had 106 on five blogs, Ukraine 47 on 11 blogs.

Found this below: Ukraine 4. So, 157, Ukraine 51 on 12 blogs.

The countries/per blog that came over 10:

Germany 25 20 5
United States 13 30 8
United States 16 40 14
France 11 50 15
United States 61 110 16
Japan 13 1
20 19 139

Highest stat (61) and three of six stats, US.

The rest of non-Russia, non-Ukraine these blogs, all of these stats under 10 (per blog):

France Japan Germany India Sweden Australia Romania United States Argentina Bahrain Brazil United Arab Emirates Poland China United Kingdom South Korea Canada Spain Mexico Egypt Portugal Netherlands Denmark 142

As I found an Ukraine 4 in above, and moved it up, it means only 138 here.

153 (157)
139
142 (138)
434

157:434 = 36% (
Russia and Ukraine)
106:434 = 24% (
Russia alone)

Just in case you think there can't be that much to read ... look here:

2016 (8) (22) 30 (19) 49 (7) 56 (10) 66 (5) 71 (146) 217 (14) 231 (38) 269 (1) 270 (6) 276 (3) 279 (1) 280 (16) 296 (3) 299 (6) 305
2015 (4) (35) 39 (13) 52 (9) 61 (36) 97 (52) 149 (16) 165 (9) 174 (15) 189 (11) 200 (5) 205 (12) 217 (40) 257 (4) 261 (83) 344 (336) 680
2014 (13) (18) 31 (14) 45 (2) 47 (5) 52 (9) 61 (64) 125 (6) 131 (67) 198 (258) 456 (16) 472 (29) 491 (12) 503 (31) 534 (45) 579 (110) 689 (18) 707
2013 (43) (44) 87 (14) 101 (171) 272 (12) 284 (41) 325 (2) 327 (10) 337 (103) 440 (12) 452 (10) 462 (166) 628 (
20) 648 (28) 676 (1) 677 (68) 745 (68) 813 (15) 828
2012 (78) (1) 79 (43) 122 (9) 131 (19) 150 (9) 159 (119) 278 (6) 284 (48) 332 (33) 365 (30) 395 (191) 586 (3) 589 (47) 636 (14) 650
2011 (7) (1) 8 (28) 36 (33) 69 (19) 88 (19) 107 (1) 108 (16) 124 (17) 141 (17) 158 (17) 175 (17) 192 (17) 209 (2) 211 (42) 253 (31) 284 (98) 382 (43) 425 (31) 456 (19) 475 (15) 490
2010 (1) (8) 9 (12) 21 (6) 27 (2) 29 (6) 35 (14) 49 (15) 64 (10) 74 (31) 105 (90) 195 (243) 438 (13) 451 (15) 466
2009 (1) 1 (7) 8 (1) 9 (1) 10 (6) 16 (5) 21 (2) 23 (5) 28 (14) 42 (16) 58 (18) 76 (128) 204 (1) 205 (8) 213
2008 (3) (12) 15 (8) 23 (32) 55 (6) 61 (12) 73 (26) 99 (18) 117 (50) 167 (65) 232 (
20) 252 (134) 386 (44) 430 (10) 440 (63) 503

______________

2016 305 0300 000 05 4500
2015 680 0900 080 05 0310
2014 707 1600 080 12 0032
2013 828 2400 100 20 4842
2012 650 3000 150 20
2011 490 3400 240 20
2010 466 3800 300 26
2009 213 4000 310 29
2008 503 4500 310 32

Counted are only what blogger calls "messages" or "posts". What it calls "pages" or sideline text is not counted.

Here are two blogs, four countries, last month and all time compared:

Pageviews last month 3,770 (expected from "all time" divided by months : 2080,1)

Russia 1392 (256,5)
United States 8
20 (506,3333333333333)
Ukraine 522 (455,4333333333333)
France 383 (388,4666666666667)

...

Pageviews all time history 62,403

United States 15190
Ukraine 13663
France 11654
Russia 7695

...

08/12/2013

12-2013 1 1-12-2014 2-13 1-12-2015 14-25 1-5-2016 26-30

Pageviews last month 2,304 (1092,978021978022)

Russia 760 (104,4065934065934)
United States 485 (257,1978021978022)
Ukraine 223 (107,1098901098901)
France 182 (153,6483516483516)

...

Pageviews all time history 99,461

United States 23405
France 13982
Ukraine 9747
Russia 9501

...

15/11/
2008

11-12-2008 1-2
1-12-2009 3-14
1-12-2010 15-26
1-12-2011 27-38
1-12-2012 39-50
1-12-2013 51-62
1-12-2014 63-74
1-12-2015 75-86
1-5-2016 87-91

It would seem all values have risen, at least slightly, but last month in France for one is 5 views below average, and I think I had values far higher than that a few months ago.

