HGL's F.B. writings: 2015

samedi 5 décembre 2015

Father John Matthew Fewel posed a few questions

John Matthew Fewel

If the earth is stationary at the center of the universe, how do the heavens move about the earth? At what calculated speed is the distant star moving, so that it can circle the globe in a year. If gravity isn't the force, what is it, that keeps the Sun, as well as the distant heavenly bodies, captive and orbiting the earth?

Alex Naszados

I think that the answer to the origin of the spin of the heavens ultimately lies in Genesis, in the account of the first days of creation. (If you read Robert Sungenis' short book ("The First Four Days of Creation") day & night occurred on the second & third days, before the creation of the sun & moon, by way of a spinning).

But I think the idea of that the universe could have been "born spinning" is supported by science. If you read the work of Dr. Longo on galaxy handedness, you discover not only another violation of the Copernican Principle in the universe, but support for this idea that the whole thing is spinning. See:

"The universe may have been born spinning, according to new findings on the symmetry of the cosmos"

Michigan News : The universe may have been born spinning, according to new findings on the symmetry of the cosmos
Jul 07, 2011 Contact Nicole Casal Moore
http://ns.umich.edu/new/releases/8467-the-universe-may-have-been-born-spinning-according-to-new-findings-on-the-symmetry-of-the-cosmos

Also, the following quotation form a Discovery News article appears in GWW:

<< If the whole universe is rotating, then an excess number of galaxies on the opposite part of the sky, below the galactic plane, should be whirling in a clockwise direction. And indeed they are according to a separate 1991 survey of 8287 spiral galaxies in the southern galactic hemisphere.

Galaxies spin, stars spin, and planets spin. So, why not the whole universe? The consequences of a spinning universe would be profound. The cornerstone of modern cosmology is that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic — it has no preferred orientation and looks the same in all directions.

This isn’t the first time astronomers claimed to have observed a carousel universe. The cosmic microwave background from the big bang had suspected anomalies that were once suggested as evidence of rotation, but were later dismissed as instrumental effects.

This result might just be a statistical fluke. Or is it somehow biased because we are only looking at the local universe?

What is very curious to me is that the Milky Way’s own spin axis roughly aligns to the universe’s purported spin axis within just a few degrees, as deduced from the two galaxy surveys. That seems very anti-Copernican too. It has also been used to bolster biblical creationist arguments that we are at the “center” of the universe. >>

Discovery : Is the Universe Spinning?
Jul 8, 2011 07:22 PM ET // by Ray Villard
http://news.discovery.com/space/do-we-live-in-a-spinning-universe-110708.htm

Regarding the calculating the speed of distant stars:

"Relative to the stationary roundabout [the Earth], the distant stars would have a velocity rw [radius x angular velocity] and for sufficiently large values of r, the stars would be moving relative to O' [the observer] with linear velocities exceeding 3 x 10^8 m/sec, the terrestrial value of the velocity of light. At first sight this appears to be a contradiction…that the velocities of all material bodies must be less than c [the speed of light]. However, the restriction u [less than] c = 3 x 10^8 m/sec is restricted to the theory of Special Relativity. According to the General theory, it is possible to choose local reference frames in which, over a limited volume of space, there is no gravitational field, and relative to such a reference frame the velocity of light is equal to c . However, this is not true when gravitational fields are present. In addition to the lengths of rods and the rates of clocks the velocity of light is affected by a gravitational field. If gravitational fields are present the velocities of either material bodies or of light can assume any numerical value depending on the strength of the gravitational field. If one considers the rotating roundabout as being at rest, the centrifugal gravitational field assumes enormous values at large distances, and it is consistent with the theory of General Relativity for the velocities of distant bodies to exceed 3 x 10^8 m/sec under these conditions."

(An Introduction to the Theory of Relativity, W. G. V. Rosser, London, Butterworths, 1964, p. 460)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"If the earth is stationary at the center of the universe, how do the heavens move about the earth?"

Two options. St Thomas Aquinas : God is moving all of Heaven around Earth (sphere touching sphere, but that can be accomodated to some cohesion within aether).

Riccioli: heavens are actually empty space, each heavenly body alone is moving westward each day, moved by an angel.

NB, St Thomas Aquinas also believes each body is moved by angels, however, the difference is that for Riccioli, angel of Sun is concretely moving the Sun westward throuugh empty space, but a little slower than the angels of the fixed stars are moving these westward each day. But for St Thomas, the angel of the Sun is moving the Sun eastward, through a sphere that is moved Westward each day by God. This gives the angel only 1/365 as much speed as the Riccioli scenario.

"At what calculated speed is the distant star moving, so that it can circle the globe in a year."

Only star which takes a year in any kind of sense "around earth" (I would rather say : around the zodiac, moving with it around Earth) is the Sun. All heavenly bodies are moving or moved with aether westward each day. If α Centauri and so on also have a yearly movement, it is not "around earth", but about its locus in relation to the other stars.

"If gravity isn't the force, what is it, that keeps the Sun, as well as the distant heavenly bodies, captive and orbiting the earth?"

Captive is only applicable in a scenario of claustrophobia or potential such. Visible Sun is presumably not alive, its angel is presumably not feeling calustrophobic about it, since he would count as captor rather than captive.

NB, I have it from Latin Mass Magazine about a decade ago, from the successor of Mgr Lefèbvre at Dakar, (Mgr Thiandoum, isn't it?) that angels are so strong that demons would easily, each one of them, make earth or any heavenly body explode, and hate us so much they would easily go on and do it, unless God's greater strength were stopping them. But demons have no more force than angels loyal to God and God is not stopping the kind of movements He ordered angels to perform when creating such bodies for them to move on day four.

