samedi 15 décembre 2012

Gossip About Cyber

Series about my FB enemies: 1) Gossip About Cyber, 2) Gríma Wormtongue has his like in real life - at least as far as his choice of viewpoint is concerned, 3) My Innocence About the Vice of Curiosity, 4) Heated Discussion on Historical Backgrounds for Schism of 1054, 5) Misquoters and Conclusion Jumpers!, 6) Guns, Homeless, Shelters, My Own Situation, 7) On Pat's Wall, by me, 8) In case someone not my FB friend even past wonders, Pat whom I unfriended is not Buchanan, 9) Answering Psychiatry Friendly Comments by one GP (friend of a friend), 10) GP tries it again - after attacking Alveda King, 11) Unfriending someone who is friends with people considering homeless mentally ill

"When we speak about the threats of the Internet, we first think of the immoralities against the virtue of purity. Obviously, this is a real danger from which everyone must protect himself."

SSPX, one Pastor's Corner about Cyber Gossip as a sin

As with cinema, as with newspapers. If I had watched Conan the Barbarian on cinema, I would have seen a very lewd scene in extenso, unless I had shut my eyes and held my ears - and then someone would have tapped my shoulder and said "it is over now". As I saw it in clips on youtube, I could easily skip the scene in question. This is how youtube is as much a help to, among other things, purity and (for very gruesome scenes) non-callousness, as the video is. And as cinema and TV are not. After this he goes on to the real issue this week, cyber-gossip.

"The moral principle that we must consider in this regard is that the reputation and honor of any man, living or dead, is a spiritual good. To damage this reputation by rash judgment, detraction, or calumny is in itself a grave offense against justice and charity even though, did the injustice not regard grave matters, the fault might be venial."

The fault might be venial too if one had a real excuse of assuming the worst and no idea of the real but hidden excuse of someone. Apart from that I totally agree.

"Therefore insults, slander, and boastfulness are always sinful."

Insults and slander, totally agreed. I am not sure how boastfulness comes into the question. It is an undue concern with one's own honour rather than an undue callousness or illwish about one's neighbours. But even agreed that boastfulness as an inner tendency were always in the fountainhead of sin known as pride, actual boasting about something may occur without boastfulness. St Paul twice at least found something to actually boast about - Christ and his Cross and the sufferings he had endured - and who dares call him boastful. So, when confronted with something which seems like boasting anyone, including a priest obviously, is obliged to seek other explanations than boastfulness.

For that matter, there is a question of when slander is slander and when it is due concern for the public well. Is it slandering to state one has not seen Obama's birthcertificate? Or that such and such a profession builds its clientele by slandering individuals into being "officially" classified as belonging to it? Or that such and such a profession hinders the due fulfilling of "honour thy father and thy mother"? Or that abortionists are murderers? I think not, absolutely not.

One more thing: if the slander takes the form of private conversation, telephone calls or email exchanges from which the slandered person is cut off, then he cannot reply. But if the slandering is done on friends' FB walls, or in blogposts, or on youtubes, then the victim of slander has access to the actual words and can answer them. Even more easily than he could answer an article in a newspaper or a broadcast. So far and as long as he has free access to certain internet means of communication, at least.

One example, I think I have been slandered and know I have been insulted by a certain man I knew but have blocked on FB. So as not to risk slandering him, I anonymise his name on the blogpost where I publish our word exchange. He once at least claims in principle not to have slandered me, because he has said nothing behind my back which he has not said openly to me - which he could truthfully say after just insulting me with the worst I think he said behind my back, namely implying that I as an homeless man am not in a position to think properly, since sleeping on the street (which I generally do not, thank God) and being all the time infected (which is not the case either) I have impaired thought capabilities. That and trying to state my English is faulty in comprehension of what others say (I did have to ask about an expression, but it was more colloquial than what one usually finds on the web) is what I consider as slander if stated behind my back and as insult if it is stated in my face. Here are two blogposts where I debate with him, in first case about Perry Lorenzo and Mark Shea, in second case about myself more properly speaking:

HGL's FB Writings : Oscar Wilde and Perry Lorenzo

Gríma Wormtongue has his conterparts in real life (ibidem)

Why the likening to Gríma Wormtongue? Well, that too was a person who hid discouragement and improperly disqualifying someone under the excuse of concerns for his health. Thanks to internet I could answer back.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Mouffetard, Paris

lundi 10 décembre 2012

Gríma Wormtongue has his like in real life - at least as far as his choice of viewpoint is concerned

Series about my FB enemies: 1) Gossip About Cyber, 2) Gríma Wormtongue has his like in real life - at least as far as his choice of viewpoint is concerned, 3) My Innocence About the Vice of Curiosity, 4) Heated Discussion on Historical Backgrounds for Schism of 1054, 5) Misquoters and Conclusion Jumpers!, 6) Guns, Homeless, Shelters, My Own Situation, 7) On Pat's Wall, by me, 8) In case someone not my FB friend even past wonders, Pat whom I unfriended is not Buchanan, 9) Answering Psychiatry Friendly Comments by one GP (friend of a friend), 10) GP tries it again - after attacking Alveda King, 11) Unfriending someone who is friends with people considering homeless mentally ill

Fat pronouns (with or without parentheses) = who's speaking, Italics = my editorial comments between the things written,

Blockquotes = first of them my quoting myself from link, all others requoting parts of "Grima Wormtongue's" statement.

What I wrote the unpleasant man after contacting our mutual friends:

Following was sent to our mutual friends:

You are a common friend with me and Such and Such. On this blog post I have anonymised him (before the general public), but he is the man who most often opposes my arguments [meaning, in context, on the debate in link below] and, in my view, does so in a very unpleasant way on this debate. I quit it and I quit the group where it was held. Now, here is the debate, you ought to know as a previous to now friend of us both, and then you do what you like:

And if you think my anger back then or this time is anywhere like unreasonable, look at St John Chrysostomus quote here (btw my text might be relevant too, it is from September 2009):

He: Do not contact me again. Thanks.

I: Do not insult me like you did on the board or say similar things behind my back to common friends again. Thanks.

He: Just for the record, I've never said anything about you to anyone else I haven't said to you in public and the reason I don't want any more contact with you is that it's almost impossible to have a coherent discussion with you where you don't misrepresent or completely ignore what I say.


He: Wow, you totally devastated my friends list. I feel so all alone.

I (quoting his stats): "Friends, 3,904"

He: "Friends"

I ASSUMED HE MEANT SOMETHING. So I tried to act as if his comment bore the bitter undertone I seemed to find in it.

I (reproaching what he has been doing to me):

"I have recently been defending you in the double attack launched as a petition to EWTN. Both on account of finding the layman Perry Lorenzo saintly - no doubt not meaning cohabiting with another man is good example as such, but I think you meant he gave lots of good example apart from that, including to his partner - and on account of being a layman, blogger and making money from that. It is a thing I do myself, namely be a layman and a blogger but except so far make money (unless you count the 3000 and some more € from granny last year as from my writing) and that is anyway what I intend if I am not remaining stopped and stumped. As has the case been so far. But I agree, the way of livelihood is honest as such and who is such and such petitioner to block someone from it. And finding one man saintly, whom afterwards one sees was homosexual, but general evaluation still stands to one, and then being confirmed he lived chastely is not a disqualification from that calling. Nor is being homeless (before making the money) such a disqualification."

from first of my two responses to Mark Shea:

Still feel like judging laymen bloggers who touch on theology? Or, for that matter, misrepresent the story of Perry Lorenzo or the "canonising" implications of Mark Shea's words about him?

He: I'm sure he'll love that.

I mean I don't know if you're really a bum, but I'd say that your illogical rumblings are your biggest problem. Maybe if you found regular lodging in a secure facility with regular warm meals, you would be more lucid? I'm guessing the lack of regular sleep has given you a low capacity to heal inflammation and possible infections as a result of sleeping on the street. You probably haven't accounted for how the inflammation itself damages your ability to think either.

Hence, why your writing and ability to interact meaningfully with others is shit?

I: I think your supposed loneliness comes more from your attitude than from mine.

He (forgot about his feeling so lonely an hour ago): Wtf are you talking about?

I, commenting on most pieces of his second to last:

"Maybe if you found regular lodging in a secure facility with regular warm meals, you would be more lucid?"

Another repetation of the accusation against my Creator, that He did not give me lucidity enough.

"I'd say that your illogical rumblings are your biggest problem."

If they are so "illogical" why are you so afraid of denouncing openly such and such a lack of logic in debate before others.

"I'm guessing the lack of regular sleep has given you a low capacity to heal inflammation and possible infections ..."

Somewhat irregular sleep, some inflammations and infections.

"as a result of sleeping on the street."

I avoid as much as possible sleeping ON the street.

"You probably haven't accounted for how the inflammation itself damages your ability to think either."

I am not inflammated that often and though a pain from an inflammatory state may momentarily disrupt my thought, I am certainly not damaged in my ability to think.

Your very denigrating guesses about me - barely disguising disdain with commiseration - are exactly the kind of attitudes which may have landed you with impaired communication with some of your friends. According to what you stated yourself above.

So, you think I rumble illogically, do you? Get on, my essays are on the internet, refute a particularly "illogical one", if you find such a thing. And, as you requested from me earlier: leave this inbox alone. Thank you.

DID HE leave it alone?

He: I dunno Hans, you don't even bother to read what I write and distort my words. You're probably overconfident about you Engl comprehension as well.

I: Oh, one more thing:

"I mean I don't know if you're really a bum ..."

I am quite often begging on the street, I am quite seldom any evening knowing beforehand where I will sleep. And my English comprehension is very fine too thank you. It seems some guys find their words "distorted" whenever they are refuted. And you are one of them.