So, let's suppose I had written sth illegal or un-Catholic, like heresy or pedo-pornography or sth, or for that matter if I had plagiarised the words of someone else and claimed them for my own, don't you think it would have been discovered by now?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Corpus Christi
26.V.2016

On FB and not on its walls : FB prudence

Post by Dymphna
On the subject of FB, but not on its walls, since on her blog instead, see this post:

Dymphna's Road : random thoughts
Wednesday, May 30, 2012 | Posted by Dymphna at 10:20 PM
https://dymphnaroad.blogspot.fr/2012/05/i-admire-dedication-and-organization.html


Her third "random thought":
Facebook is a dangerous toy. I was reading a co-worker's page at her invitation and it left me almost quesy. I learned a few disgusting things about some other co-workers that I REALLY would have prefered not to know. None of these people would stand up in a conference room at work and say these things but they cheerfully wrote it up on Facebook. When you get on Facebook you are exposing your personal business and the business of your friends to the whole gawking world. You may think nobody but your nearest and dearest are going to read it but that's just wishful thinking. Once it's online it's public and it's forever. It only takes one person to pass on a post that they read and then boom you have some 'splainn' to do at work or school or home. People have gotten divorced, fired, demoted, expelled from school, arrested and even been exposed to death threats becuase of things they stupidly wrote on Facebook. I've told my friends and family that I'm passing on this fad.

Comments :
Limiting my quote to this topic.

Joe Potillor said...
[...] I've made my facebook unserarchable.

Hans Georg Lundahl said...
"When you get on Facebook you are exposing your personal business and the business of your friends to the whole gawking world."

Unless you have the sense to keep personal business that's personal into PMs and such ...

As I am writing and debating, I obviously have lots to share which I very much do NOT mind sharing with the world.

Suppose I share I am Geocentric.

There are schools where I will not be hired if they know.

But if I am hired, I will try as soon as possible to share it anyway, and even get kicked out of the school, since to serve in a school where Geocentrism is off limits is to serve Satan and to destroy the souls of students.

So, I have every interest to share the fact I am Geocentric, both on FB and elsewhere.

As to those who make stupid comments about it in a debate, well, I kind of expose THEM, but unless they are public persons themselves, I anonymise them.

Dito for fact I am not a fullfledged believer in a proto-Indo-European single and lost language of which others are daughter languages.

The similarities could be Sprachbund or superstrate. Giving Hittite as in Nesili a kind of possibility of providing that superstrate, otherwise possibly a lost "esperanto" between early IE langs affecting them into becoming similar.

A school where I can't share that is a school where I shan't serve, if I can at all avoid it.

Dito, of course, when it comes to my support for young marriages.

vendredi 20 mai 2016

Previous Continued


HGL's F.B. writings : 1) Marital Age and Teen Abortions ; 2) Previous Continued ; Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : 3) Continuing with BG, trying to bring in history, getting a few dialogues on moral issues.

One subthread:

Hans-Georg Lundahl
That is what I meant by saying that I have paid a great price in my life for affirming the right of teens to marry, which is a truly pro-life statement.

You were just giving a pro-abortion argument, while saying it is immoral of me to think it "okay for a CHILD to have a baby".

Well, if it isn't ok, why object to those doing sth about it?

But if you are correct to so object, and you are, why is it not ok for a not indeed child but teen to have children and husband or wife?

Amanda Lewin
Hans-Georg, no you are not understanding my position here. Of course if a child of 13, and as mother of 6, I can assure you a 13 yr old IS a child, became pregnant I would never advocate abortion as that is the deliberate murder of a baby. I would and have support the girl to have her baby and love and care for him/her. That is NOT the issue here. You are placing yourself in a very precarious position openly claiming you support children as young as 13 becoming mothers/marrying.

When a 13 yr old falls pregnant it is always because contraception failed or they were having sex and not considering the consequences, not because they wanted a baby.

BG
Hans you're talking such garbage. The average age of marriage has been fairly much the same through the centuries. Of course in some places because of factors like land availability, disease- and mortality rate (30 was fairly normal age of death before 19th century) as well as crucially EDUCATION into being a mother and wife meant a younger age was possible--- but I've checked many census in my studies and overall there is little variation. eg : 1863, Women: 21.0; Men 25.8, 1900 Women: 21.9; Men: 25.9, 1950 Women: 20.3; Men: 22.8; 1975 Women: 21.1; Men: 23.5

LAG
I just - I have no words. There is a massive difference between saying that it's not ideal for a 13 year old to be pregnant, but if she becomes so, she will be supported either to care for the baby or choose adoption - between saying she is designed to be so.

you are aware that for every year a girl receives education, her children tend to live longer?! Which rather negates her bwing designed to bear them at 13...

Amanda Lewin
D. ^^

LAG
Hans-Georg Lundahl - no-one has stopped you getting a wife. I am really quite disturbed that you seem only to be interested in young girls. I have an 8 year old Brownie who has started puberty. She. Is. A. Child. End of.

LAG
Amanda Lewin - or because the choice has been taken away from them [émoticône frown]

LAG
Out of interest, would these evil men be police officers, child proetection officials and judges? Also, genuine question - what did you mean about may-September?