As I have a pet theory that stars are one light day away from us, that means that each day they are moving a distance of 2pi light days (just a bit more than "six light days", but mostly resting "the seventh").

That, since I forgot to answer about "what speed".

John Matthew Fewel

Thank you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You are welcome!

John Matthew Fewel

Isn't it possible that the earth rotates on its axis at the center of the universe?

Mass and gravitational pull have a huge roll to play in the stellar traverse of manned and unmanned space vehicles and the behavior of other objects moving in relation to each other.

If the Sun with its huge mass isn't holding nine planets, etc., captive in its orbit, and is rather circling the earth from 93 million miles away at nearly the speed of light (is that right?) what keeps that massive Sun captive in earth orbit?

Rick DeLano

John Matthew Fewel:
Earth cannot rotate on its axis and not orbit the sun ( unless we want to go with angels of course).

If we want to account for the motions of the heavenly bodies by known physical forces, then gravity works in the case of a rotating and orbiting earth or a rotating and precessing cosmos.

But if Earth is rotating on its axis but not orbiting the sun we cannot account for the seasons without adopting angels and abandoning classical physics.

John Matthew Fewel

In classical physics doesn't the more massive Star hold the much smaller bodies in its orbit? What is the motion of the Sun in geocentric motion? My gap in understanding is the force which keeps massive stars precessing around earth - if I have understood geocentrism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Isn't it possible that the earth rotates on its axis at the center of the universe?"

Possible, yes. In abstract physics. But we are not just human philosophers, we are also Christians and Joshua X:12 would seem to preclude that.

"In classical physics doesn't the more massive Star hold the much smaller bodies in its orbit?"

In Newtonian physics this is indeed so, but Newton was successor therein to Kepler, whose theory about magnetic force keeping planets around Sun was rejected by Riccioli as less pious than assuming God gave the nobility of spirit, if not to the Sun and Moon as visible bodies, at least to the principle moving them (because heaven is higher and nobler than earth).

Rick DeLano

John Matthew Fewel:
Newton plus Mach's principle provides a complete gravitational solution to a stationary earth and a rotating cosmos.

A paper deriving these solutions was published in 2013 in the European Journal of Physics.

The author is Luka Popov, and the title is Newton- Machian Analysis of Planetary Motions in the Neo-Tychonic system.

The answer to your question is that the rotating masses of the distant stars and other objects generate a real gravitational force which is treated as the fictitious (centrifugal) force by Newton.

This gravitational force generated by the rotating cosmos is what accounts for all observed motions.

John Matthew Fewel

Thank you. Now, what about earth's gravity? You describe the gravity of the spinning cosmos, but what about on earth, where, "what goes up must come down?"

Rick DeLano

Each object of course generates its own gravitational field, exactly as per Newton.

If you get a chance to look over the referenced paper you will see exactly how the gravitational interactions work mathematically.

John Matthew Fewel

I shall do that. Thank you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

May I with all due respect for questioner, John Matthew Fewel, ask Rick DeLano whence this preference of naturalistic (a k a "physical" by now, though even angels have a "physis", and God has two of them) causation over divine and angelic ones?

Rick DeLano

Hans-Georg Lundahl: It is an excellent question.

It is perfectly acceptable so far as I am concerned to say that the planets and stars are moved n their courses by angels.

All that physics can tell us are the principles by which the angels are commanded by God to move them (apart from miraculous intervention), to a less and less imperfect degree of precision.

It is customary in this civilization at this time to prefer a term like "forces", or a term like "fields".

To really try and pin down what the physicist means by these terms is to understand that he means something that is very much like a messenger from the God he is not permitted to behave as if he believed in if he wishes to remain employed.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"All that physics can tell us are the principles by which the angels are commanded by God to move them (apart from miraculous intervention), to a less and less imperfect degree of precision."

Er, no.

If I drop a pen, physics will tell you exactly where on the floor it will drop - if I let it fall all the way.

BUT, physics cannot tell if I will catch it before it touches the floor.

Physics in the sense we talk about deal with how material bodies influence material bodies and how "physical forces" influence material bodies.

They say nothing on how spirits influence material movements.

So, if we want to know the laws by which bodies move, these are:

1) Everything in Creation (or in all creations, in the case of a multiverse) obeys the direct acts of will of God. Whether a material body or a soul or a pure spirit.
2) Under that, angels move whatever they want (but can only be present on one locality at a time), whereas human souls move their own bodies (under the limitation of its strength).
3) Under THAT we get the laws of movement studied by Newton and stated or misstated by Newton (I suspect it is a bad misstatement to equate uniform movement with absolute rest - it makes the Prima Via of St Thomas Aquinas moot, which the other aspects of same law do not).

Obviously souls moving their bodies have limitations from third level laws, because these determine bodily strength. Angels moving bodies are not similarily limited by 3rd level laws.

Therefore, these laws do NOT show is the principles by which angels are commanded by God to move stars artistically.

They would show us the principles by which angels normally conform when acting down on earth so as not to make their presence nearly directly visible through undeniable effects. They decide which way a windgust will blow, but it blows because of physical effects ultimately derived from the daily motion which God gives the aether from Ocean currents up to fix stars.

"It is customary in this civilization at this time to prefer a term like "forces", or a term like "fields"."

These things are, probably, distinct from angelic action.

If not, any time we used electricity, we would be meddling in the spiritual world, and thus probably sinning. I hope this is not the case.

