lundi 18 juillet 2016

Balkan Lack of Infinitives + IE Origins


LN
I was just conlangin' when this question passed by in my head: What's up with infinitives, is there a thing they're useful for?

CH
Some natural languages don't have them. in Serbian its kinda optional... желим да jедем means I want to eat, but it literally translates "I wish (to) I eat". да kind of acts as the infinitive, in that it makes the jедем mean to eat, even though its conjugated in present first person singular. This kind of thing is also used exclusively in Greek, Bulgarian and Macedonian.

In greek... thelo na fao
thelo (I want) na (to) fao (I eat)

In these languages, the dictionary forms are usually rendered in first person singular or third person singular.

HGL
"желим да jедем" + "thelo na fao"

Balcanic Sprachbund?

Both other Slavic languages and older versions of Greek have infinitive.

Ethelo fagein. (Shouldn't have said that, getting hungry).
Polish has chcę jeść [I want + to eat ]

CH
yep, that's exactly what I'm talking about.

[Screen shot of Balkan Sprachbund article]

HGL
Wonderful!

Speaking of Sprachbund, how do you like Trubetskoy's idea, Indo-European language community started out as a Sprachbund rather than by a Proto-Language?

CH
I've never actually heard of this. But no, I would rather like to think that the languages from europe diverged from a single language, rather than several languages sharing similar grammar because of sprachbund. It just seems more natural to me.

HGL
Since "natural" means "born with", I'll bear with your thinking it more natural.

But look at heading of the article you quoted:

"Several features are found across these languages though not all need apply to every single language."

Very true for IE too.

"While they share little vocabulary, their grammars have very extensive similarities; for example they have similar case systems and verb conjugation systems and have all become more analytic, although to differing degrees."

Apart from Turkish all Balkan languages are IE.

This means "share little vocabulary" applies even more to IE.

Roumanian and Bulgarian arguably share more vocabulary than Spanish and Ukrainean.

[In case anyone thinks this unclear, of course Roumanian and Spanish share more than Roumanian and Bulgarian, and Bulgarian and Ukrainean also more than Roumanian and Bulgarian - but when a Slavic and a Romance language are both Balkan based (Roumanian and Bulgarian), they are closer than when they are neither Balkan based nor neighbourse elsewhere (Spanish and Ukrainean).]

My Greek professor cited this theory of Trubetskoy - and now I see Trubetskoy was one of the early experts on Balkan Sprachbund.


[Speaking of Trubetskoy, he was better off under Austrofascism than after the Anschluss. Composer and Music Theorician Schenker was also better off under Austrofascism (he died in 1935, old age of 67) than his widow after Anschluss]

lundi 11 juillet 2016

Is Pope Michael behind this?


I mean, is Pope Michael behind the kind of proposal Robb Thurston made, below.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I think the Christian militias have a right to defend Christian populations.

old link from 2014:

Muslims Rape Christian Women, 600 Christians Take Up Arms And Make One Final And Heroic Stand Against Muslim Jihadists
By Theodore Shoebat, on July 7, 2014
http://shoebat.com/2014/07/07/muslims-rape-christian-women-600-christians-take-arms-make-one-final-heroic-stand-muslim-jihadists/


Robb Thurston
In the USA, the KKK should do that. They are worthy!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Are they?

Aren't they still supporting eugenicism and things like that?

Robb Thurston
Isn't the Pope still Infallible? No, just let the KKK protect the USA abd if you ask too many questions, you are a Radical Jihadist. Capiche

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Has HH Pope Michael endorsed KKK?

And as for "abd if you ask too many questions, you are a Radical Jihadist" - you sound like a thug, not like a Catholic?

Also, a Pope being infallible does NOT mean he can secretly give an order and that order is also covered by infallibility, if such should be the case.

Popes are infallible in certain contexts, like speaking up before the whole Church.

If a Pope should make a deal with FBI, CIA, KKK, KGB, Gestapo or whatever, such a deal is NOT covered by Papal infallibility and a Catholic is perfectly free to oppose it.

I hope you get that distinction, which was hammered down by your possible patron Saint, St Robert Bellarmine, in his controversies with James VI & I.

I hope HH is aware of the distinction, if he is not, he is too bad in theology, perhaps even a heretic, to be a Pope.

Robb Thurston
The KKK is a society of knights who are engaged in home guard. I propose that the Muslims should be suppressed under the rulership of a pious Christian Emperor, and the KKK has that Emperor, the Grand Dragon. O/K you go on quibbling, and women get raped, boys are forced into concubinage, Christian art is effaced as "idolatry", and so on. You want an election and popular votes on this, you want liberalism, but all that which smacks of liberalism was condemned in a Bull: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execrabilis". (1) secure Christendom with a Great Emperor; (2) convene many monasteries to consider ethics of converting the Muslim to the Peace of the Christian Emperor. When Mecca and Medina are Christian shrines, we can consider conciliation of local cultures. In the mean time, secure women and children, as even a sea captain knows best.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"The KKK is a society of knights who are engaged in home guard."

The Templars were a society of knights, and they were condemned by the Council of Vienne in Isère. 1313.

Not due to difference between Home Guard or Crusades to the lands occupied by Muslims, but due to doctrinal and therefore also pastoral faults.

I was asking whether KKK had cleared itself of its previous and well known doctrinal errors.

"I propose that the Muslims should be suppressed under the rulership of a pious Christian Emperor,"

I do not know exactly what kind of suppression you mean.

If you mean suppression of their agression, I would be for it. Not just Daesh / Islamic state, but also of their role in psychiatry and their predominance in organised welfare.

They do give lots of food to the poor, but sometimes a bit too much. And neither beer nor always even coffee to go with it.

If you mean suppression of their private lives, I am against it.

"and the KKK has that Emperor, the Grand Dragon."

Oh, is that so?

The Empire was never electing its Emperors by the leaders of societies of knights, when it functioned.

It was electing its Emperors through the Electors.

"O/K you go on quibbling, and women get raped, boys are forced into concubinage, Christian art is effaced as 'idolatry', and so on."

My socalled quibbling has not stopped anyone from fighting Muslims.

"You want an election and popular votes on this, you want liberalism, but all that which smacks of liberalism was condemned in a Bull" [Exsecrabilis]

And making a heretic Emperor was as condemned as making a heretic Pope in another Bull, Cum ex Apostolatus.

I was asking whether KKK had ceased to be heretics.

You have not given a straight answer, you have only shirked the issue.

"(1) secure Christendom with a Great Emperor;"

Good idea per se.

At least possibly so.

"(2) convene many monasteries to consider ethics of converting the Muslim to the Peace of the Christian Emperor."

I think the ethics have already been considered.

The answer is:

  • a) a Christian who apostasises to Islam may be forced to recant;
  • b) a Muslim (individual or force) who agresses Christians in such ways as to merit death penalty may be forced to recant;
  • c) a Muslim who is not an apostate and who has not agressed Christians should be offered missionaries but left free to decide.


[In fact, the same principles apply to all non-Christian religions.]

"When Mecca and Medina are Christian shrines, we can consider conciliation of local cultures."

As far as it is possible, conciliation of local cultures should come first. Not as end result of a war project.

"In the mean time, secure women and children, as even a sea captain knows best."

I am not sure KKK is best suited all over North America to provide that service. Most communities the men should be doing that even without the KKK.

And KKK is not suited at all, as long as engaged in heresies about race or eugenicism.