MR
Sounds like you're an apologist for hebephilia at the very least Hans. Disturbing.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Amanda: "Of course if a child of 13, and as mother of 6, I can assure you a 13 yr old IS a child, became pregnant I would never advocate abortion as that is the deliberate murder of a baby."

Your assurance does not cut any ice with me.

I believe Mother Church, speaking through St Thomas Aquinas and through canon law through the ages, not your maternal instinct, since maternal instinct can sometimes go wrong, sometimes in direction of childifying an offspring who is "one's child" but no longer really "a child", though one's maternal love refuses to recognise that in time.

"I would and have support the girl to have her baby and love and care for him/her."

Yes, but what about the parents who, not dedicated pro-life, would not make that sacrifice?

They would say "she's too young to have a child" - and you support that - and then go on "we can't take care of it" - which you laudably don't support - and conclude for abortion.

Deliberate murder? Sure. But if a 13 year old girl "who is a child" nevertheless can be pregnant, perhaps - they could conclude - "God made a mistake and His laws against murder don't apply".

That is the problem with your position.

"You are placing yourself in a very precarious position openly claiming you support children as young as 13 becoming mothers/marrying."

No more precarious than that of Mother Church over centuries.

"When a 13 yr old falls pregnant it is always because contraception failed or they were having sex and not considering the consequences, not because they wanted a baby."

You can know that is the story that comes out, not that that is the story which is always (or even any time at all) true.

If she told workers at CPS she had wanted the baby, what do you think they would do to her?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
BG : "Hans you're talking such garbage."

After reading the rest of your post, dito, dito.

"The average age of marriage has been fairly much the same through the centuries."

Not quite true, unless you limit your scope to England post-Reformation.

Also not relevant.

Average age cannot be minimum age.

Average means "some below and some above, about same amount".

If you make average age new minimum, you raise - as in fact you know - the minimum age and therefore also the later average.

"Of course in some places because of factors like land availability, disease- and mortality rate (30 was fairly normal age of death before 19th century)"

Where do you get that stat from?

An average where child mortality is counted into the average?

"as well as crucially EDUCATION into being a mother and wife meant a younger age was possible"

Oh, you mean raising educational requirements for being a mother and wife automatically raises minimal age for being so?

Sure. But where do you get the right to raise educational requirements before allowing someone to be a mother and wife?

I am reminded of South States, ex-Slave States, who suddenly introduced educational requirements before allowing someone to vote. If they could not stop a black man from voting because he was a slave or a freedman, they could stop him from voting by raising educational requirement before allowing sn to vote.

For a less important thing like voting, that might be OK, for a more important thing like living one's life, that is so not OK.

"but I've checked many census in my studies and overall there is little variation. eg : 1863, Women: 21.0; Men 25.8, 1900 Women: 21.9; Men: 25.9, 1950 Women: 20.3; Men: 22.8; 1975 Women: 21.1; Men: 23.5"

I note that all the years you give are post-Industrial Revolution.

That is not a very impressive historical perspective.

And I am rather positive, your census studies are also limited to UK.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
LAG: "There is a massive difference between saying that it's not ideal for a 13 year old to be pregnant, but if she becomes so, she will be supported either to care for the baby or choose adoption - between saying she is designed to be so."

How do YOU see the power and wisdom of the Creator?

"you are aware that for every year a girl receives education, her children tend to live longer?! Which rather negates her bwing designed to bear them at 13..."

I think you are quoting stats where countries with lower age requirements and which are poorer also have children living less long.

It might be because the country is poorer, right?

Or, even in such countries, not just between countries overall, the stat you give holds, but that might be because the girls getting education are richer than those not getting it, if not in own property resources, at least in development support from international community.

I'd like to see you argue why it would be so on a kind of story basis, as opposed to a conclusion backed up by stats alone, I'd be interested.

"no-one has stopped you getting a wife."

OK, story line x, y, z ... I see a girl, she seems somewhat interested, next time I meet her she is very offish, end of story.

Or story line like I was seeing a girl over a few months, but last time I saw her (and people knew I was going to see her), I had intended to declare my love, but the night had been broken off very early in the morning and when I did see her I could only tell her I was tired, I did not want to blow a declaration of love. BUT, what I was hoping was to be more refreshed next time I saw her - and instead she moved to another parish.

And a few more ones like that.

"I am really quite disturbed that you seem only to be interested in young girls."

I am 47, an age peer would be:

  • old maid, too old to start getting children;
  • divorced and therefore not eligible
  • having lived a dissolute life and gotten children with guys she was not married to
  • or be a widow, with children already.


I prefer not to speculate in the death of some other man.

So, I am obviously interested in girls younger, and lots younger, than myself.

"I have an 8 year old Brownie who has started puberty. She. Is. A. Child. End of."

Story, I presume.

I have never gotten horny on an 8 year old, and the canonic age is, through centuries, 12.

If she is early on, which she seems to be, she will be suffering more than most by the raising of the canonic age and of legal age in your country beyond it.