He: It sucks actually because you misrepresent me all the time.

mardi 4 décembre 2012

Oscar Wilde and Perry Lorenzo

I see no need to imitate Oscar Wilde's carnal sin (he admitted he deserved prison for it), just because I want to imitate his intellectual virtues - shown in works like The Ghost of Canterville (and in the fact of being more candid than modern gay movement, despite same temptation). It seems he died asking or being reported as asking for extreme unction. God rest his soul. Here is another writer (in his case blogger), whom I think of approximately as of Oscar Wilde. It seems he lived with a partner, but that his relation to him was completely chaste. Mark Shea has been attacked for saying he considers him a saint. Now, if being enthusiastic for Benedict XVI is a virtue, he was more virtuous than I. At times I lean towards sedevacantism. Either way, here is the blog post in which Mark Shea recommended him:

Catholic and Enjoying it: A Gay Man I Consider a Saint

Here is the first blogpost of Perry Lorenzo (the one from which I read an enthusiasm for Benedict XVI):

Perry Lorenzo : The New Springtime of the Church

And here is what I think may have been an extra temptation, if not to the vicious act itself (which anyway ended before he died, according to his partner), at least to the continued cohabitation, in guise of what he could think of as a partial justification:

" Indeed, I have talked to priests who tell me that there are people they counsel in gay relationships for whom it best to allow the relationship to continue for the time being since, for reasons specific to that relationship, it would result in something more destructive to end it."

Question is whether the worst are those priests or people insisting that the homosexual are never called to a life like Josh Weed and always to a life in celibacy - even if they never entered orders. Or, as we talk of it, whether those priests are not also misled by that same ideology./HGL

In guise of PS, another response of mine to another attack on Mark Shea, quoting first an attacking petition:

"Mr. Shea is not an ordained priest or deacon and has no degree in either theology or canon law. Yet he regularly argues his opinions on faith, morality, and liturgy on your publication. There's something disturbingly Protestant in assuming that an unordained, untrained layman's opinion is somehow worthy of being voiced in a religiously oriented publication."

Not so at all. Theology for beginners is by Sheed and Ward who were laymen. Michael Voris and Robert Sungenis are as much laymen as Shea. GKC and JRRT who brought me to the faith were laymen. So was Hilaire Belloc. And even if CSL was no Catholic, much of his theological observation is worth reading. Another layman. As was, for that matter, St Justin the Martyr. I do not know how you stand with FSSPX, but they certainly do make publicity for the theological work of three laymen: Michael Davies, one German, and Henry VIII (only one work: the one that earned him Papal recognition). It is not a duty of good theologians to be priests, though there is a duty of priests to be good theologians.

" Mr. Shea habitually expresses views which many devout, orthodox priests and lay people find odious. "

And which many devout do not find odious. Now, you might say they are not orthodox, but not only are you a layman (technicality) but (real issue) your take on previous question makes you suspect of not being top of orthodoxy.

As to his take on the gay man he considers a saint, some saints are great sinners converted, and Shea was very much obeying an injunction that can be heard from priests not to judge since it is not he who is priest.

" Anyway, no saint would tolerate Shea's slander and frequent misrepresentation, and your appraisal of Shea is very naive indeed.

" It was none of our business anyway. The man passed the Shea sniff test after all.

" The boyfriend sent Shea an e-mail saying that they were 'chaste', but Shea canonized him before that."

[The man who wrote above actually has on his likes one St Francis of Sales, who invited the one Barnabite from Italy who was interested in heliocentrism after Galileo had already been condemned in 1616: how is that for avoiding guilt by association? And he does furthermore not say that before the ex-lover sent Mark Shea the e-mail - in which he stated they practised chastity not sodomy - Mark Shea was not aware of his existence: how is that for misrepresenting Mark Shea's motives? I will not disclose this man's identifty, unless he asks for it, but he is a teacher and a fan of Unam Sanctam or Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.]

Here is from the man who posted the petition I quoted from:

" Hans, you immediately begin by misquoting me. I didn't say that laymen shouldn't do theology. I said that UNTRAINED laymen should not do theology in a major Catholic publication. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume you overlooked those little details.

Concerning saints who were once sinners, John the Baptist told us to bear fruit worthy of repentence. It's not enough to just declare to the world that you've repented, you need to show evidence. If an openly gay man living with a lover claims to repent, the first thing he should do is move out of the sinful situation. A gay man living with a 'former' lover is as suspect as a 'former' drunk living in a bar room or a 'former' pedophile moving next door to a school. Why would a 'saint' choose to live perpetually in the near occasion of sin?

Jesus told us not to judge other PEOPLE, but he certainly told us to discern their actions and messages. He told us to be on the lookout for false prophets, and to know the tree by its fruit. He also said that we should be as meek as lambs but as cunning as serpents. I'm not judging the gay priest who lived with his boyfriend, in the sense of condemning him to Hell. I'm saying that his example would not be the ideal to follow, which is the basis upon which the Church declares someone saintly."

[As already stated about Oscar Wilde, I do not think his carnal sins are an example to follow. I do not know how he came to believe Perry Lorenzo was a "gay priest", unless it is his trump that laymen cannot do theology unless given episcopal sanction, but here is anyway my answer to another man I will not name unless he states he wants me to:]

As to untrained, I would like to know how you can tell that Shea is so.

As to the other guy involved in the life of the man Shea found saintly (I do not think he considered him worthy of canonisation), I had no idea they were living together. Do you know if Shea had an idea about it? I mean like know for certain?

One more point: the Church does not declare people saintly while they live, it declares them saints, when they are dead. The adjective saintly is precisely for private appraisal going well before any possible canonisation, and is sometimes applicable in circumstances where the exterior would prohibit any canonisation. You cannot declare that Lancelot and Guinevere were canonisable while sharing dwellings while she was an outlaw for their previous adultery, but you cannot deny the possibility that during the time they did become saintly people.

[The following is to a woman, whom I cite briefly, and whom also I will not name unless she asks me to:]

Here I find two diverse things:

"And, he was silent on the teachings of the Church on celibacy as a gay man, living with his lover."

The second part I have already dealt with. As far as I know or knew when writing previous, Shea had no positive knowledge of the two actually living openly together.

But there is not any traditional teaching of the church that gay men need to live celibate. A monk or priest o religious who is thrown out of orders or order because he commits a sin of sodomitic reek does need to live celibate, because that is what he promised, he just no longer has the help of a community of men which he abused.

But as to living celibate, I have found no Church teaching previous to 1975 (post-Vatican II) saying a layman having committed or been tempted to sodomy needs to stay away from Christian marriage. It is a clear and natural teaching that Oscar Wilde sinned with the young man he went to prison for having sinned with, but it is not at all a teaching that Oscar Wilde must have sinned when previously to that he married his wife.

If sodomy is again outlawed and punishable, should one require those having committed it while legal to live celibate? It is like asking fatty to climb Mount Everest. One should ask fatty to walk half an hour per day and one should ask the more sex addicted gays to try to get an understanding girl (and of course not lie about their difficulty), which is what for instance Josh Weed has done so far.

[Same woman:]

" Hans, you simply just don't want to listen.

" You do not want to know the truth.

" You are defending the indefensible.

" If Shea did not know the gay man was living with his lover and he did not know that as a gay man living with his lover the individual did not testify to the teachings of the Church on celibacy - writing about his knowledge about the saintliness of a homosexual man was dumb.

" When he was told the substance of this man's scandalous witness, Shea went on a rampage. That rampage continues.

" He is a very sick individual.

" A predator in the pews

" EWTN should not be employing the man.

" He is writing about what saintly conduct is, without knowledge - and then when he is corrected by those with knowledge, he stalks and bullies them for years."

Stalks? Bullies? Now, you know what saintly conduct is, are those terms charitable about Mr. Shea? And what about this: "If Shea did not know the gay man was living with his lover ... writing about his knowledge about the saintliness of a homosexual man was dumb." - So where is your own knowledge before writing if you pretend the Church teaches homosexuals should be celibate? And is he "very sick" or "a predator"? Sick people are usually not very good at hunting!

[Man posting petition, again:]

" In the gospel, Jesus warns his followers to beware of false prophets who will enter amongst his sheep like wolves. He says that they enter the sheepfold not with the shepherds but by some other means. Shea has no degree in theology or certificate in catechesis, nor is he commissioned by his bishop. You compare him to Voris, but Voris began his work with the approval of his bishop. I myself am commissioned by my bishop to teach theology and prepare people for the sacraments in the schools of my diocese.

" The Church declares someone a saint as a way of recommending that person as a role model to the faithful. Again I say that I am not attempting to judge whether this priest is in Heaven or Hell. I am not judging the person or the soul. But since he was openly homosexual and publically living with a lover, I would not recommend him as a role model for the faithful. That's common sense. Shea made a complete ass of himself, then spent weeks attacking and abusing anyone who pointed it out."

And the layman who pointed out that Nestorius was heretic was presumably also commissioned by his bishop (Nestorius)? Your criteria of when a layman may speak are not the historically correct ones. For printed books, yes, those are the criteria. Or were up to Paul VI. But if you buy a book and disagree with it and make a note in the margin, that does not help anyone except those having excatly your copy. If you read a blog and comment, your comments is readable to everyone reading the message. Which means that correcting a blog in public is easier than correcting a book. Which means that the criteria for books do not necessarily apply to blogs, even if Paul VI had not disapplied them for books also.

As to the question of FACT, whether the guy whom Mark Shea talked about was a) publicly living with a lover or ex-lover, b) was thereto counselled or not by a priest who had tried and seen fail other means (but not marriage to a woman) to make him chaste and c) Mark Shea knew all of the story (which he did not in case you are right, since he said "I presume he lives chastely, but it is none of my business" quoting from my memory) is small compared thereto. However, the fact that you are incapable of distinguishing what the Church means by canonising someone as a saint and what common people mean when privately opining someone "is a saint" or "saintly" is not exactly a recommendation for either your role as a theologian or for your bishop who commissioned you.

Who is that bishop anyway?

Here is the relevant quote, I see no more of a theological problem in this than in someone calling a deceased friend or relative dead outside visible limits of church "a man I consider as a saint":

[from Mark Shea's blog post:]

"I didn’t know he was gay (same-sex attracted) during his lifetime and only found out about it after his death. Dunno if he lived a life of perfect celibacy or not and, frankly, regard it as none of my business, though my assumption, given all I know about his profound love of Jesus and the faith is that he was faithful in that area of his life as in all the others I ever saw."

He got 296 or 269 comments on that blog post, which strengthens my confidence that publishing a blog message is not exactly like publishing a book, even if publishing a book on theology were still an offense in canon law if done without the bishop's approval.

[Of course, these comments include possibly his own answers too]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Château d'eau Library
of Paris
St Barbara

Appendix: Advice for Mark Shea:

Crisis Magazine : Concupiscience is not Sin
by Mark Shea

"I don’t need somebody to offer me a donut in order to make me feel better about my gluttony. I need them to support me as I try to eat less and move more."