That is why I made the question about whether they had renounced eugenicism.
Craig Crawford
When are Christians going to stand up and defend themselves against Jewish terror?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Perhaps not a bad question.

Perhaps there will come a day when I will have to. Not sure.

[I was not challenged, but I am referring to things like psychiatry and the Jewish version of the kind of omertà which Robb Thurston was asking of me.]

mardi 21 juin 2016

Chrétienté, clergé, abus, cathares, vassaux - un débat


1) New blog on the kid : Il y a des quiproquo qui ont la vie dure, sur le Moyen Âge et sur l'Ancien Régime. · 2) HGL's F.B. writings : Chrétienté, clergé, abus, cathares, vassaux - un débat

Jean-marc Pernon
cite, en "meme" (sur un fil de discussion plus large):

Dalil Boubakeur
La nationalité musulmane est une supranationalité, (...) elle est au-dessus de toutes les nationalités.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
La nationalité catholique est une supranationalité, elle est au-dessus des nationalités.

Jean-marc Pernon
vous êtes en retard de quelques siècles ...

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Lesquelles?

Jean-marc Pernon
siècle est un mot masculin

sinon lesquelles quoi ?

[Il a raison!]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Siècles, et je me suis levé avant sept heures ce matin.

[J'ai une excuse!]

Jean-marc Pernon
ça dépend des pays mais plusieurs siècles que la confession ( au moins en occident ) fait partie de la sphère privée. Vous le savez bien alors pourquoi faites-vous le naïf

de nos jours plus aucune autorité religieuse chrétienne ne dit que la religion est une supranationalité ! De plus Jésus est assez clair :" mon royaume n'est pas de ce monde"

Hans-Georg Lundahl
  • 1) "la laïcité" a été introduite de divers manières et occasions en divers pays. Je suis suédois, pays pour lequel en 2000 l'église d'état luthérienne a cessé d'être une para-nationalité - et en France la "loi sur séparation d'église et d'état" fut en 1905 introduite avec des crimes contre l'église, quoique à une échelle inférieure de celle en Russie 12 ans après.

  • 2) Jésus est une autorité encore, j'espère, il a aussi dit qu'Il va juger les nations et que les disciples doivent faire disciples des nations.

  • 3) Les vraies autorités religieuses pour un catholique sont parmi ceux qui condamnent cette notion de la laïcité.


Y compris Pape St Pie X, qui condamna le geste de Clémenceau.

Jean-marc Pernon
Merci pour cette leçon d'histoire qui ne change rien. La religion fait partie de la sphère privée que ça vous plaise ou non. Perso' je m'en réjouis. A travers les temps le clergé à largement fait la preuve de son incapacité à gouverner de façon juste selon la parole de Jésus-Christ.Les francs-maçons et le pouvoir laïque ne font pas mieux mais au moins ils ne se réclament pas de Jésus.

L'ennemi est clairement défini !

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"A travers les temps le clergé à largement fait la preuve de son incapacité à gouverner de façon juste selon la parole de Jésus-Christ."

D'abord, il ne gouvernait normalement pas.

Ensuite, il n'a pas tellement montré une telle incapacité.

J'aimerais savoir quels manuels d'histoire vous consultez?

Jean-marc Pernon
vous cherchez à prouver quoi au juste ? que le clergé c'est une bande de gugusses trop cools ? qui a les mains blanches ? des purs des justes ? ... quant à vos références "manuels d'histoire" ... vous savez bien que ce sont toujours les vainqueurs qui écrivent l'histoire !

voulez-vous la liste des meurtres d'hérétiques ? la liste des biens volés par le clérgé au nom de Dieu ? la liste des curés et papes apostats ... polygames pédophiles ???

Pour moi ces crimes sont pires car faits au nom de Dieu !

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"voulez-vous la liste des meurtres d'hérétiques ?"

Serait-elle pas un peu courte, genre La St Bartolomé et le meurtre planifié mais pas exécuté par Guy Fawkes? Et, un peu maladroit, peut-être, car Henri IV était déjà Catholique, Ravaillac?

"la liste des biens volés par le clérgé au nom de Dieu ?"

[Il ne la donne pas, dans ce qui suit.]

En Suède et Angleterre et en pas mal de parties d'Allemagne, on parlerait plutôt des biens et des droits volés DU clergé, par le pouvoir.

En France 1905 d'ailleurs aussi!

"la liste des curés et papes apostats"

Curés, non.

[Elle est trop longue depuis Vatican II]

Papes, non récupérés: Bergoglio en arrière vers Roncalli, peut-être déjà Pacelli.

[Pape Libère s'est récupéré!]

Avez-vous d'autres?

"polygames pédophiles ???"

Curés pédérastes (attention, il y a aussi eu des curés simplement hébéphiles hétéro, ce qui est triste comme crime, mais pas en soi une perversion), c'est récemment qu'on les garde, car entre 1568 (quand le Pape St Pie V s'est rendu compte du problème) et environ Vatican II (ou peut-être un peu plus tôt, sous Pacelli), ce qu'on faisait en découvrant un curé pédéraste ou autrement sodomite, c'est de le laïciser.

"Pour moi ces crimes sont pires car faits au nom de Dieu !"

Lequel de ces crimes?

Lequel est fait au nom de Dieu? La Réforme Protestante? Oui.

Jean-marc Pernon
j'ai l'impression que vous vivez dans un monde imaginaire ... mais bon ... et la "croisade des albigeois" contre les cathares c'était quoi ?

vous passez un peu rapidement l'éponge sur les perversions du clergé je trouve

Hans-Georg Lundahl
La croisade contre les albigeois était une guerre juste contre un terrorisme hérétique.

Pour avoir une idée juste de quoi Simon de Montfort libérait Albi et Toulouse, faut savoir ce que c'était le Catharisme et comment il était vécu à l'époque.

Peut-on avoir une guerre contre Daesh? Pouvait-on avoir une guerre contre les Mormons de Utah à l'époque qu'ils montaient un état sauvage et pilleur? Alors, on pouvait avoir une guerre contre les Albigeois aussi.

"vous passez un peu rapidement l'éponge sur les perversions du clergé je trouve"

En 1568, St Pie V installe une routine : celui qui est attrapé en train de commettre ou de clairement chercher la sodomie est éliminé du clergé, il perd ses postes, il est laïcisé. Un moine est censé faire pénitence en solitude après ça.

[Le document s'appelle "De Horrendo Scelere"]

C'est récemment, et après les temps de "l'abbé Combes", que ceci a changé. Émile Combes était par la presse catholique cariqué comme un défroqué - un prêtre ou séminariste ayant perdu la soutane à cause d'un acte infame, comme hérésie ou sodomie.

Jean-marc Pernon
Vous faites de la propagande !!! les cathares étaient pacifiques !!! les coparer à Daesch est purement à vomir !!!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ben, non.

On venait justement de faire une tuerie contre un émissaire papal.

Ils étaient pacifistes en théorie, mais ils n'étaient pas pacifiques.

[Au moins pas tous.]