"or because the choice has been taken away from them"

I think this girl I mentioned was told off by parents or parish priests.

"Out of interest, would these evil men be police officers, child proetection officials and judges?"

Police were directly involved in one story. They never put me to a trial in court about it.

Judges never so, thus.

The judges I had to deal with were in quite another business.

CP-officials, that is more than I know, but not beyond possibility in some cases.

In the case of the girl I mentioned in connection with my very tired night last time I saw her, she was too old for that.

"Also, genuine question - what did you mean about may-September?"

Older man, younger wife.

Perhaps the expression is US, I saw it on an American blog, where it was argued that St Joseph was a young man. Why? Because "Jews at the time looked ascance at May-September marriages". I tend to believe he was a widower and older. I never got an answer on where she had it from that Jews of the time etc.

"Sounds like you're an apologist for hebephilia at the very least Hans. Disturbing."

Why so, if it is heterosexual and intends matrimony?

Last time I checked, St Thomas was not writing that sexual acts or desires become more or less sinful according how to psychologists evaluate them. Hebephilia is not a term from Summa Theologica, it is a term from modern shrinks. What have today's Catholics to do with such, if not Apostate?

Sorry, I now saw "sounds like" etc was by MR, not LAG.

Amanda Lewin
Right Hans-Georg, you've taken up too much of my wall discussing sexual relations for minors. .The word ephebophile, comes to mind here, who as I'm sure you'll know is an adult who seeks sexual contact with a child between 13-19. Don't misuse the Holy Catholic Church's teachings as a facade for your predatory. I've allowed you to spew your delusions over my wall and now you're going to stop. And take my words off your blog too immediately. MW D

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ephebe is a MALE sexual interest for an older male.

That means it is perverted because it is homosexual.

Minors is precisely what I mean by unjust marriage legislation. 150 years ago, they would have been in age of consent in England. And in age to marry too.

I am not predatory, I am victim of calumny, like your insult, but most often behind my back.

I am loyal to the teaching, you think you can flout it because "as predatory" I am not worthy to use it. That is Pharisaic, not Catholic as a way of thinking.

I have not been spewing, and I am not deluded. You are, and the word has no clinical significance, because you are wrong about history. Or, if it has any kind of clinical significance, neither of us is, you are just heretical.

I can of course stop, like if you ban me from the wall. I will however NOT take your words off my blog.

And, as said, you are giving pro-deathers a case, whether you be aware of it or not.

Amanda Lewin
You have used my words without permission and put them on your paedo blog and you will remove them or I will get it done legally.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Try to.

My blog cannot be qualified as paedo predatory. You can of course get evil judges to do so by calumny, I presume.

Amanda Lewin
Why, has that happened before Hans? Sounds like you know something about it! Keep deluding yourself but you will remove it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I had my life ruined by calumny, in a case where I could legally have married the concerned next year by a special permission, and in which I could very well have agreed with her and her parents to see each other in safe places where temptation could nut run amuck.

It would have been a very good example to the village.

I did nothing so illegal that I was judged for it, but evil men intrigued and I was judged for another thing - defending myself against policement acting for shrinks.

I am not ashamed of what I did.

However, I am aware that blogs are deletable.

I had an MSN Group which was deleted with all the rest in 2009. And I salvaged a little for my new blogger account.

Oh, btw, if you want legal action, I am not hiding.

ESI St Martin
27 ter Bd de St Martin
FR-75003 Paris.

Amanda Lewin
How old was the minor you were attempting to marry Hans?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
14, and at 15 she could have asked for a permission from the "county" of however you translate "län".

In France, if we had been there, she could have legally married even without one at 15 (changed 2006, 7 years before gay marriage).

And in case you want to know, I was just twice her age. That means now we'd have been more equal - if we had married.

Amanda Lewin
You were 30 and wanted to marry a 14 year old? In the UK you'd have been arrested.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
So would the father of St Francis of Sales then.

He married her, when she was fourteen, and he was older than 30.

Btw, I was 28.

Amanda Lewin
Yes, but now we have laws Hans to protect against sexual deviance

Hans-Georg Lundahl
As said, St Thomas does not count such a thing as a perversion.

If you believe it is "sexually deviant" and should be stopped, you are believing doctrines of evil spirits.

As St Paul told St Timothy people would do in the last days.

Funny your putting it that way. Your laws no longer protect against sodomy.

Amanda Lewin
NO, you are hiding behind what you think will allow you to carry on being sexually corrupt with little girls.. You are using the Holy Catholic Church and hiding behind it... Sound familiar?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I think you are confusing me with some network of priests introduced about the time of Novus Ordo.

I am not "being sexually corrupt" with little girls.

Other subthread:

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"they were kept inside until we left."

That is how ex-pupils, including the one I was hoping to marry, were treated when I was around.

LAG
Hans - why do you think so may people were concerned?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Because of the ideology they believe and I am fighting against.