My advice, if it can practically be followed: try to go on a pilgrimage. There are not just individuals but also families doing the Pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela. In your case it might be better to take Santiago de Chile.

Apart from praying for something which I have not yet quite got, at the bones of the saint and apostle and martyr, I also had a better level of breathing and heart beat. I am not exactly a glutton, but physically lazy./HGL

PS: I got there walking my own pace, mostly. Not running with runners. I only sometimes did walk faster than usual to keep up with nice people walking faster than I am used to. Sad story I have since then had reason to suspect some of them were not just nice, but trying to change me (without knowing what or who I am in the first place).

Appendix B, Dialogue or Quarrel continues:

Lady already expressed above
Hans, you seem to believe that reporting abusive conduct is the crime.

Using words like stalk and bully to report abusive conduct is Christian. What is not Christian is the abuse.

Shooting the messenger is how pedophiles flourished for 60 years. Thise days are gone

It is exactly Shea's business to know if the conduct of the gay man living with his lover was worthy of claiming he was a saint for the same reason he would not stand outside the local wwhorehiuse and tell Catholics to make the asinine presumption that the conduct of the people coming and going was sanctity and sainthood.

Hans, you reasoning is outlandish.

Man who thought MS should have known the fact before pronouncing
Hans is a homeless man from Paris. He's worth talking to, very interesting and Catholic but is not always lucid.
Not always lucid is very wrong sir, it is an insult.

Homeless man IN Paris is however right.

As to bullying and stalking, I have seen no evidence of such beyond affirmations here. The position that it was Mark Shea's business to know would have made sense if he had anywhere close to pretended canonising as a bishop (or since Urban VIII : a Pope) canonises but he has not.
Man who thought MS should have known the fact before pronouncing
You're not lucid now.
That is another insult.

Equally wrong to previous one. [when I came back I found another man had posted:]
Friend of Michael Voris
Mark Shea? Is that the one who criticizes the great and holy Michael Voris STB?
I am not sure, but it is quite possible.

As we are speaking of Michael Voris (having as [petition poster] stated) episcopal approval to start, EWTN has episcopal approval and an ability to transfer it to the writers it choses to publish. Including Mark Shea - unless he has indeed episcopal approval himself.

Anyway, I like Mark Shea somewhat better than Michael "the anti-cafeteria rally" Voris (has he been embracing traditional causes beyond obedience?) and lots better than the man who just said I was not lucid right ... some fifty minutes ago. If it was for momentarily neglecting that since Urban VIII only Popes canonise, I remind you that before him simple bishops could do so too. I think he finds it easier to deal with me by calling me mad (and implying homelessness usually goes along with madness, because he mentions both in one breath), than to deal with what I accused him of, as regards Mark Shea.
Man who thought MS should have known the fact before pronouncing
Shea's a slandering malefactor.
You just showed yourself an insulting malefactor.
Man who thought MS should have known the fact before pronouncing
You're defending a slandering malefactor.
I am defending a man whom an insulting malefactor calls a slandering malefactor. And a man whom I find slandered by that insulting malefactor.
Man who thought MS should have known the fact before pronouncing
Is he guilty of slandering people?
Shall we gently ask our common friends (we have some) to choose between us? Some are a bit too frail in my mind to be brutally confronted with an unfriending plus notice that they can refriend me when unfriending you. And no, as far as I know Mark Shea is not guilty of slandering people.

You are guilty of slandering him.
Man who thought MS should have known the fact before pronouncing
How's that?
(citing him)" The boyfriend sent Shea an e-mail saying that they were 'chaste', but Shea canonized him before that."

You do not say that before the ex-lover sent Mark Shea the e-mail - in which he stated they practised chastity not sodomy - Mark Shea was not aware of his existence: how is that for misrepresenting Mark Shea's motives?

Unless, of course, you take seriously the accusation that Mark Shea arrogated to himself the power to canonise. NOt a quite lucid appraisal of any Catholic layman.
Man who thought MS should have known the fact before pronouncing
It's not lucifer to defend Shea's arrogance, no.

ER lucid, but lucifer works too
I saw no arrogance in him. YOU are the one accusing him of arrogance, not I remember!
Man who thought MS should have known the fact before pronouncing
He said the man was a Saint. What is that but a canonization?
It is an appraisal. A private opinion about sainthood. It is not binding and is not meant to be binding on any other Catholic's conscience, unlike episcopal and later papal canonisations. If 1600 a Paris bishop canonised someone, all Catholics in Paris are obliged to recognise the sanctity. In 1650 that was reserved to the Pope. One can have a private opinion about sainthood of this person as much as one can have a private opinion of valid accession/retention of papacy in that other person, without any kind of arrogance.
Man who thought MS should have known the fact before pronouncing
Sure, and if that person happens to be a cohabiting self-declared homosexual, it's a scandal.

And it's presumption as well.
The cohabiting was a scandal given by that person while alive, not a scandal in anyone not knowing thereof but knowing him through internet thinking him a saint for what he wrote, or for that matter knowing him from a visit to other parish and chatting with him. And no, having and expressing a private opinion, without any trace of an intention of formally obliging any one else's conscience is not, has never been and will never be presumtion. Just as opining that Liberius was no longer Pope (until finding out he had been forced to sign Sirmium) was no presumtion of part of people scandalised by that signature.

Words such as "presumption", "arrogance", "canonisation", "playing the pope" and so on have been heavily abused by people polemising against sedevacantism.
Man who thought MS should have known the fact before pronouncing
Assuming knowledge of something without possessing that knowledge is exactly what presumption is.
or, to get to saints, some people had been told to burn a heretic witch in Rouen, when they were ready and she had died, they said "we are lost we have burnt a saint"
Man who thought MS should have known the fact before pronouncing
That's lucid...

Was she living with her lesbian girlfriend?
Mark Shea had knowledge of the factors that taken together made him consider Perry Lorenzo a saint. The "anglois" who burnt St Joan of Arc had knowledge of her end which they witnessed. Noone, not even the Pope canonising someone, can know all events in that person's life. As little as Mark Shea knew Perry Lorenzo was living, scandalising outwardly, but otherwise chastely, with a partner.

So, either every canonising Pope is presumtious (a protestant heresy) or the lucidity of St Joan's executors and the appraisal of PL by MS are not.
Man who thought MS should have known the fact before pronouncing
Yeah, he knew he was a self-declared man who lays with other men.

Shea had no knowledge of the mans chastity.
So? He was obliged to presume chastity up to getting an argument to the contrary. The contrary position is indeed Pharisaic. And after he got to know he was "homosexual", not that he was "sodomite" as you imply.
Man who thought MS should have known the fact before pronouncing
If you don't care about public scandal I see no reason to continue discussing anything further.
Feel like withdrawing your words about Mark Shea? YOU are causing public scandal. YOU just called St Joan of Arc lesbian.
Man who thought MS should have known the fact before pronouncing
Feel like withdrawing your words? I'm pretty sure you're not culpable.
I am of one presumption : calling your words "was she living with her lesbian girlfriend" and insult to St Joan. You may have been ironically pointing out a difference between cases as you percieve them. However, she was sharing camp tent with people like Gilles de Rais, and the bishop of Beauvais declared that a "scandal" just as much as you do.
Man who thought MS should have known the fact before pronouncing
It would be as absurd and probably malicious to impute sodomy to any Saint.

It would probably be as absurd to impute sodomy to any Saint, as to say a man who insisted he was a sodomite is a Saint.
Bishop Cauchon of Beauvais did it (or more properly, lesbianism). You are imputing sodomy to a man whom we must lucidly and charitably regard as living his last years rather as a chaste homosexual.
Man who thought MS should have known the fact before pronouncing
There are no such things as homosexuals.

Besides, Shea said it was none of his business if the man was or not.
That is another story. PL may have imagined being homosexual. But his friend hardly imagined he was abstaining from sodomy.
Man who thought MS should have known the fact before pronouncing
I think there is no point in continuing this discussion.
BUT IT IS none of my or your or anyone else's business to investigate whether a man was chaste or not, except for things like formal canonisations or - obversely - condemnations. And a private appraisal of someone's sanctity comes before that. Oh, feel free to quit the discussion, b t w.
Man who thought MS should have known the fact before pronouncing
If you're representing a Catholic news organ, it certainly is your business to know that a man is not living in scandal before you endorse him and his ideas.

Especially if you're going to mention a sin which cries out to heaven...etc as being "none of our business".
Oh, his ideas are among other things that Benedict XVI is a Pope and a good Pope. Maybe you are getting sedevacantist? As for me, I endorse Oscar Wilde's ideas, except his defense in the trial. He was for instance lucid enough to know he merited prison. And a secret sodomy may cry out to Heaven, but as long as it is not cried out on earth - and it was not - it is still not my business to poke and ask about it.

"It was not" - correction: there was for a considerable period of time none to cry out even, as far as we know.
Man who thought MS should have known the fact before pronouncing
Then it's not your business to promote it either.

It wasn't secret, it was made plain and shouted from the rooftops, or Shea's blog.
Besides your reasoning presumes Catholic News Organs are a step in Catholic Hierarchy, they are not. Are you still angry at Mark Shea for promoting Perry Lorenzo and his idea that Benedict XVI is a good pope? And as for what was on Shea's blog, you read it as the devil reads the Bible!
Man who thought MS should have known the fact before pronouncing
Yeah, gotta go.
Mark Shea wrote that so and so was "homosexual but his partner said they lived chastely" which is NOT a synonym for "sodomy".

Do, do!
Man who thought MS should have known the fact before pronouncing
It's kind of hard to have a one sided conversation where you don't really read or understand what I'm writing.
*holding up a mirror* (is that whom you are talking to?)

Mark Shea is not and was not promoting Perry Lorenzo as PHYSICAL COMPANY, which might have been foolhardy about a man whom he had seen enter a housedoor repeatedly in company with same guy and that was NOT what he knew about PL, even. He is promoting PL's ideas, one of which is that Benedict XVI is a decent Pope. Can you point out an idea in PL's blog which you do NOT want promoted?

And PL is no longer physically keeping anyone any kind of company. So, any risk with promoting PL is gone. Except of course if you can say PL was heretic and not just a chaste/abstinent homosexual. Where on PL's blog do you find a heresy? Mark Shea linked to it, I linked to it in my blogpost including previous debate. Go on, where in it is PL heretic? Where in it does he show MS was wrong to link to it? I might be in for a surprise, I have not read much of it yet.