Jean-marc Pernon
Hans-Georg Lundahl un émissaire assassiné oui mais par qui ? il fallait bien un prétexte pour attaquer le Comte de Toulouse est ses vassaux afin de les voler

la cruauté des croisés fût sans nom !!!

les catholiques ont même détérés des morts pour brûler ce qu'il en restait ...

vous ne connaissez rien de cette histoire

Montfort le pire assassin ! le vrai "fou de Dieu" c'était lui !!! Il n'a jamais libéré quoi que ce soit car il n'y avait rien à libérer !!! et personne n'a fait appel à lui sinon les papes !!!

pas de chance pour vous je connais parfaitement ce sujet !!! et la propagande et les meurtres honteux de l'église catholique associée au roi de France !!!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
  • 1) Vous considérez que là il y ait eu un "false flag". Qui à l'époque avait cette idée? Ou est-ce qu'elle vient juste des spéculations siècles après?

  • 2) la cruauté des croisés a été exagéré par des récits par les croisés eux-mêmes: but propagandiste.

  • 3) Les morts déterrés, c'est possible.

    On avait déterré un mort des siècles avant pour le brûler et jeter ses cendres dans le Tibre, un pape jugé posthumément comme antipape.

    Refuser un repos en cimitière chrétien, en terre bénite, à un hérétique, c'est un procédé usité. Bien avant le schisme de 1054.

    [cim-e-tière, excuse!]

  • 4) Si des catholiques faibles dans les terres gouvernés par Albigeois ou par leurs bienfaiteurs n'ont pas osé faire appel, ça ne change rien au fait qu'après ils se sont présentés comme soulagés, comme les Juifs sortant d'Auschwitz.


[Ou les Catholiques de Madrid à l'arrivée de Franco.]

Vous connaissez ce sujet, encore une fois, de QUELS manuels?

Jean-marc Pernon
vous vous ne connaissez rien ! que la propagande papiste !

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Vous n'avez pas répondu à ma question.

Jean-marc Pernon
"la tragédie cathare" Georges Bordonove ( France Loisirs ) ... et beaucoup plus pointu : "catharisme et chrétienté" de José Dupré ( édition nLa Clavellerie)

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ah, c'est mieux comme réponse.

Jean-marc Pernon
de vous vous la pétez comme un prof' c'est pathétique

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Je suis ex-prof.

Le pathétique est que je ne pouvait pas devenir écrivain sans passer par cette case de l'éducation nationale obligatoire et laïque - en Suède.

[pouvai-S - comme dit, éveillé avant 7 h!]

Jean-marc Pernon
pauvre esprit formaté

Hans-Georg Lundahl pauvre esprit formaté de toutes parts

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ça non.

Je n'étais prof que pendant un semestre.

Je viens de lire un peu sur la wikipédie sur Bordonove, l'article donne une liste assez longue de livres, la discussion commence avec ceci:

Georges Bordonove ne peut être considéré comme un historien, dont il n'a pas eu la formation. C'est un écrivain qui a rédigé des ouvrages historiques, souvent discutables d'ailleurs, qui ne tiennent pas compte de l'avancée des travaux sur les personnages dont il a fait la biographie. — Le message qui précède, non signé, a été déposé par l'IP 80.124.254.71 (discuter), le 19 mars 2007 à 20:52.


En 2007, évidemment St Joseph savait que j'allais avoir à faire avec Bordonove, normale, il est chez Dieu.

[Si Bordonove est au Ciel, c'est peut-être sa prière qui a valu cette correction.]

Bon, peut-être Bordonove était un esprit un peu formaté car en 2007 il mourait à l'âge de 86, et les avances dans la récherche sur les cathares et l'inquisitions, c'est après sa jeunesse.

J'ai mes idées dessus de l'italien Umberto Eco.

Je viens également de consulter José Dupré.

[Pas le livre, mais son nom.]

Une page intitulée "Rudolf Steiner, l’anthroposophie de la liberté" commence avec les mots:

Nous devons à José Dupré un excellent Catharisme et chrétienté publié en 1999. Il consacre cette nouvelle étude au mouvement anthroposophique auquel il a largement participé et contribué depuis 1961.


Rudolf Steiner, l’anthroposophie de la liberté
http://www.baglis.tv/livres/1163-rudolf-steiner-anthroposophie-liberte


Les anthroposophes ne seraient pas un peu biaisés contre le Catholicisme, par hazard?

Jean-marc Pernon
si il existe un assassin "fou de Dieu" comparable à Daesch c'est bien Simon de Montfort ! ... et bien sûr tout les terres et propriétés conquises aux soit-deisant hérétiques devanaient possession de Montfort !!! ... et de Rome en partie !!!

[S'est-il réveillé trop tôt aussi?]

allez chier c'est le mieux

lisez au lieu de dire des conneries

Dupré a fait un travail d'historien dans ce livre ... l'avez-vous lu avant d'ouvrir votre grande gueule ?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Vous ne serez pas par hazard impliqué dans les intrigues pour me donner des TAS de sucre comme laxatif?

Vous voulez peut-être dire que Montfort recevait tous les fiefs auparavant sous des seigneurs pro-cathares.

Mais avoir une région comme fief ne signifiait pas d'en être le propriétaire privé. C'est plus comparable à en être le préfet. Normal qu'un homme qui défait un préfet pourri devient le nouveau préfet, non?

Je ne suis pas un historien formaté, mais je fais parfois des travaux d'historien.

Jean-marc Pernon
ha bhé alors lisez Dupré et vous pourrez parler après

Hans-Georg Lundahl vraiment vous dites n'importe quoi quant aux conquêtes de Montfort et ses mercenaires ... c'est rageant au secours !!!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Et non, je n'ai pas lu LES livres de Dupré sur les Cathares.

Il en semblait amoureux, à en juger du nombre des livres.

Par contre, vous semblez vouloir ramener tout à un auteur ... moderne.

Qui ne l'est même pas tellement.

Et je n'ai pas tellement non plus de la sympathie pour votre hystérie.

Jean-marc Pernon
oser appeler le Comte de Toulouse "préfet pourri" c'est très très grave et dénote chez vous une igorance absolu du sujet !!!

Hans-Georg Lundahl imbécile Dupré travaille sur les documents d'époque !

ignorance totalement du monde médiéval

apprenez l'histoire de France avant d'ouvrir la bouche

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ignorance absolu?

Ou une connaissance du fait qu'il se complaisait quand les Cathares terrorisaient les Catholiques ou des gens qui, quelle qu'était leur conviction voulaient vivre selon les moeurs catholiques, pro-vie. Refusaient l'avortement, par exemple.

Dupré a sans doute travaillé sur DES documents de l'époque, mais en 1999 il se répétait depuis avant, et après ses oeuvres, d'autres ont fait davantage de recherches.

Lisez par exemple Jean Sévillia, ou Régine Pernoud.

Jean-marc Pernon
vous êtes un gros prétentieux et votre arrogance vous aveugle ... vous ne connaissez ruien de cette histoire

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ah bon?

Mon arrogance en plus?

Ça me donne presque envie d'être arrogant de parler avec quelqu'un qui se prétend connaître l'histoire médiévale et qui prend ce qui correspond à un préfet pour un propriétaire privé de toute terre dans sa préfecture!

Jean-marc Pernon
Hans-Georg Lundahl faux les cathares ne terrorisaient personne ... même les catholiques les protégeaient ce qui a fait dire à Arnaud Amaury avant le massacre de Béziers la phrase célèbre ; "tuez-les tous Dieu reconnaitra les siens"

Hans-Georg Lundahl le Comte de Toulouse n'avait rien d'un préfet !!! vous êtes un dingue !

ma parole mais vous ne connaissez par l'histoire de notre pays !