I could also mention an occasion where I was simply trying to distribute a pro-life leaflet.

jeudi 19 mai 2016

Marital Age and Teen Abortions


HGL's F.B. writings : 1) Marital Age and Teen Abortions ; 2) Previous Continued ; Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : 3) Continuing with BG, trying to bring in history, getting a few dialogues on moral issues.


Amanda Lewin is official spokesman of Oxford Prolife, not anonymised. LAG is, to further notice, supposed to be a private person, therefore anonymised. Unless she wants anonymity lifted.

Amanda Lewin (status in group)
Oh so heartbreaking to see FOUR 13 or 14yr old school girls entering the abortion centre. They refused to talk with me and one of them swore at me when I asked her a question..How society has ruined our young. Please pray for them. There is always a dark presence at this place, but today felt especially oppressive and they were kept inside until we left. Lambs to the slaughter, Jesus please protect them! Amen

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Oh so heartbreaking to see FOUR 13 or 14yr old school girls entering the abortion centre. They refused to talk with me and one of them swore at me when I asked her a question..How society has ruined our young.


How often have you protested the unjust marital legislation which says they can't get married till sixteen?

[continued on ensuing comments:]

I have protested this unjust marriage legislation, in Sweden even worse as rule is 18/18, at a great cost in my own life.

"they were kept inside until we left."

That is how ex-pupils, including the one I was hoping to marry, were treated when I was around.

[dialogue answering my first:]

LAG
Sorry, am I missing something? How old would you want the marriage age to be?

Amanda Lewin
LAG, hoping Hans-Georg meant much much older...

LAG
Amanda Lewin slightly concerned as it doesn't appear so from the other comments, but hoping something is lost in translation!

Amanda Lewin
Sorry, I'm still over tired from yesterday..

Hans-Georg Lundahl
St Thomas Aquinas defended the canonical ages of 14 for male and 12 for female contrahent of marriage.

During 20:th C. either Church or counter-Church raised this just two years - so a girl of 14 at least is even in canon law of 1983 per se marriageable.

Russian Czarist régime seems to have had the intermediate, 15/13. Plus added requirements like not too great disparity of age (not a RC requirement), no marriage without dispensation after 60, no marriage for unmarried or widowers at all after 80.

So, whatever you hoped, you were not just wrong about me, but about Church as well.

As for fact that Roman Catholic Church is more benign to May-September than Russian Orthodox (who, with divorce, might have been having to deal with May-September breaking up in infidelity and new marriages or even worse being a temptation that breaks up marriages) check how different the ages were of St. Francis de Sales' parents.

Amanda Lewin
Sorry but how can this be a) relevant to today's situations and b) be even slightly morally acceptable? Some girls aren't even menstruating at 13, how can they be expected to be sexually active? And it is so incredibly vile and wrong, child abuse actually. D, isn't this against God and all that is good?
JL

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Sorry but how can this be a) relevant to today's situations"

Because of fact that when a 13 year old girl gets pregnant, precisely TODAY she is told that she's too young to have a child.

That is so the opposite of encouraging the girls to be mothers.

"b) be even slightly morally acceptable? Some girls aren't even menstruating at 13, how can they be expected to be sexually active?"

The rule of making 12 minimum age for girls is not requiring all of them to get married as soon as it's legal.

St Thomas says, if a girl is menstruating earlier, she should usually still not be allowed to marry earlier, but if she does and marriage is consumed, it should be respected as a marriage. And on other hand, if due to later development she is not yet menstruating, she should not marry and could under some circumstances a marriage, pre-cocious for her, if there was one, dissolved.

"And it is so incredibly vile and wrong, child abuse actually"

No.

If a girl age 13 can be pregnant, and obviously she can, you just said so yourself, she is not a child anymore.

The fact that she is treated as a child who needs special protection is the excuse for the "shielding" of her from your "menace" (as you surely know they call it) which you rightly deplored.

I was just composing a new melody for Rosa rorans day before yesterday:

musicalia : Rosa rorans
http://hglundahlsmusik.blogspot.com/2016/05/rosa-rorans.html


St Bridget was 13 at marriage and 14 at consummation of marriage.

She is usually depicted at an older stage of her life, as a widow - she had 8 (or sth) children.

"D, isn't this against God and all that is good?"

You might want to check with Church tradition rather than modern psychology or D. Or JL.

AC
It is true that the age is set at that in canon law. HOWEVER, it also needs to be said that canon law also dictates that the customs of the country you are in are to be followed. So, if the law of the land is 16, 16 it is.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I think that requirement:

  • a) is from the newer canon code, and possibly from invalid new-Church one;
  • b) may originally have been there to allow Spain (which had 14/12 limit a hundred years ago) to keep a lower limit than newer canon law, if such;
  • c) anyway only defines what is legal, not what should be legal and not what is normal vs perverted.


Amanda Lewin
JL is a lawyer and D is my good friend and worked for the CPS, which is why I called in their opinion.

The fact that a 13yr old girl can physically have a baby does not it morally correct. It's sad to me you think this is acceptable.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
That latter remark of yours implies you consider the Creator has made a mistake.