There are sedevacantists who do not consider PL as heretic, just mistaken about this one:

Perry Lorenzo: The New Springtime of the Church

(motto of blog:)
Exploring the Truth Goodness and Beauty of God in art, music, poetry, literature and the prayer-life of the Roman Catholic Liturgy

But of course, since you are very strong on EENS, you might be against PL for promoting Hans Urs von Balthasar.

However, I think John Paul II was promoting him too. And Benedict XVI canonised him. Or, rather, beatified. One step short of.

(will probably get some answer tomorrow, for now you are gone)
Lady already expressed above
Hans, this is trash.

The pedophile Mark Shea considers a Saint.

Writing such a piece demands knowing whether the pedophile was celibate. Get it?
Oh, who the hell says Mark Shea is a pedophile? Or do you mean Perry Lorenzon was one before he died? Despite fact that his adult partner said they he lived chaste?
Lady already expressed above
If it turns out he was living with his 9 year old lover Mark Shea is responsible for tbe terrible scandal.

Rather than come clean, he viciously maligns those who point out his stupidity.
ONE source for standard you claim MS violated!
Lady already expressed above
His conduct iis aggregious, as is yours..


Cease and desist from this nonsense.

In the Name of Christ.

You are defending Shea to bring attention to yourself. To be important to Mark and win his affection. You dont give a flying fig what you do to truth and righteousness.

It is despicable.

I am done giving you the attention you crave.

Authoring a piece called a pedophile Mark Shea considers a Saint would REQUIRE knowing whether the pedophile was celibate.

He cant claim he wrote the asinine piece not caring whether he.was celibate. Being celibate is mandatory knowledge for writing such a piece.

Pedophiles can convert and win their redemption but their past history of conduct is such a scandal, NOBODY in their right mind would write such a piece.
When did Mark Shea commit even one act of pedophilia? As far as I know he is married.

And you have still not answered where you get your standard about what Mark Shea should have known about Perry Lorenzo before calling him a saint.
Friend of Michael Voris
Mark Shea is the man who criticized and slandered my friend Michael Voris, STB. There seems to be an odor of modernism flowing from the person of Mark Shea.
Ah - Michael Voris is your friend. And anyone not liking him is modernist? And in what piece did Mark Shea "slander" Michael Voris, if I may ask? Supposing this has remotely anything to do with this question about Perry Lorenzo, of course.
Lady already expressed above
Folks, you don't suppose Hans is Mark Shea, do you?

Look at our photos. I am leaner and he has a blonder beard.

dimanche 2 décembre 2012

My Innocence About the Vice of Curiosity

Series about my FB enemies: 1) Gossip About Cyber, 2) Gríma Wormtongue has his like in real life - at least as far as his choice of viewpoint is concerned, 3) My Innocence About the Vice of Curiosity, 4) Heated Discussion on Historical Backgrounds for Schism of 1054, 5) Misquoters and Conclusion Jumpers!, 6) Guns, Homeless, Shelters, My Own Situation, 7) On Pat's Wall, by me, 8) In case someone not my FB friend even past wonders, Pat whom I unfriended is not Buchanan, 9) Answering Psychiatry Friendly Comments by one GP (friend of a friend), 10) GP tries it again - after attacking Alveda King, 11) Unfriending someone who is friends with people considering homeless mentally ill

Citing St Thomas via Pastor's Corner:

"Vice may show itself as an inordinateness in the craving and eagerness to learn the truth."

- I may have been accused of that vice. And I may be very innocent thereof.

"This may be in four ways. One way is when this eagerness withdraws a person from another pursuit, which is his bounden duty."

- Studying natural and moral, especially societal, truth is not drawing myself away from any other bounden duty, rather I have made it my bounden duty.

"In another way, when one is eager to learn from an unlawful source."

- I have asked neither the devil nor the dead for truth. I have accepted an astrological advice offered once, but not sought it, nor sought any more astrological advice from the person, a woman in whom I find much to respect and few things to regret but those few things including the use of astrology.

"The third way is when one seeks to learn the truth about creatures without reference to the due end, which is the knowledge of God."

- I have on the contrary referred knowledge of alternative theories of "astrophysics", such as angelic movers rather than merely gravitational movements, very constantly to Prima Via and to Quinta Via (cf. STh, Ia P, QII, AIII, corp), and what I have said about the angel of the sun - supposing as I habitually do it is one, though it is certain that not every angel has its star - is to honour his fidelity to his maker and to his maker's mother.

"A fourth way is inasmuch as one is eager to know that truth which lies above his knowledge; for thereby men easily fall into errors."

- Herein I have at least sinned less than modern scientists: since they think they are more prone to get truths about the stars (or about earth and sea or about life and heredity) if taking away God and angels from the available explanations.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Pompidolian Library of Paris
(Bpi Georges Pompidou)
St Vivianne's Day
1st Sunday of Advent

vendredi 30 novembre 2012

Flics généreux:

  • - un Bobby de Dover, qui nous permit à moi et ma mère de rester campés la nuit dans le parc et qui nous donna des cubes de fromage
  • - un policier de Paris l'été ou printemps passé qui me revaillait sur ordre des gens de l'immeuble et qui me donnait de quoi m'offrir un café
  • - le suivant de Nouveau York: : New York: la photo du policier offrant des chaussures à un SDF devient virale

Bonne fête de St André à eux tous et à vous aussi!

vendredi 23 novembre 2012

Paternal Protectionism or Necessity for Celebs?

I saw this thing about the given names of children to Hollywood stars. And yes, Bruce Willis happens to be one original namegiver (as you might notice unless you already know that), but on top of that his oldest three daughters seem a wee bit overprotected. I found their names, obviously, in the photo series with comments about original name givers.

Oh, all of them are on FB in some way, but ...

Rumer Glenn can neither be added nor messaged.

Tallulah Bell can, but obviously because she is already in couple.

And, Scout Larue has no personal profile that can be added or messaged, just a fan page that can be liked. Now, she is of course an artist in her own right. If I can get across a video with her, and find her singing decent, I might very well like her fan page.

Now, in this particular case, very obviously, one can agree that they are in a special position due to being daughters of a celebrity with - that other celebrity called Demi Moore. And some US people tend to exaggerate the dangerosity of the normal stalker. Not people with kidnapping motives or totally unpredictable exaggerated switch-on-and-off-agressivity to people they previously liked, but just stalkers. And I suppose they might have had their share of them.

But when ordinary parishioners treat their daughters or sisters like that, as was and still maybe is the case with St Nicolas du Chardonnet parishioners when it comes at least to me, I wonder if paternal protectionism is not getting a bit Islamising, destructive of Christian liberties.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Audoux Library, Paris
St Clement, Pope, Martyr

jeudi 15 novembre 2012

It does not take a prophet to see some justice ...

Catholic Memes : Even Sandy Don't Mess With Our Lady

India ... a country where women are denied life by the gross for being female foeti ... complaining about one woman dying when miscarrying.

Oh, and two things more: she was very engaged in the heathen diwali festival - and I have not seen any indication she got pregnant earlier than thirty with earlier children.

mardi 30 octobre 2012

Disagreeing about age of flood. (et c)

Carbon dating began in the late 1940s and some of the first things to be carbon dated were Egyptian artefacts, including the coffin of Pharaoh Djoser. The date of this pharaoh’s death was already considered to be accurately established, at 2750 BC. We know this date is incorrect because Egypt is a post-Flood civilization and this date precedes the Flood by several hundred years.



"Anno a creatione mundi, quando in principio Deus creavit caelum et terram, quinquies millesimo centesimo nonagesimo nono; a diluvio autem, anno bis millesimo nongentesimo quinquagesimo septimo; a nativitate Abrahae, anno bis millesimo quintodecimo; a Moyse et egressu populi Israel de Aegypto, anno millesimo quingentesimo decimo; ab unctione David in Regem, anno millesimo trigesimo secundo; Hebdomada sexagesima quinta, juxta Danielis prophetiam; Olympiade centesima nonagesima quarta; ab urbe Roma condita, anno septingentesimo quinquagesimo secundo; anno Imperii Octaviani Augusti quadragesimo secundo, toto Orbe in pace composito, sexta mundi aetate, Jesus Christus, aeternus Deus aeternique Patris Filius, mundum volens adventu suo piissimo consecrare, de Spiritu Sancto conceptus, novemque post conceptionem decursis mensibus (Hic vox elevatur, et omnes genua flectunt), in Bethlehem Judae nascitur ex Maria Virgine factus Homo."


"a diluvio autem, anno bis millesimo nongentesimo quinquagesimo septimo" = Christ was born year 2.957 from the Flood.

Other difference: "a Moyse et egressu populi Israel de Aegypto, anno millesimo quingentesimo decimo" = year 1510 from Exodus, vs Prots: "According to Bible chronology the Exodus occurred about 1446 BC."

This latter statement is from otherwise very good article:

Searching for Moses (by David Down)

(This article makes Moses=Amenemhet IV)

Other post-flood chronology related article:

In the days of Peleg (by Larry Pierce)

(Not sure when the calculation behind Martyrologium would place Peleg, but at any rate dates are given backwards from Pagan sources, never mind if it was when Peleg lived or afterwards).


samedi 27 octobre 2012

A Heavily Edited Video with me - and my Comments to Editor thereof.


Hans, we finally did the video, you can find it here:

as we had to make a 3 minutes video, we cut a lot of parts, but the referral to your blogs is in the video and also in the notes.

[editor and interviewer]


thank you!

added after seeing it:

Your conclusion about "completely different choice" as against material and tangible aspects was a bit over the top. But it came through as your conclusion, not as my words. Thank you for that.

However, it was not supposed to exclude the link for conditions for using my work and paying voluntary royalties:

"Did I mention anyone is free to print, sew and sell my essays or any reasonable collection of them (by theme or contrarywise on all different themes)?"
musicalia: What's the deal? C'est quoi ce truc?

"In this society he can't and doesn't want to find a job" is straining it also: as soon as I had a wife or girl friend I could get out in the fields. Or into some private school.

But worst, you make it look as if I wrote and composed without any look at gaining money from it, as if I did not do it as a job.

Finally, that is not quite honest. It is not what my words mean. Some dishonest professor of yours may have told you such a summary is OK, it is not.