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_VI_de_Toulouse

un préfet ha ha ha zéro pointé en histoire c'est grave !!!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"les cathares ne terrorisaient personne ..."

Selon Dupré?

"même les catholiques les protégeaient"

Ceux qui ne connaissaient pas les actes terroristes?

La réplique d'Arnaud pourrait être une blague de mauvaise goût.

Et si vous ne savez pas que les seigneurs féodales étaient une combinaison de fonctions comme:

  • préfet
  • juge
  • général ou capitaine
  • propriétaire de certaines propriétés clefs


si au contraire vous prenez un comte pour le propriétaire privé de TOUT ce qui était dans son comté, c'est vous qui êtes assez nul en histoire.

Qu'il était héréditaire ne change rien au fait qu'il était fonctionnaire public.

[public ou publique en masculin et français? Est-ce que "public" est masculin ou anglais?]

Jean-marc Pernon
allez je vais en finir t'es vraiment trop con et de mauvaise foi !

Raymond VI est un prince !!!! la France que tu connais aujourd'hui n'existait pas ...

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Et les princes étaient des fonctionnaires publiques.

Jean-marc Pernon
t'as qu'à dire aussi que les Planagenêt était des préfets et que le Duc d(Aquitaine était un préfet ... t'es con un totalement ignare ?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Pour ducs, pour rois, c'est plutôt pareil à des présidents.

Jean-marc Pernon
RAYMOND COMTE DE TOULOUSE ETAIT UN PRINCE tu comprends le français ?

que tu es bête !

occupe-toi de l'histoire de ton pays c'est mieux

les terres du Comte sont au Comte !!!!

t'es nul nul nul !!!

tu confonds vassal et préfet pauvre ignare !

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Oui, je comprends qu'il était un prince, et je réponds que les princes étaient avant tout des fonctionnaires publiques.

Et puisque l'histoire de mon pays n'est pas compréhensible en dehors de référence à la France ou à Angleterre, je m'en occupe aussi.

"les terres du Comte sont au Comte !!!!"

Les terres DU comté, il y a de la propriété publique aujourd'hui aussi.

Pas toute terre DANS le comté. Nuance.

Non, je ne confonds pas vassal et préfet, je dis qu'un vassal EST un préfet que ça vous plaise ou non.

Jean-marc Pernon
tu confonds féodalité et monarchie ! t'es vraiment un crétin inculte qui se la pète !

Hans-Georg Lundahl
À cette époque la féodalité et la monarchie existaient les deux.

Mais les deux étaient des fonctions publiques.

Jean-marc Pernon
NON IL N'ETAIT PAS PREFETS IL ETAIT VASSAL !!! tu comprends la nuance sombre idiot ?

[prefets? nominatif du vieux français? tiens, il a de l'éducation, quand même!]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Je viens déjà de dire que la fonction publique d'un vassal était un peu plus extendue que celle d'un pur préfet.

Jean-marc Pernon
Hans-Georg Lundahl non !!!!! les terres du Comte appartiennent au COMTE putai mais t'es un vrai connard !

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Vous n'avez toujours pas capté la nuance entre DU et DANS LE comté?

Être propriétaire terrain était à cette époque le salaire ou apanage normal d'un fonctionnaire publique.

[Au moins à l'échelle qui correspond à un préfet.]

Jean-marc Pernon
le préfet comme le gouverneur est un fonctionnaire ... les terres qu'il gère ne sont pas à lui !!!!! le vassal est propriétaire de ses terres !! capito ????

bon allez je te bloque t'es trop con !

Hans-Georg Lundahl


Jean-marc Pernon
surtout tu ne connais rien à l'histoire de France !!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
De toi, c'est pas grave.

Mise à jour le lendemain:
au moins les premiers deux commentaires en dessous.

Jean-marc Pernon
du con les terres du Comte vde toulouse sont a lui !!!

vassal \va.sal\ masculin (Histoire) Personne liée par serment d’allégeance et d’hommage à suzerain et qui en retour lui reconnaît la propriété d’un fief.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Le fief était assimilé à une propriété en certains aspects. Par exemple hérédité et le fait de pouvoir en tirer un revenu.

Par contre, déjà le serment d'allégeance indique qu'à la base il s'agit d'une fonction publique.

Dans un fief il y avait des terres sousenféodées, et domaine.

Par exemple le comte de Toulouse allait donner cette terre là à un quasi "sous-préfet" (où se trouve la souspréfecture par rapport à la préfecture de Toulouse?), cette autre terre à un quasi commissaire rural par là, encore une autre à un autre commissaire rural par là et ainsi de suite.

Après, certains manoirs étaient effectivement au comte lui-même, c'était sa domaine.

EN chaque manoir il y avait aussi une division un peu pareil. Les fermiers qui travaillaient dessus étaient normalement des serfs. Chacun avait son lopin, et le seigneur du manoir les siens aussi.

Partie du temps les serfs travaillaient sur leur propres lopins, partie du temps sur celui de leur seigneur.

Si on compare ce qu'il en retirait de leur temps de travail et ce qu'un propriétaire de grand usine retire du temps de travail de ses employés, le seigneur était plutôt modeste.

ET, la raison pourquoi le vassal était seigneur de manoirs, c'est que c'était une manière de rémunération plus stable et moins combreuse qu'un grand fisc et un salaire.

C'est un peu comme si le préfet des deux départements de Normandie était aussi l'actionnaire majoritaire de SNCF en Normandie et encore quelques grandes propriétés.

Vous parlez comme si par exemple un Comte de Toulouse ou Duc de Normandie était propriétaire personnel de tous et de chacun et de leurs propriétés entre les limites géographiques du Comté ou du Duché. Ce. Qui. N'était. Pas. Le. Cas.

mardi 14 juin 2016

On Constructed Languages

M. E.
So... someone on Youtube just told me:

"One person cannot create a nuanced grammar. Language is created by a group of people communicating, although, technically, no language has been created for about a hundred thousand years.

You might be a genius, have a great imagination, a passion for your hobbies, etc, but you can't create a language."


H. G. L.
Or you might be a linguist who knows exactly what makes the grammars you use nuanced.

For instance, having studied Latin, I know one ought to have a difference between factual and unreal mood of conditional clause-pairs (antecedent with consequent). And might have more (Latin also has potential mood, for sth which could be realised in the future).

More than that - if he was taking an oblique poke against Tolkien and therefore Tolkien fans, actually Tolkien did not need a nuanced grammar. The texts his Quenya and Sindarin corpus encompasses is mainly straightforward narrative, wishes, commands, perhaps prophecy, nouns and noun phrases without verbs - in other words, a nuanced grammar was beyond the scope of his purpose.

M. E.
"Ok, well, as a scientist who specializes in human language, I am telling you that linguists are in agreement that individuals cannot make languages. "Constructed languages" is wishful thinking. It's a hobby, but please respect the tens of thousands of linguists who dedicate their lives to the science of language."

H. G. L.
Con langers usually do.

However, I very much doubt that he has taken a poll representing really all tens of thousands of linguists all over the world.

He has probably taken a poll on his faculty, which probably has a professor who is anti-Tolkien biassed and therefore anti-conlangs biassed.

dimanche 12 juin 2016

Against a Flat Earth Error


Commenting on:

The Flat Earth Controversy : PART 2: EASY GLOBALIST ARGUMENTS TO REFUTE
A Biblical World View And One Man's Quest For Truth
© 2015 by Rob Skiba
http://testingtheglobe.com/quest2.html


"Reason # 2: The lunar eclipse is a really good argument, and so far, I don't have a good argument against it, which is one of the reasons I do still believe in a globe model myself."