That is theologically deplorable.

The extreme varieties of menarche are between 9 and 18, excepting what is considered as pathological, but the mean is a few months above 12.

Corresponding for male sex, with a mean a few months above 14.

The curse of Adam may be behind some having a few years to go on mental side even while mature physically, with others having a few years to go physically while mature mentally. But the medium value still must reflect God's original intention.

If God had not wanted any girls to get pregnant at 13, He would have created girls otherwise.

Your lawyer friend should take account of this, and if not be considered as not heeding the natural law.

AC
Hans, regardless of if you accept the 1983 code of Canon Law (which you should, or else you are outside the Church, a schismatic), you cannot deny that maturity has always been a grounds for marriage in the Church, and that for a marriage to be validly contracted, and sacramentally valid, a certain degree of maturity has to be reached. This was, in fact, the reason behind that age limit, and other regulations promulgated at Trent, if memory serves, and I think beforehand, too. Whilst these ages are minimum legal requirements, with which I am actually in total accord, by the way, that does not mean it is right for every person to get married at such a young age.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Yes, indeed. And St Thomas Aquinas argued that the precise maturity required was reached usually at 14/12 limit.

Nor do I suggest that a person maturing more slowly than medium should be marrying at the legal minimum which is done according to observed medium age of maturity.

AC
I think the argument Amanda is making, and rightly, in my opinion, is that most British girls would not be mature enough to marry at 12 (nor most boys at 14). I have to be honest, most of them can't get out of bed on time, let alone get up to feed a baby at 3am. . .

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Oh, that is the very modern misconception of "mental age".

A girl of 13 is by God meant to be a mother and by society forced into a false position of prolonged "immaturity" status and treated as a child.

They take their revenge, that is NOT immaturity.

Hans-Georg Lundahl (added later)
Amanda Lewin, as to your words "And it is so incredibly vile and wrong, child abuse actually" I will tell you what actually is so: CPS as it is being handled in too many cases.

Taking away children or teens from their parents is child abuse and youth abose, most times it happens in Norway or Sweden.

Amanda Lewin
Yes it is but we're not discussing that are we? We are discussing the fact you think it is okay for a CHILD to have a baby. You can't be a father.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
No, it is NOT a fact I think it is okay for a CHILD to have a baby. Before puberty you are a child and God did not create you so you could have babies before puberty.

But you are right I am not a father, evil men have stopped me from becoming one, by stopping me from getting a wife, either as parents of concerned girls or as people councelling those parents or as people generally councelling about me and doing so usually behind my back.

That is what I meant by saying that I have paid a great price in my life for affirming the right of teens to marry, which is a truly pro-life statement.

You were just giving a pro-abortion argument, while saying it is immoral of me to think it "okay for a CHILD to have a baby".

Well, if it isn't ok, why object to those doing sth about it?

But if you are correct to so object, and you are, why is it not ok for a not indeed child but teen to have children and husband or wife?

mercredi 11 mai 2016

Debate on Angelic Movers - and 1054, Photius


1) Debate on Angelic Movers - and 1054, Photius · 2) Craig Crawford is back in the fray on angelic movers!

Dean Edridge
Here's a 125 page Critique by Dr. Robert Sungenis of the 2015 Carter/Sarfati Paper Titled: “Why the Universe does not Revolve Around the Earth: Refuting Absolute Geocentrism”

[CMI : Why the Universe does not revolve around the Earth
Refuting absolute geocentrism
by Robert Carter and Jonathan Sarfati
Published: 12 February 2015 (GMT+10)]
http://creation.com/refuting-absolute-geocentrism


by Robert Carter and Jonathan Sarfati

[GWW : Critique of the 2015 Carter/Sarfati Paper Titled:
“Why the Universe does not Revolve Around the Earth:
Refuting Absolute Geocentrism”
http://creation.com/refuting-absolute-geocentrism
by Robert Carter and Jonathan Sarfati]
https://gwwdvd.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Why-the-Universe-does-not-revolve-around-the-Earth.pdf


MFT
The problem with intellectuals is that they are stuck on themselves. Did you read any of this? Just read the first lines of each section and you will understand what I mean. They just love to hear themselves talk! They say a lot of words to say very little. A scientific paper should be about the issues. Number them and label the issue first! 1. Curve 2. Angel of suns rays, 3. Horizon, 4. 200 proofs of a FE !!! Then a paper might get my interest! Otherwise this is just an exercise in blah blah blah self worship! A real person wants to keep it simple for the sake of being understood. hey Guys, It is not about YOU !!! Get off your high horses and speak truth. Truth is plain and simple! And if anyone wants to take me on and even hints that I don't understand any of this and that is why I am writing this then BRING IT !

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I also answered same article, and my answer is shorter.