[Its seems he was giving instead an angelistic version of Occasionalism, which properly speaking makes the habitual acts of God only appear as causation between created things, as in Geulincqx and Malebranche, one of whom was condemned for saying same thing about free will.]

"To really try and pin down what the physicist means by these terms is to understand that he means something that is very much like a messenger from the God he is not permitted to behave as if he believed in if he wishes to remain employed."

The physicists' problems of employment are one problem, should they admit angelic and divine action beside and above the physical one.

But normally, by "forces", I am not expecting even a physicist employed under the terms of Sorbonne AD 1377 (different from modern conditions) to mean "angelic and divine action".

The only thing I generally have to say about football/socker is, that if the ball were left to obey the law of gravitation, the mutual between the ball and Earth (if Newton's analysis is correct on this one, which I am not positive on), it would just be lying on the football field, and there would be no match, no interest in watching.

However, I can grant, "forces" in the physical sense is no more visible in itself or themselves, than God or angels. They are mysteries, not empirically obvious evidence, but proven by evidence more visible than they.

Rick DeLano

Hans-Georg Lundahl.

It is one thing to say that what physics attributes to forces or fields can equally be attributable to an observed lawfulness in the actions of angels.

it is quite another to propose that physics is an incorrect, or uncatholic, or inadmissible knowledge domain, or that its empirically demonstrable results must be rejected unless they are attributed to the free-will and hence unpredictable actions of angelic beings.

Since you explicitly reject the former, may I say that I explicitly reject the latter.

One cannot use the laws of physics to predict the outcome of a soccer match.

One can use the laws of physics to predict the outcome of a given application of force to a given soccer ball.

If one were to conclude from this that the laws of physics were false, and motion could only be attributed to the free will actions of soccer players, one would have made a truly monumental error.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"It is one thing to say that what physics attributes to forces or fields can equally be attributable to an observed lawfulness in the actions of angels."

If we speak of all forces and fields in general, we are including magnetism and electricity.

If these are only done by angelic beings, then we might fear they are done by demons. Note very well, this is not a question of physical knowledge being inadmissible, but of a certain use, interpreted to be not ordinarily physical, should be considered as spiritual and occult.

While using electricity, I feel morally safer to consider these fields and forces as not angelic bot corporeal states or activities.

[The question of Occasionalism in classical sense, as direct actions of God, being irrelevant for the question of "meddling with spiritual world.]

"it is quite another to propose that physics is an incorrect, or uncatholic, or inadmissible knowledge domain,"

You are mixing apples and oranges. You are lumping "electricity", "astrophysics" and ordinary "mechanics" together as "physics" with a take all or leave all label. All correct or all incorrect. All licit or all occult. I can agree electricity is not necessarily occult, but this on condition it is more or less basically what physicists say it is.

Astrophysics is not empirical knowledge. You cannot stop the "solar system", pick out one body for a while and check how this affects the gravitational interplay of other bodies.

"or that its empirically demonstrable results must be rejected unless they are attributed to the free-will and hence unpredictable actions of angelic beings."

As said, astrophysics is not empirical.

In heliocentrism, attributing the empirical results of planar or even three dimensional observations to gravitation and inertia may have some a priori merit (unless you watch an empirical parallel, which the stone on string experiment is not), but with Tychonian orbits of Geocentric astronomy, I think we have a fair demonstration of free wills engaged in art is a better option.

"free-will and hence unpredictable" is a confusion of categories. Free-willed actions are sometimes predictable. If you have watched a dance (not rock, more like square dance or European folk dances) you CAN fairly predict the next moves. This does not make dancers automata.

"One cannot use the laws of physics to predict the outcome of a soccer match."

One cannot even use the laws of physics to explain why socker is played or the rules of a socker match.

"One can use the laws of physics to predict the outcome of a given application of force to a given soccer ball."

But one cannot predict exactly which application will be given.

However, one can predict that if it is given by a socker player, it is mostly free-willed.

Astrophysics is like physicists watching a socker game, then ignoring the players (which is easier with invisible angels) and then try to determine the changing masses or gravitational constants of Earth and ball in order to "predict" the movements of a game (grosso modo) as if predicting how the ball lies still on the ground.

And that a socker game is unpredictable while stellar movements are very predictable, really changes very little to the meaning of this parable. Hence the other one about dancers moving predictably, though free-willed.

The question if this belief in astrophysics of yours is just erroneous or heretical is beyond "my pay grade".

It is thoughtless. I am arguing against it as a philosopher on natural grounds, not as expressing devotion or claiming either prophecy or megisterium.

Btw, here IS an empirical experiment, clearly parallel to basic assumptions of celestial mechanics:

[ISS] Don Petit, Science Off The Sphere - Water Droplets Orbiting Charged Knitting Needle
SpaceVids.tv
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyRv8bNDvq4

Orbits cease [in this video and for each droplet, there being many successive ones] after between 10 and 20. That is the physically PREDICTABLE result [both for droplets and celestial mechanics], even with heliocentrism [for celestial mechanics], if gravitation, inertia and masses of different magnitude or intensity were all to it.

I predicted sth like it (even less like modern astrophysics) on Thomistic grounds : a balance between two opposing forces is not stable, if that is all there is to it (in stone on string experiment, or bikers on perpendicular walls of a tub, that is NOT all there is, since string and tub are solids, not per se forces).

Rick DeLano

Because the movements of the stars and planets are exquisitely predictable, it is false to say that the empirical evidence of that predictable motion is not part of the science of astrophysics.