I consider it inferior to Magellan.

OK, the one voyage of Magellan could have been a circular path on a circular surface in a flat or near flat plane. But the thousands of partial Magellans and a few full one's at different latitudes.

Lunar eclipses were mentioned by Aristotle, but Hindoo Flat Earthers have an answer: planet Rahoo causes all eclipses (Lunar and Solar), but it is hidden below the rim except when coming up to hide Sun or Moon.

"Globalist Argument #6: Many will point to the fact that there are some stars visible in the southern hemisphere that cannot be seen in the norhtern. Fair enough. But it seems to me that this is easily explained. Imagine an extremely large bowl over a massively huge plain. Now imagine you are under the central (northern) area of the bowl. You see Orion, perhaps the most recognizable of all the constellations, and one that is visible in both hemespheres. He looks quite big with his head facing upward toward the north. Then, you go toward the outer (southern) regions of the plain and look up again. Not only does Orion look inverted (because you are essentially now looking up his skirt), but you also see stars on the lower ends of the dome that were not visible to you when you were much further away, under the center of the dome."

You need at least a curvature on plain, mere distance will not hide stars. Supposing they were hidden because too far away, thus "too small" a telescope would fix that.

Also, there would be no Southern Cross, because no South Pole, if Earth were flat. It can bee seen from South tips of Argentina as much as from South tips of Australia. In each case at unvarying location, just like Polar Star on Northern hemisphere.

Above two visible on site since Nov 19, 2015 11:30am. Following posted yesterday and now not visible on site (perhaps just a temporary glitch), therefore taken from my FB wall:

Hi; Bob!

Globalist Argument #4: "What about time zones? How can you have time zones on a flat earth?" This argument presupposes a couple of things: 1) the earth is essentially a flat piece of paper with continents on it and 2) the sun is just shining straight down on the whole thing. The Flat Earther model refutes this by showing something like the following, depicting the sun and moon in an enclosed system, much smaller and much closer than where we consider them to be in our standard globalist view: In this model, the sun acts like a "point light" with a limited throw of light, leaving the unexposed areas in the dark. This effectively gives the same results as a rotating earth would in terms of time zones. It also helps to explain the vertical meter stick and shadow experiment. If the much smaller and closer sun is standing over one meter stick, the shadow will be straight down, whereas the one further away will be casting a longer shadow. It's not rocket science.

Except one problem.

I am supposing you take the view of a North mid dimple and a South rim, rather than reverse.

On this view, in June there is no problem for North Pole being light 24/24 and South Pole dark same time.

But how about December?

One part of "South rim" would clearly be lighted very easily, but if North dimple was screened from Sun light, so would other edge of "South rim" be.

// Here we have the impossible. The distance between Grand Mere State Park in Stevensville and Chicago is about 60 miles. At that distance, Chicago should be nearly a half-mile (2,400 ft) below the horizon - assuming we are on a ball with a curvature of 8" per mile!//

Your formula is correct for looking direction Chicago from sea level, eyes down at sea level.

Other formulas are correct for looking from a building, like Nowacki did.

Note to others:

I think flat earth is an error. I do not consider it heresy. I do not consider it madness. Phlogiston theory was an error in chemistry, I presume, but chemists holding it previous to Lavoisier were not excommunicated by the Church, nor mad. Nor would one be mad to defend it against Lavoisier, if one had a reason to be nostalgic about J J Becher./HGL

jeudi 9 juin 2016

Update with Craig Crawford


1) Debate on Angelic Movers - and 1054, Photius · 2) Craig Crawford is back in the fray on angelic movers! · 3) Debate with Craig Crawford Continues · 4) Update with Craig Crawford

Craig Crawford
Hans-Georg Lundahl John Romanides was a new calendarist ecumenist heretic, and in no way was he an authentic witness for the Orthodox Church. Genuine Orthodox Christians do not accept him, or his heresies.

Sergius (Stragorodsky) of Moscow was a notorius anathematized heretic, and his heresy goes by the name of Sergianism. No one in the Church honors his memory, but he is thrice-cursed.

Neither of these two individuals were Orthodox. They are not honored as saints by the Church, and in no way speak for the Church.

The Orthodox Church has never accepted the heresy of Evolution, and a number of Orthodox saints have openly voiced their rejection of it.

If one wants to learn what the Orthodox Church teaches regarding the heresy of Evolution, they should first and foremost directly consult the approved historical writings of the saints, but the following is an excellent summary of the patristic consensus:

Genesis, Creation and Early Man: The Orthodox Christian Vision
http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Creation-Early-Man-Christian/dp/1887904026


I recommend reading at least the first few chapters of the book online for free here:

Genesis, Creation and Early Man
The Orthodox Christian Vision
Fr. Seraphim Rose
http://www.creatio.orthodoxy.ru/english/rose_genesis/index.html


Important note, here Seraphim Rose becomes heretical:

We may also see another, a mystical reason, for the fact that the light precedes the sun in the days of creation. Here, admittedly, we have no Fathers to quote, and we offer this interpretation as our own opinion. We will see below that the separation of man into male and female was not part of the original "image" in which God created him; and we know that it will not be part of man's nature in the eternal kingdom of heaven, for in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven (Matt. 22:30). Rather, God made the division into male and female foreseeing the fall of man and that the increase of mankind would require a passionate mode of generation.

HGL, ...

PS on remark, NOW the page ends before the quote I took from it, on end of section 3 of the chapter. As if someone wanted to hide that Seraphim Rose had made a heretical statement. Could that be why Chapter Four. The Creation of Man (Genesis 1:26-31,2:4-7) is not uploaded? It can have been earlier and someone pointed out this mistake?/HGL

...now back to comment of Craig Crawford:


One will note, that in chapter three, Fr. Seraphim relates the teaching of the Church, that the Earth is the center of the universe.

"But Divine revelation, as interpreted by the Holy Fathers, tells us the contrary: that the earth comes first, both in time and in significance, and the sun comes second. If our minds were not so chained to the intellectual fashions of the times, if we were not so fearful of being thought “behind the times,” we would not have such difficulty in opening our minds to this alternative explanation of the world’s beginnings.

In the Scriptural-Patristic view the earth, as the home of man, the pinnacle of God’s creation, is the center of the universe. Everything else—no matter what the scientific explanation of its present state and movement, or the physical immensity of it in comparison to the earth—is secondary, and was made for the sake of the earth, that is, for man."


The Orthodox Church has never advocated contraception.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am glad for all this, but if you see any problem with angelic movers from a technical point of view, you remind me of these.

And if you consider scholasticism wrong, you seem to be buying Romanides' view of what is sane and what is a "mental disease".

While I was among Orthodox, Seraphim Rose was one man I did consider a saint.

To say the stars or heavenly bodies are moved directly by God with no angels obeying Him and moving them even in their slower movements is perhaps untrue, but certainly not heretical.

My point about angelic movers was that cosmology is not tied down to only gravitational and similar "physical" movers.

However, if God provides the BIG movement of ALL celestial bodies every day, and if angels were, before men, created in His image, I consider God gave some of them the task to provide Sun with yearly, Moon with monthly and so on movements.

If daddy is a great biker, won't he give some of the sons bikes for presents?