Here:

Creation vs. Evolution : In Today's Article on Maxwell, CMI Linked Back to an Oldie
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/04/in-todays-article-on-maxwell-cmi-linked.html


Craig Crawford
re: the notion that angels move the celestial bodies

St. Photius the Great (+891)
Bibliotheca

36. [Cosmas Indicopleustes, Christian Topography]

"Read the book entitled the Book of Christians, an interpretation of the Octateuch. The author, who flourished in the reign of Justin, dedicates the work to a certain Pamphilus, It begins with the defence of certain ecclesiastical dogmas by evidence drawn from the Scriptures. The style is poor, and the arrangement hardly up to the ordinary standard. He relates much that is incredible from an historical point of view, so that he may fairly be regarded as a fabulist rather than a trustworthy authority. The views on which he lays special stress are: that neither the sky nor the earth is spherical, but that the former is a kind of vault, and the latter a rectangular plane, [twice as long as broad], to the ends of which the ends of the sky are united; that all the stars, with the help of the angels, are kept in motion; and other things of the same kind."


Hans-Georg Lundahl
My dear, I am far from sure Photius was even eventually a saint, and at least he witnesses to the fact this was believed by others.

He does NOT cite his own belief as to what exactly moves stars and heavenly bodies, and I am anyway placing St Thomas Aquinas above him, at least intellectually.

He can of course have died in peace with the Pope.

Citing myself:

"If someone knows of some Byzantine cleric who disappeared from history before he died, I am not sure the Beowulf poet in England can be excluded from being that person later in life."

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : The Beowulf Poet Knew Homer
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-beowulf-poet-knew-homer.html


Craig Crawford
Thomas Aquinas was a part of the schism of the Latin West, and taught multiple heresies, which is why Orthodox Christians do not accept him, nor his errors.

Saint Photius is a great saint, one of the three pillars of Orthodoxy.

Which Pope specifically are you referring to when you say that St, Photius "died in peace with the pope"?

Many heresies find their origin in pre-Christian pagan philosophy. There is nothing new under the sun,

Just because Cosmas Indicopleustes, who has never been recognized as any kind of authority by anyone in the Church, taught the absurdity that angels move planets doesn't prove that it is a traditional teaching of the Church.

Where are all the Patristic witnesses testifying that angels are charge with the task of moving celestial bodies? Please cite them.

Cosmas also taught a flat earth, which none of the Holy Fathers ever taught. Do you accept his teaching on that as well?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Thomas Aquinas was a part of the schism of the Latin West,"

If there was truly a schism, and people like you tend to give me the impression there was and is, the perpretrator was called Caerularius.

"and taught multiple heresies"

Taught no heresies.

"which is why Orthodox Christians do not accept him, nor his errors."

"which is why" Photian Heretics "do not accept him, nor his errors", as they pretend.

"Saint Photius is a great saint, one of the three pillars of Orthodoxy."

Whether he be a saint or not does not depend on how Photian Heretics class him.

"Which Pope specifically are you referring to when you say that St, Photius "died in peace with the pope"?"

I did not say that he did, I said it was possible he did. And the Pope I referred to was whoever was Pope when he died.

"Many heresies find their origin in pre-Christian pagan philosophy. There is nothing new under the sun"

Certainly, but more so in pagan superstitions. Plus the false philosophies Epicureanism and Stoicism which St Thomas Aquinas rejected.

"Just because Cosmas Indicopleustes, who has never been recognized as any kind of authority by anyone in the Church, taught the absurdity that angels move planets doesn't prove that it is a traditional teaching of the Church."

Cosmas was not a Catholic, but a Nestorian, I have heard.

He testifies the teaching existed previous to whoever rejected him.

"Where are all the Patristic witnesses testifying that angels are charge with the task of moving celestial bodies? Please cite them."

As far as I know the Fathers of the First Millennium (not accepting your Photius as such) did not bother to explain celestial bodies in greater detail than was necessary to prove compatibility of known scientific fact and Holy Writ.

However, this cuts both ways: you have no fathers testifying to opposite either, not even directly St John of Damascus.

St John of Damascus does however say angels and demons are both in all of our affairs.

And sun and tides do belong to our affairs, which gives a presumption of angelic intervention at least for sun and moon.

Also, Photius plays the fastidious who likes to throw things off, he does not bother to explain in any kind of argument with any kind of detail. He says he thinks "x" absurd, but does not say what "y" is not absurd.

St Thomas however does explain things.

Can we presume Photius had never given cosmology any serious thought, but only scoffed at what he found scoffable?

Or shall we presume instead he believed not only outermost Heaven moved by God himself (as with St Thomas and as with St John of Damascus), but every sphere inside that of fixed stars simply just mechanically moved by the one outside it? If so, Tycho proved him wrong by observing a comet. Solid spheres are out now.

"Cosmas also taught a flat earth, which none of the Holy Fathers ever taught. Do you accept his teaching on that as well?"

I do not accept Cosmas as a teacher, but simply as a witness to what beliefs where somehow somewhere current.

If the Occident and Byzantium were clearly mostly round earth, it was never condemned to accept a flat earth.

If the Latin West and Byzantium had monarchs holding an "orbis cruciger", this was not perhaps so among all Christians living in patriarchies of Antioch or Alexandria. Can you cite any who did?