It is a very strong argument for the correctness of the scientific method that it has managed to derive an excellent physical theory to account for all such observed motions until we reach the scales above a stellar cluster, at which point our present physical theories of gravity fail completely.

So our physics is incomplete, even wrong perhaps.

But it is by far the most empirically supported and useful- in its predictive power- theory ever advanced.

It is simply incorrect to suggest as you do above that the modern Tycho model is somehow less compatible with our present theory of gravity than a heliocentric model.

Both models are identically accounted for under present theories of gravity.

Since my points here are neither erroneous nor heretical, there is no.pay grade too low to dismiss your risible mischaracterization of them.

Lastly, the fascinating video provides not the slightest empirical evidence against present theories of either gravitation or electromagnetism.

// Orbits cease after between 10 and 20. That is the physically PREDICTABLE result, even with heliocentrism, if gravitation, inertia and masses of different magnitude or intensity were all to it.//

Since orbits manifestly do not cease between 10 and 20, your prediction is falsified, and the equations upon which it was based (if any) will be found to involve error.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

« Because the movements of the stars and planets are exquisitely predictable, it is false to say that the empirical evidence of that predictable motion is not part of the science of astrophysics. »

How about sticking to what I said in what you want to refute ? Or was that an introductory remark ?

I have NOT said that « empirical evidence of predictable motion » is not there or is not part of the celestial mechanics or astrophysics stuff, I have mentioned it is NOT enough of a part of it to be guaranteeing it. In other words, there are other premisses which are not empirical.

« It is a very strong argument for the correctness of the scientific method that it has managed to derive an excellent physical theory to account for all such observed motions until we reach the scales above a stellar cluster, at which point our present physical theories of gravity fail completely. »

There is always that failure which is a strong argument against.

« So our physics is incomplete, even wrong perhaps. But it is by far the most empirically supported and useful- in its predictive power- theory ever advanced. »

Predictive power was also overrated by Apollo worshippers after Apollo predicted Perseus killing his maternal gramp and Oedipus killing his father and marrying his mother.

In the clearly demonic case, the devil knew (and still knows) how to fool people into selffulfilling prophecies, and in the scientific or astronomic case, planar astronomy is enough to make predictions about regularity. ONE exception was finding Neptune by calculations about gravity. But other calculations are enough to account for most predictions of regularity.

Furthermore, supposing gravity is what it is said to be, the video certainly provides an example of how a parallel (electricity) behaves in NOT providing lasting orbits, you have only thrown that evidence off, you have provided no calculation as to why gravity would work on astronomic levels for thousands of orbits of several orbits within orbits, while electricity fails to go beyond twenty turns of an orbit at two droplets orbitting at a time.

In other words, I do not need to be denying gravity is there, I only need to propose that a balance of gravity inertia is an unstable one per se, unless something is added, and that therefore the balancing out of the forces needs a kind of « biker » to stay in motion and upright. You know how a bike may roll forward and forward and forward, with very little pedalling, but there needs to be a biker on the bike, if there is no biker to control it, somehow the good theoretical balance doesn’t keep it either upright or rolling very long.

« Since orbits manifestly do not cease between 10 and 20, your prediction is falsified, »

The orbits in the video do so.

My prediction is not about orbits as they are, but about them as they WOULD be if only two opposing forces (gravity and inertia) were involved.

It is NOT manifest now and has not been so before, but even more so not since this video, that the orbits of celestial objects as they are depend as uniquely on two opposing physical forces as the water droplet orbits in the video.

« and the equations upon which it was based (if any) will be found to involve error. »

I based the prediction on no equation but on parallel.

Precisely as physics teachers base their predictions also not on giving exact intricate equations, but on the false parallel of a stone on a string experiment.

mercredi 2 décembre 2015

Bergoglio misuses "Fundamentalism" too ....

1) New blog on the kid : Bergoglio Shows He Doesn't Get Christianity ... or Gnosticism, 2) HGL's F.B. writings : Bergoglio NOT Getting Gnosticism, Discussion on FB, 3) Ruari McCallion Tries to Make Allowances for my English, 4) Bergoglio misuses "Fundamentalism" too ....

1) HGL's F.B. writings : Fundamentalism Attacked as Pharisaism - by a Methodist Pharisee, 2) Bergoglio misuses "Fundamentalism" too ....

Paddy McCafferty: Our Holy Father the Pope has correctly identified the disorder of fundamentalism as a dysfunctional form of religiosity: those of a rigid and rigorist attitude, obsessed with the letter of the Law, making no provision for the spirit of the Law. Fundamentalism is often a psychological issue of radical insecurity, underpinned by scrupulosity. It gets projected onto others as an overtly harsh and unbending type of religiosity. It is judgemental. It is devoid of mercy. It ties up heavy burdens and lays them on peoples' shoulders, without lifting a finger to lift them. It is the hostile and stubborn sulking rage of the elder brother in Our Lord's Parable of the Prodigal Son. In its most extreme form, it becomes unfettered self-righteousness that believes it has God's approval for its every action - even to the extent of murder and slaughter. And yes - the Holy Father is spot on. We certainly do have our "Catholic" version of the malaise of fundamentalism.

[Picture of a High Priest among those accusing Jesus.]
Hans-Georg Lundahl: You prefer the Bergoglio fan club to the Catholic Church, don't you?

Furthermore, Fundamentalism is usually more a question of belief and of eschatology than of law observation.