Im very sorry if you dont Like it, but we just had 3 minutes of time, and we used 5 because it was impossible to put all in 3.. In 5 it was difficult also so we chose those parts to build your story. I think also that people can understand what you wanted to tell, can be understood easily I think. By the way, if you don't think that I will send you the full version of it and you can edit!


I would like the full version without edits, if possible.


Ok give me a mail and I will send to you

And no, what you wrote does not really help understanding what I wanted to say, it helps a current misunderstanding.


Ok I'm sorry for that, we thought was ok


Hoping to see full version on youtube soon ...

added 27/X/2012 (no youtube yet with full version):

When I write, I write what pleases me to write, but I hope it will please others to read. If not everyone at least those who think or may be brought (by reading me) to think like me.

And if you read all my 2000 essays through on all my blogs, you will not find the thought "living unproductively to please oneself but noone else is a good life". It is not there. It is not there in my mind either. It is attributed to me by people who either do not know or do not want to know what I write. I consider such people my enemies.

As a Christian I have a duty to forgive my enemies, but not to approve what they do. You see, I hope, that what you two have attributed to me is an unproductive life, as if writing and composing were some kind of pot. Here is a link to the latest thing I wrote excepting short notes, and a link to my latest composition. As I mentioned, I want people to print my essays in book form or in their publications and to play for money what I compose:

Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera: A Difference or Two with Sungenis

musicalia: Mediæval Modal Jingle for Ukulele

Sorry for stating the obvious, but your conclusion rather encourages curiosity about my person.

As to the music, I have not actually heard it yet. Someone else knows if this is good music or merely nice noices (it is not nasty noices, I know that much) and such people can decide each one for himself or herself which composition to play and which not to play.

Since the other essay is about Catholic apologetics, let us look at the competition: Peter Kreeft. Here is a very good example from him, on the Divinity of Jesus Christ:

The Divinity of Christ by Peter Kreeft

All I can add to this is explaining how good the written evidence is:

somewhere else: 1st C Historians, Wikipedia Category

But when Kreeft tries to repeat St Thomas Aquinas' proofs for God, he fails to grasp the argument from first mover / cause / necessary being correctly.

Peter Kreeft's version:

The First Cause Argument by Peter Kreeft

St Thomas Aquinas' version:

Article 3. Whether God exists? - SUMMA THEOLOGICA: The existence of God (Prima Pars, Q. 2)

I think he misses a lot simply by accepting too much of modern science, and also by not understanding how modern science identifies the God of the five ways with natural things - which St Thomas refuted, but not right there, rather when discussing how God is:

SUMMA THEOLOGICA: The simplicity of God (Prima Pars, Q. 3)

Peter Kreeft does not understand how much modern "science" (evolution, heliocentrism, big bang) is based on an attempt of giving to the universe attributes belonging to God. And there is where I hope to make a difference. As of course in denouncing modern slavery.

[Since I already quoted the editor on FB, I can do it here too, and I hope he will get my hint and soon hand over a non-overedited version of my interview.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Vigil of Sts Simon and Jude

vendredi 5 octobre 2012

Les taxes sur la bière ...

... ont, en Suède et Danemark qui ont une taxation haute, contribué à la vente de Pripps de son idépendence et de ses ressources à Carlsberg (une bière que désormais je n'ai pas bu), et Carlsberg a mis des travailleurs aux brasseries de Pripps au chomage. Il serait plus interessant de baisser la Sécurité Sociale en éliminant les avortements, les contraceptions, les scolarités forcés et des elèvements par DDASS et par la psychiatrie des charges de la Sécurité Sociale. Ainsi on pourra continuer à boire de la bière, qui est un boisson très sain, sauf pour les surconsommateurs, et la société serait plus juste qu'avant./HGL

mercredi 12 septembre 2012

Mes Trois Derniers Statuts

Le 12 Septembre

12 septembre. Fête du saint nom de la bienheureuse Vierge Marie. 1683.

And Quote:
“Some people are so foolish that they think they can go through life without the help of the Blessed Mother. Love the Madonna and pray the Rosary, for her Rosary is the weapon against the evils of the world today. All graces given by God pass through the Blessed Mother.”
● St. Padre Pio.

Le 11 Septembre

Quelque ignare aurait-il mal compris ceci?

Mon Fils Encore Non Conçu

Les trois premiers strophes sont ce que je fustige. Avec un sarcasme à la Charlie Hebdo, sauf que c'est contre les idéaux modernes derrière les limitations des naissances, par avortement ou autrement. La première énumère les raisons absurdes "par responsabilité pour la société", la deuxième les raisons également absurdes "par reponsabilité pour le futur" - du à-naître ou du à-concevoir - et la troisième les moyens saugrenus.

C'est dans la quatrième strophe que je rompe ce sarcasme avec une palinodie. Les médiévistes savent bien de quoi je parle. J'avais cru qu'elle serait suffisemment claire en invocant les bonnes raisons contre l'absurde et le saugrenu même pour les non-médiévistes.

Mais aujourd'hui il me semble - dans un moment noir, c'est vrai - possible que quelqu'un qui en plus d'être ignare est aussi connard ait pu prendre les premiers trois strophes pour mon moment noir et la dernière comme du sarcasme.

Pourquoi ça? Le blog d'un nouveau profile dont je donnait le lien vers celui-ci avait été bloqué. Là-dessus il y avait pourtant un commentaire pertinent:


ou même un deuxième:

Jamais ...

Aussi des personnes qui partent du soupçon d'avoir à faire avec un fou ou avec une très noire personnalité auraient pu arriver à ce malentendu. Aussi? J'avais déjà dit et ignare et connard ... un tel serait l'un ou l'autre ou les deux envers moi. Après j'ai donné la question aux particuliers./HGL

samedi 8 septembre 2012

Débat sur la Psychiatrie

Sedevacantiste Sedevacantisme:
Celui qui maîtrise ses passions est seul fort, mais celui qui ne sait qu'y succomber n'est qu'un faible. Le monde voudrait nous faire croire l'inverse, mais nous ne sommes pas dupes. +
Hans-Georg Lundahl:
"Catholicism cannot be overcome by logical argument, but by corrupted morals." - St. Maximilian Kolbe speaking on freemasons' principles.
- Mais, hélas, la psychiatrie sait corrompre les moeurs, notemment le courage.
F M:
mais une saine psychiatrie est bien necessaire, notemment pour revenir au reel, car sans nature saine, il n'est pas possible d'avoir du surnaturel!
et donc de la vertu!
Hans-Georg Lundahl:
La psychiatrie actuelle n'est pas saine. Loin de faire revenir au reel des gens égarés dans des délires palpablement tels, ceux qui en sont atteints ET demeurent une minirité parmi les patients, ET demeurent généralement tels. La vertu chrétienne est parfois persécuté au nom d'un faux réel mondain ou athée/darwiniste, comme si par exemple l'expectation de se réserver jusqu'au mariage passe pour "psychorigidité" ou "homosexualité refoulée" ou quand créationnisme et géocentrisme passent pour des "délires." Même là où les victimes de la psychiatrie ne sont nullement tels en fonction de la vertu chrétienne, ce qu'ils souffrent de la psychiatrie est parfois pire - même souvent - que ce qu'ils ont fait de mal (par exemple excès en hachiche, c'est mal - d'ailleurs pas le mien - mais pas pire que la psychiatrie en termes de dégradations d'une vie).
C'est même faux de dire que la nature doive être absolument saine pour recevoir le surnaturel, c'est sousestimer la vertu guérissante de la grace. Mais c'est surtout faux de prétendre qu'à chaque ou au moins la plupart des cas détenus en ou par les psychiatres il s'agisse d'une nature trop malsaine pour passer sans. Ils font des critères qui correspondent à leurs interêts financiers collectifs, d'être payés pour ces services ou plutôt sévices ou, dans le cas des producteurs des psychotropes psychiatriques, ces produits malfaisants.
Triviu, Quadriviu, 7 cætera: Difficile de Garder le Courage, Alors
F M:
il a existé et il existe encore des psychiatres sains, mais tres rares iol est vrai:
en outre, ce n'est pas parce que la psychiatrie actuelle est malsaine et/ou basée sur de faux principes.. que les psychopates n'existent pas!
quand à vouloir guérir des psychopathologie graves.. avec des prières, meme si je crois fort aux miracles, ce n'est pas l'ordre dans lequel le Créateur a fait les choses! d'ailleurs les grands et saints naturopathes du passé, dont ste hyldegarde, avaient bien une pharmacopée adaptée à des troubles mentaux!
je maintien, avec toute l'eglise, que la Grace sureleve la nature, mais ,e la remplace pas: par exemple, si la base naturelle du mariage - qui est le contrat - n'existe pas, alors le sacrement ne peut exister!!!
de meme, lorsqu'une personne est atteinyte de troubles mentaux graves, ce n'est pas uniquement par la prière qu'elle pourra poser des actes sains??? et saints! "jupiter quod vult perdere dementat": c'est de plus en plus le cas: le demon suscite et entretien des etats psychopathique, dans lesquels il fait commetre par lesujet un maximum d'actes peccmineux: c'ets flagrangt chez certains! et dans leurs etats "normaux", soient ils ne ne souviennet de rien et nient leurs actes , soient ils les minimisent!!!
Hans-Georg Lundahl:
"que les psychopates n'existent pas" ... les fous existent, ils sont rares, même parmi les déténus en psychiatrie.
"par exemple, si la base naturelle du mariage - qui est le contrat - n'existe pas, alors le sacrement ne peut exister" - vrai, mais même parmi les déténus en psychiatrie les gens incapables d'un contrat ne sont qu'une minorité.
"le demon suscite et entretien des etats psychopathique, dans lesquels il fait commetre par lesujet un maximum d'actes peccmineux: c'ets flagrangt chez certains! et dans leurs etats 'normaux', soient ils ne ne souviennet de rien et nient leurs actes , soient ils les minimisent!!!" - vous omettez deux possibilités: vrais péchés et vraiment niés, ou des actes faussement pris pour peccamineux par des esprits pharisaïques, ou inventés de toutes pièces par esprit calomnieux. Il y a aussi la possibilité, au coeur de mon souci, que précisement la psychiatrie maintient des gens dans un état de tel désespoir que le péché parait plus normal et la vertu hors porté.
Et il y a la possibilité que des vrais actes vraiment souvenus comme tels passent par peccamineux et que le concerné nie les péchés parce qu'il sait que les actes étaient autres. Si le prêtre fait confiance à une diagnose de psychopathie, il sera incapable de trouver la vérité. À propos de psychopathie, on parle de ça à propos des gens manipulateurs, mais dans une situation pareille, on rique de louper les vrais manipulateurs et de chopper leurs victimes - ce qui était le but de la manipulation.
Le psychiatre n'est pas plus doué que tous les autres pour savoir qui est manipulateur et qui est victime.
Triviu, Quadriviu, 7 cætera: Amorth, Exorcisme, Psychiatrie et Sorcières
"je maintien, avec toute l'eglise, que la Grace sureleve la nature, mais ,[n]e la remplace pas" - c'est un lieu commun entre Christ et les Pharisiens, mais regardez comment ils l'appliquent différemment! Regardez la différence entre la possédé à Gadara, que Christ avait trouvé possédé, et Jésus-Christ que les Pharisiens trouvaient ou prétendaient trouver (l'un ou l'autre, mais pas sans malhonnêteté déjà dans les critères) digne des mots "il a un esprit impur".