Many men give their sons the first bikes on the fourth birthday, why could God not have given angels a kind of bikes on the fourth day of their existance, some of them, and that which is "bikes" to them is light and heat and lifegiving seasons to us?

But I say SOME of them, since, if all stars and planets may be guided by angels, it is wrong and forbidden to say all angels are there and only there to carry stars.

Condemned proposition 77: Quod si esset aliqua substantia separata que non moueret aliquid corpus in hoc mundo sensibili, non clauderetur in uniuerso

En lengua romance en Antimodernism y de mis caminaciones : Capitulum VII
Errores de intelligentia uel angelo
http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.fr/2012/01/capitulum-vii.html


Bishop Tempier's condemnations for the list of 219 seems to have never been revoked in the diocese of Paris and it was also accepted in England.

Where people divided it into systematic chapters (77 becomes error 12 of chapter 7).

Collectio errorum in Anglia et Parisius Condempnatorum
qui sic per capitula distinguuntur


Capitulum VI

Isti articuli qui sequuntur, condempnatisunt a domino stephano parisiensi episcopo, de consilio magistrorum theologie, anno domini M °. CC °. LXXVI, die dominica qua contatur "Letare Ierusalem" in curia parisiensi, ubi excommunicauit in scriptis omnes illos qui scienter eos docuerint uel defenderint. Et primoordinantur qui sunt de deo, scilicet :

En lengua romance en Antimodernism y de mis caminaciones : Collectio errorum in Anglia et Parisius Condempnatorum
http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.fr/2012/01/collectio-errorum-in-anglia-et-parisius.html


Full index, here:

En lengua romance en Antimodernism y de mis caminaciones : Index in stephani tempier condempnationes
http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.fr/2012/01/index-in-stephani-tempier.html


added later
I'd like to get the Latin text clear and into this:

"Nec sicut cogitantur angeli mundi spiritus caelestia corpora inspirantes atque ad arbitrium quo seruiunt deo mutantes atque uersantes neque si omnes, cum sint milia millium, in unum conlati unus fiant, nec tale aliquid deus est."

Vicifons : De trinitate (Aurelius Augustinus)/Liber VIII
https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/De_trinitate_%28Aurelius_Augustinus%29/Liber_VIII


  • Main clause:

    "Nec ... neque ...nec tale aliquid deus est."

    Neither [this] nor [that] neither is such a thing God.

  • First level subsidiary clause I:

    "sicut cogitantur angeli mundi spiritus"

    As the angel are though of [indicative, are in fact thought of] as pure spirit ...

    Second level subsidiaries, by participles rather than clauses:



    • 1) "caelestia corpora inspirantes"

      ... which inspire the celestial bodies (participles has agreement with angeli, not with caelestia corpora)

    • 2) "atque ad arbitrium ... mutantes"

      ... and change them at will

      [what will? the will]

      Third level subsidiary: "quo seruiunt deo"

      by which they serve God

    • 3) "atque uersantes"

      And turn ["them", "at will" supplied from previous].


  • First level subsidiary clause II:

    "si omnes, ... unus fiant,"

    if all were to become [present conjunctive or subjunctive, hypothesis]

    • Second level subsidiary to "omnes":

      "cum sint milia millium," as they are millions

    • Second level subsidiary to subject angeli itself with unum fiant:

      "in unum conlati"

      [previously] gathered together.


  • So:

    "Neither the angels as they ARE thought of as clean spirits" [clean as opposed to unclean, blessed angels as opposed to demons] "and as inspiring the celestial bodies" [whatever inspiring means] " and as changing and turning them around at their will, a will bny which they serve" [the real] "God, nor all of them if they WERE to be put together and to become one, neither of these is God."


My analysis from English stands measured by the Latin text.

mardi 7 juin 2016

Debate with Craig Crawford Continues


1) Debate on Angelic Movers - and 1054, Photius · 2) Craig Crawford is back in the fray on angelic movers! · 3) Debate with Craig Crawford Continues · 4) Update with Craig Crawford

Craig Crawford
I can read just fine, thank you very much. In this passage St. Augustine dismisses the idea that angels move celestial bodies.

There is a more recent and better rendering here:

The Trinity (The Fathers of the Church, Volume 45)
https://books.google.fr/books?id=cBmK45J19uEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Trinity+%28The+Fathers+of+the+Church,+Volume+45%29&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=The%20Trinity%20%28The%20Fathers%20of%20the%20Church%2C%20Volume%2045%29&f=false


In this edition it is rendered:

"Neither as the pure angels are thought of as animating heavenly bodies..."


The Latin word is 'nec'.

nec
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nec#Latin


Adverb
nec
(not comparable)
nor
and not, not
neither
not even


There is a footnote to the earlier 1871 translation I copied and pasted:

"Neither as [663] we think of the pure angels as spirits animating celestial bodies..."


663 Read si for sicut, if for as. Bened. ed.

"Neither IF we think of the pure angels as spirits animating celestial bodies..."


From the context of the passage, as witnessed by the previous sentence which says: "Neither if you were to magnify in the imagination of your thought the light of the sun as much as you are able, either that it may be greater, or that it may be brighter, a thousand times as much, or times without number; neither is this God."

It is obvious that Augustine is not saying that angels animate celestial bodies, but is merely saying if you were to imagine in your mind that they did, this would still not make them God.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nec goes with the previous enumeration of things that are not God.

[And thereforewith the following statement "neither is that God"]

Angels singly moving each star are given with an indicative, meaning real mode.

Sicut = as, also indicates this.

Angels as movers of stars rolled together into one huge such is introduced with si = if, and has past subjunctive, meaning unreal mode.

Therefore St Augustine clearly WAS saying the "we" - the Church - do think angels are moving stars.

And I studied Latin for two years at university, if you don't believe me, how about contacting a Latin department?

"It is obvious that Augustine is not saying that angels animate celestial bodies, "

Obvious to you who can't read but have a vested interest in denying the correct reading.

"Neither as [663] we think of the pure angels as spirits animating celestial bodies..."


663 Read si for sicut, if for as. Bened. ed.


So a recent editor tried to change the correct sicut to a si?

Says more about his outlook than about St Augustine's!

Craig Crawford
No, this has nothing to do with any "recent editor." It has to do with the 17th century Benedictine edition of St. Augustine's works being regarded as the most thorough critical edition of his entire corpus. Hence the footnote is informing the reader that in the Benedictine edition of Augustine's On the Holy Trinity, the reading is 'si' (if) rather than sicut (as)

Hence:

"Neither as [663] we think of the pure angels as spirits animating celestial bodies..."


663 Read si for sicut, if for as. Bened. ed.


becomes...

"Neither IF we think of the pure angels as spirits animating celestial bodies..."

500 Years Complete Works of St Augustine
https://exhibits.library.villanova.edu/archive/augustine/augustine500/


"In the 17th century the French Benedictine congregation of St. Maur edited many works of ecclesiastical writers of the patristic period. The Maurists, as they are known, made a special effort to utilize more manuscripts to obtain a better text. The 11 volume edition of St. Augustine, published in Paris from 1679 to 1700, represented a marked improvement over the previous editions. Although modern critical editions for individual works have appeared since, the Maurist edition remains as the last critical edition of the Complete Works of Augustine. The Maurist edition was frequently reprinted."


Do you accept or reject the following translation, yes or no?