Furthermore, the Pharisees of the Gospel were not so very obviously rigorists. One could argue that they were pragmatics. That for instance the "corban" reference was a pilpul to allow sons their age to refuse their fathers the occasion of giving a gift to Jesus, on the real (but erroneous) understanding that said fathers were mentally disabled by age.

Furthermore, the so called "holy father" has not shown over great talent in using words about theological beliefs in the past either, PLUS he has already shown a hatred of Fundies, very early on.

Perhaps a take over from his liberal Anglican former friend, erroneously given the burial of a Catholic Bishop - or perhaps his conflicts with the other, presumable, Antipope from Buenos Aires, Alejendro Greijo, styling himself Alejandro IX, who on top of being a Fundie (which I appreciate him for) is also a Feeneyite, has in his "icr" dogmatised Feeneyism and canonised Leonard Feeney.

But even Alejandro IX is preferrable to the man who in Buenos Aires allowed Rotary and Jewry to count him as a very official friend, not just to persons among them, but to the sects themselves.
Ruari McCallion: "Bergoglio fan club" is pushing the envelope somewhat, Hans-Georg. A bit of courtesy towards the vast majority of Catholics would be in order.
Hans-Georg Lundahl (Impossible de publier ce commentaire.): Rick DeLano is accepting Bergoglio as Pope (or was last time I checked, unless he is considering Ratzinger's abdication invalid). But he is not acting like Bergoglio's fan club. You are.

Supposing we were dealing with Alexander VI. Would it have been appropriate to praise him for naming his son Cesare as a bishop, when it was nepotism and also against the wish of Cesare to be bishop?

[Cesare, like myself, wanted a layman's life, obviously.]
Hans-Georg Lundahl (continued from my first):: On Bergoglio's misuse of other theological terminology:

New blog on the kid : Bergoglio Shows He Doesn't Get Christianity ... or Gnosticism
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/11/bergoglio-shows-he-doesnt-get.html
Paddy McCafferty: Hans-Georg Lundahl your hatred for the Holy Father is an affront to every faithful Catholic. I am not even going to engage with your disgusting rubbish.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Ask Pope Michael if I hate him.

Or if I hate Ratzinger, whom once I thought to be Pope.

I do certainly not hate the Papacy, nor all modern misclaimants who are misrunning the Vatican.

If anything is disgusting rubbish, it is your sectarian adhesion to any and every burp that comes from Bergoglios bad digestion - metaphorically speaking, since it is a bad digestion of what would otherwise perhaps have been theological knowledge.
(continuing posting links about Bergoglios previous terminological débâcle): HGL's F.B. writings : Bergoglio NOT Getting Gnosticism, Discussion on FB
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2015/11/bergoglio-not-getting-gnosticism.html

HGL's F.B. writings : Ruari McCallion Tries to Make Allowances for my English
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2015/11/ruari-mccallion-tries-to-make.html
Ruari McCallion: I think we saw this stuff a wee while ago.

Have you got nothing new to offer, Hans-Georg?
Hans-Georg Lundahl: It is not new to you, but might be so to Paddy McCafferty.
Paddy McCafferty: Hans-Georg Lundahl there is nothing new in your ideological meanderings and they certainly wasted on me..
Hans-Georg Lundahl: There is nothing meandering about my ideology, if you wish to call it such. Only meandering has been about whom I accept as successor of St Peter.

That they are wasted on you was perhaps foreseeable by you, but not by me, I think it is, if not the first time we meet, at least the other time was just once and a long time ago.
Paddy McCafferty: Hans-Georg Lundahl you have no choice about who you accept as the successor of Peter if you wish to be a Catholic. If you do not accept our Holy Father Pope Francis as the successor of Peter and the Vicar of Christ then you are not a Catholic. Period. Goodbye.
MF: The state of the catholic church is the very opposite to what this post is saying. Where are the catholics that are described there - you would have to travel far and wide to find one or are you referring to those who attend daily mass. These FUNDEMENTAL catholics are big charity givers and have converted the world. Yes true catholics.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Paddy McCafferty, that is your outlook.

St Vincent Ferrer was NOT agreeing, he considered it schismatic to deny importance, but considered those accepting wrong Pope as Catholics, though deluded such.

We are again living in times when there is more than one option.
TV: Just another blogging self publicist.émoticône wink
Hans-Georg Lundahl: What blogger is not a self publicist?

What is "just" about one such attacking Bergoglio? Especially if the attacks are just?
KI: Father Paddy, i couldn't agree more. Some people need to get off their high horse and stop judging all the time. As you show mercy mercy will be given. relax God's got it covered. Be gentle with others.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: "Some people need to get off their high horse and stop judging all the time."

What exactly has that got to do with Fundamentalism?

Who says Kent Hovind is more judgemental than other Baptists? Or that Jonathan Sarfati is more judgemental than other Jewish Calvinists or Baptists? And why would Rick DeLano be considered more judgemental than other Catholics (of those who accept Bergoglio)?

Fundie means inerrantist, it is a requirement of the council of Trent, and it does not mean judgemental or Pharisaic.

Among Christ-rejecting Jewry, the best candidate for Fundie label are Chassidic Jews, they are NOT Talmudic and it is Talmudism which is Puritan, judgemental, and heir to Pharisees.
When trying to make more comments:: Cette publication a été supprimée ou ne peut pas être chargée.

lundi 16 novembre 2015

Ruari McCallion Tries to Make Allowances for my English

Ruari McCallion: The intention of my original post was to encourage people to read the whole report, not just the headline. Thus the...obscure question.

The emergence of some esoteric positions and ideas was not intentional but may also be described as...interesting.