Débat tenu - jusqu'à présent - le Jour de Nativité de la Sainte Vierge, avec la Veille, à travers FB.

Bibliothèque Mouffetard, Paris:
Hans-Georg Lundahl

samedi 1 septembre 2012

Mark Shea and Fr Peter West

I just withdrew Fr West from my friends list. Mark Shea had called a dead man a saint who during his life had same sex attraction, Fr West said there was something deeply wrong about Mark Shea. Now Mark Shea is a married man, and he was assuming the "gay saint" by love of Christ had lived in celibacy. He assumed Perry Lorenzo had been as chaste as Socrates confronted with the beautiful Alcibiades - or that he had repented sufficiently and been forgiven. I do not see how such assumptions about Perry Lorenzo can stamp the one making them as "there must be something deeply wrong with him". I therefore consider Fr Peter West, until he clears this up, as more Pharisaic and envious about Mark Shea's fame and money than Christian in his stance. He might even have reacted as soon as he saw the title and assumed "gay" meant "active sodomite" or "gay activist" or something.*

"Mark Shea is just using the Catholic Faith as an income generator. That is his main motive. He should be removed from doing spots on EWTN radio as well. Someone let Teresa Tomeo know. He is a fraud." [said by one M. M.]

Here is my response to that as well as to situation in general: Sorry folks, I am not primarily against FatherPeter West as a person, but I am for Mark Shea, and therefore I will not agree to stay on a thread or a friendship leading up to threads before Fr West explains how this all happened. As for Mark Shea using Catholic Faith as income generator, we are not looking for genuine sanctity, there is such a thing as defending the faith when attacked. And a married man doing that full time needs money for writing. I am not getting money for it, I am not married either and as a result I am cursing both God and whoever among Catholic laymen make attacks like that about "income generator" and whoever among priests or religious are so much listening to them that they feel a need to pray for my continued involuntary poverty and celibacy./HGL

*The sound procedure in general is reading the text before one judges it. But if Fr Peter West had done that, I would conclude he was too uncharitable.

vendredi 31 août 2012

Third Country if it Were a Country ...

Facebook has a population less great than those of China and India.

I never (or hardly ever) take Watchtower, but sometimes Awake! which this February had an issue about Social Networks. It gave a few guidelines of Biblical Support for assessing one's proper use of them.

  1. Effect on private life? Proverbs 10:19 - well I seldom post intimate details or such as I would myself count as seductive or incriminatory on FB.
  2. Effect on my time? Philippians 1:10 - first off, the Bible verse is about quite another thing, like about preferring heavenly rewards to success on earth if you look up the context. But second, when it comes to earthly success, yes, spending time on FB does not deduct from time spent on my employer, since I do not have one. As my business is my production on internet, spending time on a network that has more population than most countries is a part of it.
  3. Effect on my reputation? Proverbs 22:1. Spending any time on internet or as much as I would need realistically to do some of my writing incidentally hurts my reputation among people I meet on a daily basis and who think they do me some kind of favour by not looking up my writings on the web. So, FB is a resting place where I have the reputation as a Christian which the networks that I meet more face to face but whose conferences about me or others elude me refuse me.
  4. What effect has it on my friendships? Proverbs 13:20. Well, it is on the Internet that I have friends and in real life that I meet my detractors. You could say it is my fault for having so many friends on internet, I could retort that I tried to get friendships in real life, among others showing what I do on internet. If they do not like what I write, why should I presume they would like me as a person? Or why should I prefer friends who dislike me to those who like or appear to like me? It is on the web that I meet this wonderful maronite and Third Order Carmelite, among other things, or this man who wrote "How the Holy Cross was Found".

The day I read this, I was first relieved at any principle exonerating me from sin or stupidity. Not that I believe in tests like that, but I sometimes take them. But I was annoyed about someone having abused whatever spiritual power prayer gave him to pray for me time after time about me getting a check-up and never checking up on whether the check-ups exonerate or condemn my habits. If someone is too much of an hermit to speak to me, he might also do well to be sufficiently hermit not to make plans for my conversion from what he knows not whether it is sin or virtue. It annoyed me and it provoked me to sins of hatred.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Mantes / BiJ

« Reine de l’Univers, Médiatrice des hommes, refuge de tous nos espoirs, faites-nous miséricorde ! »

samedi 28 juillet 2012

Thunderf00t's fan base, no full freedom of speech

On the FB fan club of Thunderf00t I read this statement, which I answered by following challenge:

Theists who assert that Atheism is a 'belief system' are completely without a clue but then they're theists.

How many of today's atheists here would contest one of following positive points:
  1. Universe needs neither creator nor upholder;
  2. It started with a Big Bang but we do not need to know where the gigantic mass before it came from;
  3. Galaxies and stars with or without planets start out the same way: clouds of gas get attracted to each other, to a focal point in the middle, where a spiralling movement starts;
  4. Our sun is a star with planets and started out that way too;
  5. Earth started out hot and uninhabitable;
  6. Life on earth started by chance combinations of ammoniac, carbon dioxide and other gasses with water;
  7. Life on earth started out with DNA or RNA forming self replicating single cell beings;
  8. Single cell beings somehow evolved into genuine tissue variagated many celled animals (as well as into plants of also many cells, as well as into sponges where many cells form a colony as much as a being);
  9. From then on and from origin of sexual reproduction evolution has been a question of mutation, cross-breeding, weeding out by natural selection;
  10. This evolution has given rise to spineless animals, to fishes as primary spine animals, from fishes with only cartilage to fishes with real bones, and fishes gave rise via crossopterygians to amphibia, amphibia gave rise to reptiles (which modern scientists do not consider a true group anyway, but divide it into those having one, two or no hole at all on a spot of the cranium)
  11. Reptiles of appropriate types gave rise to birds and to mammals (which have different number of holes on that part of cranium) who unlike reptiles are warmblooded creatures;
  12. One branch of mammals are primates, one branch of which are true monkeys, one branch of which - since Ramapithecus 20 million years ago - are apes, one branch of which - since Australopithecan species 4 million years ago to 1 million years ago - is hominids the surviving branch of which is man: who had already some cultural capacities, though very primitively evolved from his precursors, and whose developed culture started out with superstition, went on to polytheism, to monotheism and from then to atheistic and pantheistic philosophies, until man finally learned all of this story by pretty recent resarch (five hundred years or so and some parts only last fifty years) of a scientific type which trumps all previous cultures of man as far as getting to the true origin of things is concerned.

July 21 at 2:00pm

I will not tire you with seven days of very uniform debate in which apart from charges that I have no clue, I was told more than once that this was not the belief system of these atheists, and in which not one of them challenged any one point. I will take you to a somewhat more varied debate, in which I was eventually excluded for contesting heliocentrism. Here was my opening statement, with reactions.

Thank you for letting me join.

Now, I am not quite a fan, I happen to have joined this only to answer one of his videos with a blogpost of mine (on my creationist blog, b t w):


N. E.
That species give rise to new species (macroevolution) is an OBSERVED FACT of reality. End of story.
July 20 at 6:30pm · 2.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Observed fact? Among plants where polyploidy constitutes a new legitimate species. Mammals do not go polyploid. One rat species has been found that one set of specialists consider tetraploid, but that is contested.
July 21 at 1:43pm.

N. E.
How does this in anyway refute what I said? Speciation is observed and documented and thus macroevolution is an observed fact, by definition.

And I wasn't referring to polyploid plants.
July 21 at 5:49pm.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
But to ... ?

Mammals? Hardly!


July 21 at 6:33pm

Ch. Ch.
Yawn. Your god is the latest in a series of fads, having derived substantial portions of his mythology from previous works. That's called plagiarism, and not really indicative of divine inspiration.

That said, I only disbelieve in one additional set of mythology than you. Yours is frankly no more interesting than the Greek gods, and less inspirational than some pagean goddesses I know, who birthed creation in a similar manner as a woman would a child.

Certainly Christianity is less suggestively interesting that gods who fertilize the earth, literally with their divine seed, or plunge their swords (yes, this is as suggestive in the native tongue) into the ocean to form land.

In short, your mythology is not compelling or original. It yields no answers of predictive value, nor provides a good moral base (unless you find genocide and gang rape moral pastimes) to live by.

Like those before it, yours too will be remembered only as myth one day, and people will wonder how silly you were for believing a dry pasty cracker to be the body of your beloved god, which you then consume! How quaint a story indeed.

Now, if you'd like to return to the desert walking, frankly barbaric ways of your Arabic predecessors, by all means please do so. Remember that modern medicine, the Internet, gps, turbine engines, and the like aren't of your world, so it may take some doing to get home, but I'm sure the world of scientifically minded individuals will be willing to let you use these things to go home if you'd like... Or...

You can acknowledge the reality of the world around you. The modern world and our modern understanding of it is so miraculous it boggles the mind. The possibilities before us as a species are seemingly endless, and totally foreign to our way of thinking as relatively flatland dwelling, relatively slow, lumbering giants. When you get too small, water is more like glue than what we think of as water, too big and it's more like air.

It takes a lot of imagination just to accept the observations of the world as true on scales just a little bigger or smaller than ourselves. That's fine, we're just used to being how we are, and only now leaving the ignorance of our own short existences.

The people who wrote the bible, whether you think them divinely inspired or not, obviously had no inspiration of the sorts coming every day from our modern world. These discoveries aren't stopping, but speeding up, and trying to put brakes on this train won't end well for the brakes.