The Trinity (The Fathers of the Church, Volume 45)
https://books.google.fr/books?id=cBmK45J19uEC&redir_esc=y


"Neither as the pure angels are thought of as animating heavenly bodies, changing and making use of them in accordance with the will by which they serve God,"


Here is a pdf for reference:
http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam034/2002510790.pdf


Are you rejecting this translation, or are you claiming that this translation is rendered accurately, and that it supports your notion that angels move the heavenly bodies?

Augustine says the heavenly bodies serve God, not angels.

Here is another translation:

"Nor is he as you may think of angels, pure spirits "inspiriting" the heavenly bodies and changing and turning them as they judge best in service of God..."


Hans-Georg Lundahl
I think the Benedictines took the phrase "animating" as meaning that angels were so to speak souls of stars, which was condemned by Bishop Tempier following St John of Damascus, and that therefore they may have preferred "si", so as to make it less definite.

I am NOT aware of them having or not having evidence in manuscripts for it, and I accept "sicut", meaning "as".

"Augustine says the heavenly bodies serve God, not angels."

Augustine says the angels through the heavenly bodies serve God.

They serve God by what they are doing with the heavenly bodies.

Meaning, I do of course accept the translation:

"Neither as the pure angels are thought of as animating heavenly bodies, changing and making use of them in accordance with the will by which they serve God,"


whether one has a passive for them or an active for we, I can't say which is more faithful, since I am not reading the Latin text here.

On other thread :

Craig Crawford
"The heavenly bodies are moved by angels."

Explain to us how this could be. What are the mechanics of how the angels are moving the heavenly bodies? They do not possess bodies or organs to push them. It is an absurd proposition. The Orthodox Church rightfully rejects such preposterous notions.

Matt SIngleton
I have to interject. 1st we have physical bodies but we are not moving stars either! 2nd I am not sure how hans explains it but I believe that angels are operating the forces. God let Satan operate the force of a tornado for instance. 3rd If angels can not move things, only because they are spirits, how can God move things since he is a spirit? If God can not move things then are you claiming God has no ability of to make physical miracles? Because that would be extremely platonic and Gnostic.

Craig Crawford
I am not the one making the absurd proposition, so let him explain the mechanics of it, since it is his silly idea. The Scriptures do not teach and the Church has never taught that the motions of the celestial bodies are wrought through the agency of angels.

Holy Scripture and the God-bearing theologians and interpreters of Scripture are explicit in stating that the Divine Providence of God is responsible for the motion of the heavenly bodies, and nowhere do they speak of the necessity of intervention by angels.

St. Dionysius the Areopagite - On the Divine Names:

"But what slipped from our view in the midst of our discourse, the Good is Cause of the celestial movements in their commencements and terminations, of their not increasing, not diminishing, and completely changeless, course, and of the noiseless movements, if one may so speak, of the vast celestial transit, and of the astral orders, and the beauties and lights, and stabilities, and the progressive swift motion of certain stars, and of the periodical return of the two luminaries, which the Oracles call "great," from the same to the same quarter, after which our days and nights being marked, and months and years being measured, mark and number and arrange and comprehend the circular movements of time and things temporal."


Hans-Georg Lundahl
St Denis - the good is indeed the cause of celestial movements.

  • Daily, because God is Himself providing the daily motion westward, about a little faster than full circle in 24 h.

    Here the Good is efficient cause.

  • Periodical, because the goodness of God is providing the motive behind the motion of the angels who provide other movements; other components of the concrete movement or each body, like monthly for moon and yearly for sun.

    Here the Good is the final cause. Which is closer to the kind of causality "the good" usually has.


St Denis - no direct confirmation of St Thomas (in this passage), but no direct infirmation either, full compatibility.

St Thomas agreed with Romanides on one thing : St Denis was really the Areopagite, his On the Divine Names should be read, and since he did not read Greek, he read it in Latin, in the translation presumably of Friar Moerbeke, who also translated Aristotle from Greek.

Next question:

God has no body, in His divinity, even if He assumed humanity, body and soul later.

Nevertheless God can move - and that everything, bodies or minds, in an unlimited way.

This power He shares in a limited way with angels and human souls.

At some point certainly your soul is oving sth directly in your body whenever you lift a finger.

There is no physical, only a mental reason, why you type an A here or a B there. Brain physics is not and cannot be the final determination of what you move your limbs to do, even if it is very probably an intermediate one.

So, with souls in human bodies, the limit is "only own body and only insofar as it is empowered by calories and only insofar as synapses are intact between brain centre and what is to be moved".

With angels, the limit is a body, any body, but only non-biological processes per se. Angelic beings cannot tamper directly with your DNA, but they can move objects around. If Christ had jumped from the temple roof, angels would have been lifting His body so he did not hurt Himself when coming down. When emissaries of Habsburg in Prague were defenestrated, it was not them tempting God and so angels were sent to protect them from dying.

But as said, the limit with angels is any body, and that would include a much bigger one than a man, like for instance the Sun or the Moon.

Also, angels don't have to eat and don't rely on synapses in order to do what they do.

Therefore, given existence and general way of working under God for angels (or under devil for fallen such), there is nothing absurd in an angel moving directly by its will a star.

If you think so, you are suffering from a hangover from naturalism - the theory according to which all movements, including those of your bodies, are strictly only products of bodily factors.

That is not the case.

God directly moving heavens around Earth each day is the proof of St Thomas' Prima Via and also the probable proof of St Paul in Romans 1:20. It is certainly the proof of St John of Damascus.

It does not require God to take care directly Himself of all movements involved in the movement of each celestial body, since God is providing the main one, and the ones provided by angels are subsidiary, they are each day taking a ride with God's daily movement of heavens around earth.

"The Orthodox Church rightfully rejects such preposterous notions."

Since when?

Since Sergian bishops became trained in DiaMat, dialectical materialism. That is since when.

Romanides may have given them a boost or an excuse too.

But I saw a video where the idiocy of saying earlier iconography with "ancient aliens" is refuted by the fact that what "ancient alien astronaut" believers took for space ships hovering over Crucifixion really were Sun and Moon depicted as having faces, because they are "run" by angels.

The Church of Constantinople back then, whether really Orthodox, that is Catholic, or Schismatic, was NOR rejecting "such preposterous notions." Or it would not have allowed iconographers to write their icons like that.

Craig Crawford
Hans-Georg Lundahl Let's try to make this brief, shall we? One quote will suffice.

St. Augustine - The City of God:

"If the angels transport whatever terrestrial creatures they please from any place they please, and convey them whither they please, is it to be believed that they cannot do so without toil and the feeling of burden?"


Now, even though Augustine specifically mentioned "terrestrial" (earthly) bodies, and made no mention of angels moving the celestial (heavenly) bodies, we can acknowledge that angels are at least able to convey certain objects at will, without toil or burden.

Now, please tell us (briefly!) how did the celestial objects (sun, moon, etc.) get placed in the firmament in their ordered courses in the first place? Did God place them there, and at some point the task was handed over or transferred to the angels? or do you maintain that the angels were given the task of originally placing the planets in their appointed places and courses?

St. Augustine - Contra Faustum Manichaeum:

"The apostle praises the creature of God, but forbids the worship of it; and in the same way Moses gives due praise to the sun and moon, while at the same time he states the fact of their having been made by God, and placed by Him in their courses,--the sun to rule the day, and the moon to rule the night."


No mention of any angels here. St. Augustine says God placed the sun and moon in their courses.