With regard to Gnostocism, whatever characteristics it may appear to share with other ideas, philosophies or heresies, it has an important distinguishing feature: "gnosis", from the Greek "to know".

Gnostics claim to possess a higher knowledge, not from the Bible, but acquired on some mystical higher plain of existence. Gnostics see themselves as a privileged class elevated above everybody else by their higher, deeper knowledge of God.

It was something addressed by St Paul, in 1 Corinthians 1:18-24, verse 23 in particular. "We preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and a folly to Gentiles". It is mentioned that the simplicity of the message - and the absence of degrees of initiation, a hierarchy of knowledge - its very transparency and absence of 'mystery' made the Greeks laugh in derision. Christianity breaks through the esoteric Middle East "mystery" religions; Gnosticism is a reversion to them.

But that wasn't the point of the post. Ah, well. Never mind, eh?
Hans Georg Lundahl: "Gnostics claim to possess a higher knowledge, not from the Bible, but acquired on some mystical higher plain of existence. Gnostics see themselves as a privileged class elevated above everybody else by their higher, deeper knowledge of God."

Exactly, and that is sth quite other than claiming the common Catholic knowledge from Bible and Tradition, but simply not living it.

THANK YOU!
Ruari McCallion: You're welcome, Hans-Georg.

Glad you came round to the conventional way of thinking. Next step is to recognise the Bishop of Rome, duly elected by eligible Cardinals in Conclave, as the Pope. The sole and only Pope.
Hans Georg Lundahl: What do YOU mean by me "coming round to" conventional way of thinking?

It is Bergoglio who needs to come round to it.
Ruari McCallion: Understanding what Gnosticism is.

Anyway, one step at a time. Next challenge is clearly to achieve understanding that a reporter's aside is not necessarily what the person reports on actually said. That appears to be an ongoing and difficult challenge.
Hans Georg Lundahl: I was never NOT* understanding what Gnosticism is.

"Next challenge is clearly to achieve understanding that a reporter's aside"

It was not an ASIDE, it was a SUMMARY.

" is not necessarily what the person reports on actually said."

Not necessarily, especially not if the reporter is a bungler.

What about giving me ANY evidence this one is, or what about giving me ANY report saying Bergoglio actually said sth totally different and sensible, like NOT identifying Gnosticism with the spirituality of hearing but not doing, or of intellectual orthodoxy without love?
Ruari McCallion: Hans, I am beginning to suspect that English isn't your first language and, as a result, you are not completely au fait with it. Fair enough, I shall make allowances.

For your part, you could maybe work on the basis that English is my first language, I make my living writing it and I do know what I am talking about.

You're wrong and I'm getting rather bored with your obstinate refusal to countenance the possibility. I hope that's clear.
Hans Georg Lundahl: I need no allowances about English. Though it is in fact only my third language.

YOU need allowances for either ignorance about early para-Christian sects OR superdevotion to Bergoglio OR both.

And I am trying to make my living from use of English too**, and I am FED UP with people like you recirculating a rumour I need allowances for it. Or for my French which is my fourth language.

Gnosticism does involve shunning matter and its slight difference from Manichaeanism is a shade in the reason for this shunning. To Manichaeans, matter was created by an EVIL principle, to Gnostics by an imperfect one.

When the reporter defined outside the direct quote what Gnosticism is, he was certainly not wrong about the definition, and nearly as certainly he was referring to what the so called Pope had said.

In his next words he VERY certainly was referring to the so called Pope's words.

Since he said [Bergoglio being who he meant] was identifying this with such and such a spiritual stance.

And my beef is with Bergoglio doing this idiotic identification.

Do you still think that it is my English which is the problem between us?

As to "I make my living writing it", I would like to correct the R McC on my blog to your name as a writer. I do not find your name here on the wiki.

Is this link appropriate?

TheManufacturer : Articles by Ruari McCallion
http://www.themanufacturer.com/author/ruari-mccallion/

Because, if it is, I looked through the titles, that is confirmation of Gnosticism, Manichaeism, Pelagianism, etc. being, if not outside your normal ken, at least outside your normal writing habits, at least on that publication.

Correct me if I am wrong on that one.

And same goes for subtle distinctions on what is a reporter's own words entirely and where he is referring to what someone else said on some occasion.

As said, anyone needing allowances for anything would be you, not me, and on subject, not on English.

"Ruari McCallion writes regularly for business as well as manufacturing magazines"

taken from google search under this link:

Freelance journalist Focus with Ruari McCallion
Written by: Vanessa McGreevy Date: 07/05/2009
http://www.featuresexec.com/bulletin/interview_article.php?id=8532#.VknutqObdnU

Same story as with other link.
On: other subthread of this thread:
GG: "Catholicism can and must change".

This statement, in and of itself, is heresy. The Faith does not change.
Ruari McCallion: Did you read the whole report, GG?

Did you read the other two reports of the same speech I have posted?
Hans Georg Lundahl: I'd like to see the other reports, I have not read them.

And I'd like to know where you posted them.

Even if English is only my third language, I can tell that "the other two reports of the same speech I have posted" means that you posted two other reports, and it seems not to have been on this thread, as per my scrutiny of it.
Ruari McCallion: It was after this one and obviously before today, Hans-Georg.

If you use the search function for this group (top right of the page) and search for my name, you will find one report posted about seven minutes after this one and another about 4 1/2 hours later.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Oh, wonderful, thank you!

I will have a look!