So enjoy the ride. We'll all get there, a little or a lot less for wear. That's your choice, though it looks like you've already made it. Ours is only ignorance, and a promise to pursue the answers that we don't yet have, using the proven, reliable means we already have: questioning everything, even faith.

July 23 at 4:32pm

N. E.
Mammals, insects, birds, amphibians. Take your pick. I'm sorry the fact of evolution removes you from your PERCEIVED self importance but this is reality. You need to look a the big picture. The earth and everything on it is literally nothing compared to the universe. This, however, makes it VERY special. The only life we know for sure exists is here, with us, on this Pale Blue Dot. We should cherish and respect it. It is our home, our ONLY home. Christianity says god gave man dominion over the earth (obvious crap). This can ONLY breed the dangerous, anthropocentric view that allows us to keep raping the natural world. We do NOT have dominion over the earth as Katrina, Haiti, Indonesian Tsunami and the Japanese Earthquake and Tsunami prove. We don't have dominion over anything but ourselves. The bible is wrong on so many fronts it is amazing why anyone would take it as gospel.

July 23 at 8:46pm

St. Wh.
I've recently been thinking about this question. Why are there other animals on earth? If God only cares about humans believing in him, and we are the only ones that can get into heaven or be damned to eternal hellfire, what is the creationist reason for other animals being here?

I'm genuinely asking to. I've never asked this question to any theist, let alone a creationist. So please Hans, educate me on this point. Why aren't there just humans here on earth?
July 23 at 8:44pm.

N. E.
The other animals are here for us to eat and use as resources. That is the answer a creationist will give. Part of the "dominion" bs.
July 23 at 8:47pm.

St. Wh.
That's too easy. We don't eat and utilize every plant or animal. We don't even have an official number of species on the planet. If there were only fruits, vegetables, cows, pigs, or chickens, I'd say they have a point. And even then it's complete bullshit because we don't even need that many to survive, and then on top of that why do we even need to consume if we could have been 'designed' to not have to eat to survive.

Haha that's directed at Hans, I know you could agree N. (E.)
July 23 at 8:52pm.

N. E.
I know exactly how the creationist will answer....
July 23 at 9:21pm

St. Wh.
lol Just when I thought I had a good point, they've already prepared an answer. I just don't understand why they're entitled to answer these unique questions when the bible doesn't even give a fraction of the details we would need to know in order for it to make sense.
July 23 at 9:32pm.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ch. Ch. - sure, truth is less original than some stuff in Hesiod. Sometimes at least. And less original than the 12 point program of your creed I vented. After discussion below your point, I would like to ask whether ecology nowadays is not a thirteenth of thiose points, along with blaming Christian view of man's dominion for ravages of industrialism.

St. Wh. & N. E. I am Catholic, not "Bible alone". There are Church Father's, there is Thomist Philosophy and Theology. Every part of creation was made to glorify its maker. Animals were not created only when man was told to eat of them after the flood, but were there before the flood too.

N. E. - I pick MAMMALS. In what sense has specification or macroevolution been observed in MAMMALS. Which MAMMALIAN species has come into existance since Darwin's day (i e since some of us started looking for macroevolution)?
July 24 at 5:37pm

N. E.
Faroe Island House Mouse. So the plague bacteria was created to glorify god, gotcha. What an evil bastard. Global flood never happened as such an event is physically impossible, there isn't enough water. Such an event would have left very specific, obvious evidences but they don't exist. There is NO evidence for such an event and literally mountains of evidence refuting such an event, sorry.
July 24 at 6:26pm.

St. Wh.
You didn't answer my questions either Hans. July 24 at 6:32pm.

Ch. Ch.
Hans: any unbalanced creed leads to destructive ends, like the male dominion concepts, which are also not unique to Christianity.

In point of fact however, non-subjective reality is far more original and compelling than you seem to give it credit for. Ideas we take for granted now used to be novel, even unbelievable, but they show the limits of purely human scale intuition. Things like the earth being round, electromagnetic properties, even the nature of the atom. These defy the limits of our existence, and cannot be predicted by anything sort of rigorous investigation precisely because they're so foreign.

Of course we find them incredible, because these are new to the human experience, and things which have never been observed before. That warrants reasonable doubt, and is why even now, the existence of theories are sometimes spoken of in % certainty.

Yet these principles give us much beneficial knowledge about the earth and universe, and how to both shape and co-exist with it. You literally can't do anything in your daily life without using EM principles of some sort, (electricity, wireless communications) but the principles are frankly bizarre. We've come to accept them as part of our daily existence, because the experience is common to us and benefits our lives directly. Not all scientific principles are as common in our daily lives, but when they are, as say evolutionary principles are to a biologist, geneticist or pharmaceutical researcher, the usefulness of the knowledge makes its use a no-brainer.

By comparison, plagiarized books from other myths, which contain nothing of predictive value, those are quite uncompelling and unoriginal by comparison.

I know your creed confuses the two, but they really are as different as neutron stars are from sand. Horus and Jesus are perhaps just a cat and a mouse apart.

Wednesday at 2:35am via mobile.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Faroe Island House Mouse - reference proving it is not just another chromosomal race of mice achieved by chromosome fusion?

St. Wh. - I did answer this point: "We don't eat and utilize every plant or animal. We don't even have an official number of species on the planet. If there were only fruits, vegetables, cows, pigs, or chickens, I'd say they have a point." - and N. E. noted it.

N. E. - the yersinia pestis glorifies God sometimes by punishing people and sometimes by being gotten rid of. Both the work of Yersin and the working of miraculous cures involving disappearance of Yersinia Pestis do glorify God.

Ch. Ch. - you assume yourself to be dealing with uncensored reality and me to be dealing with plagiarised myth. Why?
Wednesday at 10:43am

Ch. Ch.
Hans: my computer works because of science, as does yours. Modern medicine? Evolution theory, biology and genetics.

I don't assume, I witness what works and draw conclusions. Why do you attribute things to an invisible man, when visible men can be seen inventing and researching these things?

It seems absurd to me that you'd even assert God has a role in the world. Really, look at it. This ball of water is a horrible stain on the resume of any divine being, but about what you'd expect without one.

Wednesday at 2:25pm

N. E.
The Faroe Island House Mouse is a new species. That is the point. Speciation is observed fact and thus macroevolution is observed fact. Yersinia pestis is endemic to the US and many other places. It hasn't disappeared. I'm glad you agree your god is an evil bastard though. Can I assume that you do not think the flood of Noah was literally a global event?
Wednesday at 6:53pm.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
N. E. - "is a new species." I asked for REFERENCE ...

Ch. Ch. - computer science is not about evolution or about heliocentrism. Modern medicine has little to do with evolution except for the microevolution of bacteria we do acknowledge as creationists. What works and what is true is not always same thing. False predictions sometimes work by being self-fulfilling, as was the case with certain ones of Apollo Delphicus.

N. E. - yersinia pestis SOMETIMES glorifies God by being gotten rid of. I mean you do not have to have all of the globe rid of it for that. As for rest ofthat diatribe, we owe God one for not being holy because of our ancestor Adam, and we owe God another one for each sin we do. Although it seems some Catholic theologians were open for globe not being literally global, I am not.
Thursday at 1:55pm.

N. E.
Hans, Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, pg 41. You do know what speciation is right? It doesn't matter what kind of speciation we are talking about, it is still a new species. Curing the plague isn't a miracle, it is modern medicine. Miracles are, by definition, impossible. Original sin? Are you serious?????? So if you have a great, great, great, great grandfather that raped and murdered little boys YOU should be punished for this, right? You're a moron if you believe in original sin. It is a barbaric, irrational concept that has NO place in the modern world. Do you think the flood of Noah was global and if so what evidence do you have outside the bible to support it?

Thursday at 6:20pm · Edited

Ch. Ch.
Hans: Why do you feel qualified to talk about things you are clearly ignorant of?

Silicon chips are largely a product of the space race, which, yes, presumes hello centrism to work.

Modern medicine? Evolutionary theory on a small (bacteria) and large (how testing on mice and chimps bears and validity in humans) scale.

You keep insisting on "Evidence" which is flawed, and frankly shows your ignorance.

I've suggested before that if you don't like science, please stop using its products, but you clearly don't even know the extent to which your modern existence is utterly dependent on scientific discovery.

Maybe you should answer that question for yourself first, then you'll understand what tf00t means when he says "Science delivers the goods".

I'm pretty sure when you are breakfast (processed by machines using electricity) you weren't worried about food poisoning (thanks to Mr Pasteur) and didn't travel to a farm by foot to get it, or grow it yourself. Even if you did, you probably used fertilizers and/or pesticides, and possibly GMO seeds.

Your food was kept chilled in a refrigerator, which runs on electricity. Clean, safe water was assured by your local utility, by utilizing modern chemical and biological filtering and test techniques, and pumped to your house using electricity.

You likely heated something in the microwave, or on a (non wood burning) stove.

The computer you're using is a product of the space race, and runs on electricity.

And all of these are gifts of science, for which you pay virtually nothing, but each of these small things makes your life so much easier. So east in fact that you can sit there and call science a crock with all the spare time freed up from activities like scrounging for food and water, and avoiding being killed by lions.

If you want to go back to that lifestyle, I hear a few countries on earth still offer that experience. Please indulge yourself for a few months, so you'll be more inclined to thank the diligent work of scientists who discovered each of these principles.

Yesterday at 2:23am via mobile

Hans-Georg Lundahl
N. E. - "Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, pg 41."

Noted. We will see if it has been disputed, as non-factual or irrelevant since 1979.

"Curing the plague isn't a miracle, it is modern medicine."

Carpentras was miraculously spared way before modern medicine, and both miracles and modern medicine glorify God.

"Miracles are, by definition, impossible."

Not unless you add the important qualification "to created agents".

"You're a moron if you believe in original sin."

I am a Catholic, and as such I obviously believe in original sin. I also see you got its essence wrong.

Adam sinned as ancestor of all mankind, and therefore all mankind is punished by God. My great grand father's great grand father sinned as an individual and I should obviously not be punished for his sins by human justice.

"Do you think the flood of Noah was global and if so what evidence do you have outside the bible to support it?"

1 Yes, I do.
2 a the fossil record that you guys divide into billions of years, which we consider product of a very quick and big sedimentation.
2 b every second Pagan mythology in the world records a recent creation and a universal flood.