St. Athanasius the Great - First Book Against the Heathen:

"For who that sees the circle of heaven and the course of the sun and the moon, and the positions and movements of the other stars, as they take place in opposite and different directions, while yet in their difference all with one accord observe a consistent order, can resist the conclusion that these are not ordered by themselves, but have a maker distinct from themselves who orders them? or who that sees the sun rising by day and the moon shining by night, and waning and waxing without variation exactly according to the same number of days, and some of the stars running their courses and with orbits various and manifold, while others move without wandering, can fail to perceive that they certainly have a creator to guide them?"


St. Athanasius says the Creator both orders *and* guides them. Once again, no mention of angels anywhere!

Hans-Georg Lundahl Please clarify. When you say Romanides, are you referring to Professor John Romanides (1927 - 2001)?

Sergian bishops? Are you referring to those in communion with Sergius (Stragorodsky) of Moscow (1867 - 1944)?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"we can acknowledge that angels are at least able to convey certain objects at will, without toil or burden."

Thank you.

Also, if celestial and terrestrial objects are made of same kind of stuff, this means the angels would have similar capabilities over either of them.

"Now, please tell us (briefly!) how did the celestial objects (sun, moon, etc.) get placed in the firmament in their ordered courses in the first place? Did God place them there, and at some point the task was handed over or transferred to the angels? or do you maintain that the angels were given the task of originally placing the planets in their appointed places and courses?"

God created each object on day 4 and for each of them He gave an orbit to fulfil, and in each case He assigned to an angel the task of carrying out this orbit.

"No mention of any angels here. St. Augustine says God placed the sun and moon in their courses."

Absence of evidence, in one particular place, is not evidence of absence.

I never contradicted the fact that the original placing of celestial objects in their first position, as well as the determining of the orbit was an act by God. Only THEN does carrying out this object become the task of an obedient angel.

"St. Athanasius says the Creator both orders *and* guides them. Once again, no mention of angels anywhere!"

God would be guiding them whether ...

  • He had created material and physical causes to do so;
  • He had created them as living beings, with souls intermediate between angelic nature and human souls;
  • He had created them as physical objects but with angels to carry out His guidance;
  • He were personally the cause of their present motions without any intermediate, as He may have been at Ascension;


and therefore this word does not in itself decide between these possibilities.

What we do know is that spirits embodied by celestial objects or guiding them are NOT autonomous, if lower than God.

We cannot say Sun obeys the will of Helios son of Hyperion and Jupiter the will of Jove, son of Saturn, and Saturn the will of Saturn, the father of Jove and brother of Hyperion and uncle of Helios. That we cannot say, because these fickle deities revealed to Hesiod by the joke of some fairy or the deception of some demon are too fickle to account for the harmony between these bodies. We must instead insist they all obey one single Will, with a totally perfact Wisdom : that of God.

"When you say Romanides, are you referring to Professor John Romanides (1927 - 2001)?"

I did not know his lifespan, but that is the man I meant.

"Sergian bishops? Are you referring to those in communion with Sergius (Stragorodsky) of Moscow (1867 - 1944)?"

If he is, as I suppose, the one who ruled IN Moscow UNDER Communism, at a very basic level, yes.

Distinction : I do not mean only those who approved of him and were in Communion with him, I mean also those who agree with errors he took up under Communism:

  • believing Evolution;
  • believing bodies can only be moved by bodies;
  • believing Contraception is correct (this last thing being from 70's, one would rather consider it post-Sergian than strictly Sergian, since he died in 1944, as you told me).


This includes not just Modernist Orthodox, but also some Conservative sharing those errors or for that matter the Vatican II Sect, the Latin version of Sergianism.

I will give a few quotes to you, now.

As said, absence of evidence, in one place, is not evidence of absence.

This means I see presence of evidence in other places.

Job 38: [7] When the morning stars praised me together, and all the sons of God made a joyful melody?

So, "morning stars" are sons of God?

That means they are angels.

Job 38: [12] Didst thou since thy birth command the morning, and shew the dawning of the day its place?

So, the dawning of the day has some conscience and can be shown things BY God? Either it is an inherent soul of dawning, or an angel guiding for instance morning star (Venus and Mercury) and sun.

Judges 5:[20] War from heaven was made against them, the stars remaining in their order and courses fought against Sisara.

If stars can fight, either they have souls or they are guided by angels who use them as - in this case - tools for fighting.

Baruch 3:[33] He that sendeth forth light, and it goeth: and hath called it, and it obeyeth him with trembling. [34] And the stars have given light in their watches, and rejoiced: [35] They were called, and they said: Here we are: and with cheerfulness they have shined forth to him that made them.

So, either stars have souls, or the angels guiding them are doing the rejoicing and the saying "here we are" when God calls them.

Note previous verse, and confer that angels, even fallen ones, can transform themselves to "angels of light".

Will not withhold that Kent Hovind thinks "trembling" (mentioned about light in Job too, he doesn't read Baruch) refers to wave theory about nature of light.

However, the most immediately apparent meaning is that either both light and stars are alive, or that both are guided by angels.

And what shall we say of the Psalms?

103:[4] Who makest thy angels spirits: and thy ministers a burning fire.

18:[6] He hath set his tabernacle in the sun: and he, as a bridegroom coming out of his bride chamber, Hath rejoiced as a giant to run the way: [7] His going out is from the end of heaven, And his circuit even to the end thereof: and there is no one that can hide himself from his heat.

In other words, King David agreed with St Francis of Assisi to call the Sun "our brother, Mister Sun".

And it is very instructive to read the praise of the Three Youths.

Daniel 3:[57] All ye works of the Lord, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [58] O ye angels of the Lord, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [59] O ye heavens, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [60] O all ye waters that are above the heavens, bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all for ever. [61] O all ye powers of the Lord, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [62] O ye sun and moon, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [63] O ye stars of heaven, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [64] O every shower and dew, bless ye the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [65] O all ye spirits of God, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [66] O ye fire and heat, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [67] O ye cold and heat, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [68] O ye dews and hoar frosts, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [69] O ye frost and cold, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [70] O ye ice and snow, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [71] O ye nights and days, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [72] O ye light and darkness, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [73] O ye lightnings and clouds, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever.

Up to here, the works are described as animate, as able to obey the injunction of the Holy Spirit through the mouth of the three youths.

Next verse:

[74] O let the earth bless the Lord: let it praise and exalt him above all for ever.

Here it is in third person. Earth itself is not animate and does not have one angel to guide its reactions.

It is rather its parts which separately can do so.

[75] O ye mountains and hills, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [76] O all ye things that spring up in the earth, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [77] O ye fountains, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [78] O ye seas and rivers, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever.

Can the beasts consciously praise God? No, but angels guiding them in troops can make them do so:

[79] O ye whales, and all that move in the waters, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [80] O all ye fowls of the air, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [81] O all ye beasts and cattle, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever.

Men, however, can praise God consciously, themselves:

[82] O ye sons of men, bless the Lord, praise and exalt him above all for ever. [83] O let Israel bless the Lord: let them praise and exalt him above all for ever. [84] O ye priests of the Lord, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [85] O ye servants of the Lord, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [86] O ye spirits and souls of the just, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever.

Note that both Purgatory is and Bosom of Abraham was in the Netherworld, hence no difference is made between the souls who were already calmly waiting for the Soul of Christ to come down to them and those who were still doing some penance in Purgatory.