I take it you mean these two:

VaticanInsider : There is no “Bergoglian plan” at play. In Italy too, all that is needed is the Gospel
11/10/2015 by Gianni Valente
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/francesco-firenze-44574/

RT : Church should be humble, not clinging to power & money – Pope Francis
Published time: 10 Nov, 2015 23:27
Edited time: 11 Nov, 2015 00:31
https://www.rt.com/news/321516-church-humble-pope-power/

It is funny, the RT link speaks about the speech in Florence but actually links to a much earlier speech to bishops of Brazil in 2013, right now.

Here it is:

APOSTOLIC JOURNEY TO RIO DE JANEIRO
ON THE OCCASION OF THE XXVIII WORLD YOUTH DAY
https://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2013/july/documents/papa-francesco_20130727_gmg-episcopato-brasile.html

Also, RT gives a summary - unless you prefer to call it an aside, which goes like this:

// Pope Francis delivered the speech in Florence insisting the Catholic Church should have nothing to do with power, prestige and economic benefits. Instead it should be focusing on reaching out to people, especially those most in need. //

Here Bergoglio sounds, himself, Manichaean or Gnostic. Or at best Waldensian.

Unless you prefer to say that here too the reporter is a bungler.

Nevertheless, I found the speech on Vatican site, and its reference to Evangelii Gaudium 94.

// A second temptation to defeat is that of gnosticism. This leads to trusting in logical and clear reasoning, which nonetheless loses the tenderness of a brother’s flesh. The attraction of gnosticism is that of “a purely subjective faith whose only interest is a certain experience or a set of ideas and bits of information which are meant to console and enlighten, but which ultimately keep one imprisoned in his or her own thoughts and feelings” (Evangelii Gaudium, n. 94). Gnosticism cannot transcend.

The difference between Christian transcendence and any form of gnostic spiritualism lies in the mystery of the incarnation. Not putting into practice, not leading the Word into reality, means building on sand, staying within pure idea and decaying into intimisms that bear no fruit, that render its dyamism barren. //

// 94. This worldliness can be fuelled in two deeply interrelated ways. One is the attraction of gnosticism, a purely subjective faith whose only interest is a certain experience or a set of ideas and bits of information which are meant to console and enlighten, but which ultimately keep one imprisoned in his or her own thoughts and feelings. The other is the self-absorbed promethean neopelagianism of those who ultimately trust only in their own powers and feel superior to others because they observe certain rules or remain intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style from the past. A supposed soundness of doctrine or discipline leads instead to a narcissistic and authoritarian elitism, whereby instead of evangelizing, one analyzes and classifies others, and instead of opening the door to grace, one exhausts his or her energies in inspecting and verifying. In neither case is one really concerned about Jesus Christ or others. These are manifestations of an anthropocentric immanentism. It is impossible to think that a genuine evangelizing thrust could emerge from these adulterated forms of Christianity. //

In both context the same Bergoglio is obviously totally uninterested in what Gnosticism actually was historically, and is reusing the word like a theological cuss word, only instead of being so on a doctrinal level as hitherto usual, he is using it on a pastoral or moral level.
Note:: * Irishism, I know. ** See hglwrites : A little note on further use conditions
https://hglwrites.wordpress.com/a-little-note-on-further-use-conditions/

vendredi 13 novembre 2015

Bergoglio NOT Getting Gnosticism, Discussion on FB

Ruari McCallion, henceforth R McC (status in group): Did anyone notice what the Pope said about Pelagianism? I thought it was rather good.

But what about the definition of Gnosticism? What do we think of that?

(ML, you're not allowed to play unless you get Dominie to read all the way to the end!!)

Catholicism can and must change, Francis forcefully tells Italian church gathering
joshua j. mcelwee from florence
on www.vaticaninsider.com 11/10/2015
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/44584/
Remark omitted: on request of the one making it, as name in Ruari's response.
R McC: IT wasn't the Pope's definition, ...; it was the writer's.
Roger [of Cor Jesu Sacratissimum Blog]: Makes me wonder if he would accuse Aquinas of gnosticism? And especially the neo-Thomism of Leo XIII … I appreciate you posting these things R McC - a lot. But it is difficult to hit the "like" button.
R McC: The intent is to encourage people to read the entire report, rather than just the headline,Roger.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Oh ...

"The reform of the church then, and the church is semper reformanda ... does not end in the umpteenth plan to change structures," he continued. "It means instead grafting yourself to and rooting yourself in Christ, leaving yourself to be guided by the Spirit -- so that all will be possible with genius and creativity."

Ecclesia semper reformanda sounds like Luther to me. Someone know an Orthodox writer who said so too, please notify me.

Here is the passage about Gnosticism:

Speaking to Gnosticism, which widely held that people should shun the material world in favor of the spiritual realm, Francis identified such thinking today with that which "brings us to trust in logical and clear reasoning ... which however loses the tenderness of the flesh of the brother."

Now, that is completely forgetting what Gnosticism was as Intellectual heresy and just focussing on the fact that it was one.

Maybe he does not completely shun the tenets of it, as long as not taking the mere attitude of intellectualism and lack of charity or supposed such.

Here is sth that for my matter I thought he was Gnostic or Neognostic about:

New blog on the kid : Bergoglio and Quarracino Neognostics?
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/05/bergoglio-and-quarracino-neognostics.html

I suppose Father Cekada did not misquote him.

After that, it is up to you if my conclusions here given are correct to your reason or not.
R McC: I agree that the definition of Gnosticism was wrong, Hans-Georg, but I disagree that the Pope was in error.

It was the author of the report who got it wrong.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Where do you get it from that "the Pope's" words were other than what the reporter got?
R McC: If you read the article carefully, you will see that it is the reporter who provides the definition; it is not a quote, nor described as one.