Because, the fact is that the flat earth fathers at least some have supposed to exist, are insofar valuable as they did not share the idea of solid spheres, and thus we have no Patristic unanimity for them, and thus it is not a heresy to deny solid spheres with Tycho and more recent astronomers.

But your final words show how strange and Barbarian the "Orthodox" are to us of the West.

"Do you ACCEPT HIS TEACHING on that as well?"

[My added emphasis with block letters]

  • 1) I am not "accepting teachings" except insofar as I am with St Thomas Aquinas.
  • 2) Even if I were not accepting the teaching of St Thomas Aquinas, had never heard of it, the idea of angels moving stars, comets and planets, iuncluding Sun and Moon makes sense to me.
  • 3) I am accepting the words of Cosmas as evidence, not as a teaching, but as evidence that the idea made sense to others as well.
  • 4) But YOU seem to ask "is he accepting the teaching of someone or is he a heretic, because he thinks for himself" - even if there is no Church decision against what I think.
  • 5) YOU seem to ask "if he is accepting a teaching, is he a follower of Cosmas Indocopleustes?"


To YOU, philosophic debate is dead. And yet, the Mystagogy of your own Photius, refuted in kind by Sts Anselm and Thomas, depends too much on it for you to safely ignore it.

Note on Photius obscurity and death:
Photius semble avoir été exilé dans un monastère éloigné de la capitale qui n'est pas vraiment identifié. On ne connaît en fait rien de certain de cette dernière partie de sa vie. Il serait mort un 6 février (jour où il apparaît dans le Synaxaire de Constantinople), soit en 891, soit en 897. (French Wiki).

Not sure which year, not sure which monastery - my theory could be correct. At least by 897, ten years and some months after his forced resignation, he could have mastered Anglo-Saxon. If the monastery was closer to Yarrow than to Athos, or if he had contact with English Varingiar.

Note on doctrinal content of Mystagogy
The "ek tou Patri all' oukhi ek tou Hyiou" (or however he worded it, quotation marks here are not meant as indicating exact quote with exact currently checked reference) contradicts Pope and Church Father St Leo I, the Great, whose day it was about a month ago. As well as a few others.

Note on above quote from Bibliotheca
I feel very dubious about editors' view that the item 36 of Bibliotheca is really Cosmas Indocopleustes.

Photius described the item as:

the book entitled the Book of Christians,
Not matched by "Christian topography".

an interpretation of the Octateuch.
Not matched by content description of Christian Topography, according to which we are dealing with a geographical work, while the one discussed by Photius was exegetic.

The author, who flourished in the reign of Justin, dedicates the work to a certain Pamphilus,
Cosmas was hardly anonymous to Photius? Reign or Justin matches, but I don't know if Cosmas also dedicated his work to any Pamphilus. If he did, it may have been someone it was customary to dedicate books too.

Virgil and Horace are not identic, just because both dedicated books to Maecenas.

It begins with the defence of certain ecclesiastical dogmas by evidence drawn from the Scriptures.
If Cosmas, as I recall, was Nestorian, thus heterodox, Photius would hardly have described that work as defending certain ecclesiastical dogmas by evidence drawn from Scriptures.

Also, I have not heard Topography had apologetic content over and above the in fact erroneous one for flat earth.

vendredi 29 avril 2016

On Demonising Pro-Lifers (even Compromising Such)

John Médaille via The Raw Story
I don't often side with the Satanists, but even the devil has limits.

The Raw Story : Satanists are furious that Boehner compared Ted Cruz to the Dark Lord
Bethania Palma Markus, 28 Apr 2016 at 13:40 ET
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/04/satanists-are-furious-that-boehner-compared-ted-cruz-to-the-dark-lord/


Hans-Georg Lundahl
What exactly is your problem with Ted Cruz?

Unlike Bernie Sanders, he seems to have some indignation about Abortion:

OnTheIssues : Ted Cruz on Abortion
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Ted_Cruz_Abortion.htm


OnTheIssues : Bernie Sanders on Abortion
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Abortion.htm


If Satanists should take umbrage at any comparison, it would rather be that of BS ? Oh, wait, they share his positions on the issue, they would take it as a compliment!

John Médaille
Yes, it's all about abortion.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Making the poor somewhat richer can be done by private means, it is called giving alms. Banning abortion or at least some of them, well, that is less easy with private means.

Also, as he is pro contraception, he is economically undermining the social democracy he is proposing.

Sweden has had contraceptives for so long, and they have been pushed further, due to strong feminism, and 2003 a Social Democratic Prime Minister announced Old Age Pensions would be privatised.

The private funds for Sweden's old age pensions will also fail, due to low birthrate, but that way it won't be the state that fails.

And when certain immigrants having a higher brithrate take over, I don't see them being so stupid as to support a system which did the Swedes out of their country.

So, BS is BS.

Note, I have been labelled as a "Nazi"* by some simply for observing this!

* National Socialists, of which I am not, reject the label.