And if you ask whether I consider Pagan myths evidence, yes again, to a limited extent. I do not think Zeus Apollo and Poseidon walked along before the Flood and found Deucalion and Pyrrha hospitable, but I do think that the "three angels" - the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost appearing in angelic form - found Abraham and two of them found Lot hospitable, and Abraham and Sara were fertile and Lot was spared as thanks for that, and I do think Noah and his wife and his three sons and his three daughters in law were spared an universal flood, and I do think the Greeks did not invent the Deucalion story from nothing but rather garble two real stories.

Yesterday at 4:46pm

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ch. Ch. - "Why do you feel qualified to talk about things you are clearly ignorant of?"

Because my ignorance is not so clear to myself as it is to you? Or because I am not ignorant but it suits you to call me so?

Thanks for admitting there is an atheist animus about this against me!

"Silicon chips are largely a product of the space race, which, yes, presumes hello centrism to work."

Space voyages may or may not need heliocentrism to be true in order to work. Silicon chips do not.

"Modern medicine? Evolutionary theory on a small (bacteria) and large (how testing on mice and chimps bears and validity in humans) scale."

Marginal to medicine. Evolution of bacterias is also marginal to the question dividing creationists from evolutionists. As for validity of testing on animals, when intended for men, that question depends on similarities and dissimilarities which are explicable without involving evolution at all.

"I've suggested before that if you don't like science, please stop using its products, but you clearly don't even know the extent to which your modern existence is utterly dependent on scientific discovery."

Strawmannus maximus. I did not say I did not like science, I do say I do not like your confusing evolution and heliocentrism with science.

"I'm pretty sure when you are breakfast (processed by machines using electricity) you weren't worried about food poisoning (thanks to Mr Pasteur) and didn't travel to a farm by foot to get it, or grow it yourself. Even if you did, you probably used fertilizers and/or pesticides, and possibly GMO seeds."

I might like to change parts of that situation. I have lived without electricity in the flat, using a coal heated stove in winter and a gaz burner in summer to boil the tea or cook the food (that is ma did most of the cooking back then) as well as candles for reading after nightfall. I would enjoy doing so again. I also think people living closer to farms (statistically, not exactly everyone) would be good for curing some troubles in modern society.

"Your food was kept chilled in a refrigerator, which runs on electricity."

Actually yes. But cold cellars have been used before and can be used again.

"Clean, safe water was assured by your local utility, by utilizing modern chemical and biological filtering and test techniques, and pumped to your house using electricity."

You presume I have a house. But apart from that, neither the chemicals nor the biological means of cleaning up water come from heliocentrism or from darwinism. They come from fields of science which I count as considerably less infected with modern errors than those two.

"You likely heated something in the microwave, or on a (non wood burning) stove."

As mentioned, I have heated things on wood burning stoves too.

"The computer you're using is a product of the space race, and runs on electricity."

As mentioned, electricity is a field of science which may be less infected with modern error than the ones you defend against me. And space race as human activity would have happened due to acceptance of heliocentrism even if it were not true, and computers working does not presume it to be true. Your argument is as stupid as Piggy's in Lord of the Flies "there are no ghosts, if there were ghosts television and elevators would'nt work" - one very big assumption of consequentiality between two unrelated sentences.

"And all of these are gifts of science, for which you pay virtually nothing, but each of these small things makes your life so much easier. ... so you'll be more inclined to thank the diligent work of scientists who discovered each of these principles."

Wow, now you are deep down in Pagan "Society-Rules-Ism". Science is not a subject to be debated but a benefactor to be thanked. Wow, guess what? Your style of reasoning is not very scientific.

23 hours ago

N. E.
Hans, you are demonstrably wrong on so many points I don't know where to start. First off, when it comes to original sin you are simply making excuses. Punishing someone for the actions of others is WRONG no matter what kind of excuses you make. You and I are both far more moral than your god.

As for the global flood. The fossil record directly refutes a global flood. Most dinosaurs are NOT found in flood deposits. They are found is deposits of braided river systems. Some dinosaurs are also found in "petrified", DRY desert sand dunes. This is the ABSENCE of water. A global flood would have left a SINGLE layer with ALL the fossils in it. This is NOT what is observed. We observe many different layers separated by what are called bedding planes. These bedding planes represent unknown periods of erosion followed by deposition of new sediments on top. All the strata that consists of volcanic ash or diatoms would be ON TOP of the entire geologic column, not interspersed among sandstone, limestone, etc. which is what we DO observe. If you think the flood was global you have MANY things to answer for. Here is just a tiny sample:

1.Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. [Johnsen et al, 1992,; Alley et al, 1993] A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show up?

2.How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.

3.Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up?

4.Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time. [Becker & Kromer, 1993; Becker et al, 1991; Stuiver et al, 1986]

5.Why are geological eras consistent worldwide? How do you explain worldwide agreement between "apparent" geological eras and several different (independent) radiometric and nonradiometric dating methods? [e.g., Short et al, 1991]

6.How was the fossil record sorted in an order convenient for evolution? Ecological zonation, hydrodynamic sorting, and differential escape fail to explain:
a.the extremely good sorting observed. Why didn't at least one dinosaur make it to the high ground with the elephants?
b.the relative positions of plants and other non-motile life. (Yun, 1989, describes beautifully preserved algae from Late Precambrian sediments. Why don't any modern-looking plants appear that low in the geological column?
c.why some groups of organisms, such as mollusks, are found in many geologic strata.
d.why organisms (such as brachiopods) which are very similar hydrodynamically (all nearly the same size, shape, and weight) are still perfectly sorted.
e.why extinct animals which lived in the same niches as present animals didn't survive as well. Why did no pterodons make it to high ground? coral reefs hundreds of feet thick and miles long were preserved intact with other fossils below them.
g.why small organisms dominate the lower strata, whereas fluid mechanics says they would sink slower and thus end up in upper strata.
h.why artifacts such as footprints and burrows are also sorted. [Crimes & Droser, 1992]
i.why no human artifacts are found except in the very uppermost strata. If, at the time of the Flood, the earth was overpopulated by people with technology for shipbuilding, why were none of their tools or buildings mixed with trilobite or dinosaur fossils?
j.why different parts of the same organisms are sorted together. Pollen and spores are found in association with the trunks, leaves, branches, and roots produced by the same plants [Stewart, 1983].
k.why ecological information is consistent within but not between layers. Fossil pollen is one of the more important indicators of different levels of strata. Each plant has different and distinct pollen, and, by telling which plants produced the fossil pollen, it is easy to see what the climate was like in different strata. Was the pollen hydraulically sorted by the flood water so that the climatic evidence is different for each layer?
The fossil record DIRECTLY REFUTES a global flood, fact, sorry.

7.How does a global flood explain angular unconformities? These are where one set of layers of sediments have been extensively modified (e.g., tilted) and eroded before a second set of layers were deposited on top. They thus seem to require at least two periods of deposition (more, where there is more than one unconformity) with long periods of time in between to account for the deformation, erosion, and weathering observed.

8.How were mountains and valleys formed? Many very tall mountains are composed of sedimentary rocks. (The summit of Everest is composed of deep-marine limestone, with fossils of ocean-bottom dwelling crinoids [Gansser, 1964].) If these were formed during the Flood, how did they reach their present height, and when were the valleys between them eroded away? Keep in mind that many valleys were clearly carved by glacial erosion, which is a slow process.

9.When did granite batholiths form? Some of these are intruded into older sediments and have younger sediments on their eroded top surfaces. It takes a long time for magma to cool into granite, nor does granite erode very quickly. [For example, see Donohoe & Grantham, 1989, for locations of contact between the South Mountain Batholith and the Meugma Group of sediments, as well as some angular unconformities.]

10.How can a single flood be responsible for such extensively detailed layering? One formation in New Jersey is six kilometers thick. If we grant 400 days for this to settle, and ignore possible compaction since the Flood, we still have 15 meters of sediment settling per day. And yet despite this, the chemical properties of the rock are neatly layered, with great changes (e.g.) in percent carbonate occurring within a few centimeters in the vertical direction. How does such a neat sorting process occur in the violent context of a universal flood dropping 15 meters of sediment per day? How can you explain a thin layer of high carbonate sediment being deposited over an area of ten thousand square kilometers for some thirty minutes, followed by thirty minutes of low carbonate deposition, etc.? [Zimmer, 1992]

I don't expect you to address any of these because I'm sure you lack the education to address any of them directly. My point is that there are serious problems/implications with a global flood. None of it matches what we actually observe. My last point is that there isn't enough water on earth for such an event, not even close. Mt. Ararat is about 17,000 feet above sea level. In order to flood the earth to just 15,000 feet you would need 1,645,321,698.4 cubic miles of water. The total amount of water on earth is only about 350 million cubic miles. Where is all the missing water? Where did it come from and where did it go?

I suggest you start living in reality.

22 hours ago · Edited · 1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Speaking of reality it is only 19 minutes left on the last computer session today, I will have to check back tomorrow.
19 hours ago.

(back today) Starting with 1:

"Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. [Johnsen et al, 1992,; Alley et al, 1993]"

I do not think the layers are at all necessarily annual. Hence I see no evidence they date back to the flood. They might be part of where the water went to after the flood.

My answer to 1 also answered 2.

Skipping 3 and 4 for now.

‎5 - 10, I am indeed ill qualified to answer some of the detail, but not all. I recently learned that strata form sideways.





not like:



and last:

Some dating methods (including uranium/thorium probably, since rate of radiodecomposition is too slow to have been directly measured and should probably have been calculated over supposed ages of items supposedly not having contained any lead from beginning) are simply rip-offs on sedimentary dating. As for C14, the content thereof in atmosphere is constant if at all due to a balance, which allows for a period of buildup, during which content was much lower, and objects alive back then seem much older due to that dating fault.

Ch. Ch.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: "Strawmannus maximus. I did not say I did not like science, I do say I do not like your confusing evolution and heliocentrism with science."

Are we actually trying to hold a discussion with someone who honestly believes the earth does NOT go around the sun?

Everyone, give up, I'm afraid this one is truly, honestly, and irrevocably beyond hope. Even the POPE admits the catholic church was wrong on this point.

Please, leave this group, and do not come back.

19 minutes ago · Edited

But Ch. Ch. did not wait for me to follow that injunction, it seems, because when I was reading this I was already excluded.

Open to debate, these atheists? Not really. Religious about what they call science? One might say so.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
G. Pompidou Library
of Paris