I have posted other reports of the same speech in order to illustrate the way that reports are coloured or influenced by the person doing the reporting.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: I read carefully enough.

There is a direct quote of his words, namely:

"brings us to trust in logical and clear reasoning ... which however loses the tenderness of the flesh of the brother."

And there is also a relation by the reporter, introducing it as his words about precisely - Gnosticism.

So, you think the reporter was in error, but where exactly do you get it from that Bergoglio was NOT talking about what Gnosticism either is or means today or whatever when he uttered this definition?
R McC: Hans-Georg, this is the bit I was referring to:

Speaking to Gnosticism, which widely held that people should shun the material world in favor of the spiritual realm...

It was the reporter who wrote that, not the Pope.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Yes, and this definition of Gnosticism BY THE REPORTER was correct.

THEN the reporter went on to say :

"Francis identified such thinking today with that which"

AFTER which he gives a direct quote by "Francis" and this makes "Francis' " identification the one given. Bergoglio was very clearly wrong on that one.

If you can't see that, you are not educated in history.

Gnosticism DID say one should shun the material world in favour of only the spiritual one. And this is NOT the same thing as by laziness shunning application of the word, it is rather another and contradicting word. Which means Bergoglio was totally wrong.

If you would argue Bergoglio never identified them, you would have to argue the reporter was a bungler.

Why was a bungler used as a reporter, if so?

And why is the "bungler" trusted by NCR?

[Joshua J. McElwee is NCR Vatican correspondent]

And what is your positive proof Bergoglio did NOT make this erroneous identification?
R McC: i think you are confusing Gnosticism with Manicheanism.

The Pope is Pope Francis. It's disrespectful to refer to him as "Bergoglio'.*

Your questions as to why the news site appointed someone you describe as 'a bungler' to this task should be addressed to the news site; I am nothing to do with it.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: "i think you are confusing Gnosticism with Manicheanism."

Actually not.

Both are very akin, but there are subtle differences.

The reporter was right and probably even summed up some correct words by Bergoglio in that definition of Gnosticism.

Of course, you may if you wish use the syllables Gno Sti Cism to denote sth having to do with Gnoein, with knowing, without reference to the historical sect. BUT the historical sect was very correctly defined, in the passage before the direct quote.

BOTH gnostics and manichaeans are for instance Docetists, they deny Christ came in the Flesh.

"Your questions as to why the news site appointed someone you describe as 'a bungler' to this task should be addressed to the news site; I am nothing to do with it."

Actually, I did NOT describe him as a bungler, I said he WOULD have been such if you were right.

My point is that since you can only be right if he was a bungler, you should explain why he bungled. Not just assume it, still less say sth which can only be reasonable if he did so and not even notice that.
LC: I get annoyed with the many, many words--the high-falutin vocabulary and the endless verbal gymnastics and sophistries and subtleties. Someday I hope to see a pope who is direct, matter of fact, and out and out BLUNT--whose yes means yes and whose no means no!
She got two answers: First by R McC, then by me.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: I have my problems with Pope Michael or David Bawden, but he is more direct than Bergoglio.
R McC: But people complain when he does that, LC.

This was a specific audience - Italian bishops and senior clergy at their 10-year congress - for whom the language was appropriate. It was not a weekly public audience or regular public Mass.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: For such an audience, learned language may well be appropriate, but his actual twisting of words into meaning sth not too subtly different from what they actually mean is not appropriate with such an audience either.
J A-A: The Pope should be a conduit for reiterating the Doctrine of the Church based on tradition and Divine Revelation which protects souls. Perhaps it's preferable for a Pope to be boring as he is there to convey the Truth rather than to project his personality, mood and opinion.
Amen
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Should be, that is the point.

But that only applies if he is really Pope.
LC: I have wondered quite often, if the Faithful are being led by an antipope, what are their duties with regard to him--and, how would they know? There have been antipopes in the past, for certain. What happens to the continuity of the Faith under an antipope?
Hans-Georg Lundahl: An antipope does NOT represent the faith and therefore NOT the prima sedes either.

Calling him out is NOT judging the first see, if it is clear he is no Catholic.
Suppose: someone argued that were in fact judging the first see?
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Not at all, if he is NOT a Catholic, he is NOT the first see. That was made VERY clear earlier.

Prima sedes a nemine judicatur, nisi deprehenditur a fide devia. The first see is judged by noone, unless it be caught redhanded in deviating from the faith. Pope Innocent III, my own translation (and memory of the Latin).
Ruari McCallion: Ah. The sedevacantists emerge.
Skipping: the discussion or discussions giving next post and going down to bottom:
MJB: I don't like the sound of the title either. Catholicism is the one true Faith. and the only it can healthily undergo is change that does not obscure that truth. The Faith can develop, as an acorn into an oak - but it cannot change from an acorn into an elephant. Catholics OTOH definitely need to change - to become more unmistakeably and fully Catholic [émoticône smile]
MW: I know where you are going MJB, but feel it should be an emphasis on being more Christ like rather than just Catholic.
MJB: The more completely Catholic Catholics are, the more Christian they will be - and conversely. Being Catholic is not one of "57 varieties" of being Christian, though I see what you mean.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: That is one that Bergoglio is also missing out on.

He was probably advising "bishop" David Palmer, since then dead in a motor cycle accident, to not convert.

He also gave same David Palmer a burial service such as is given to Catholic bishops, though he was neither Catholic nor any real bishop with apostolic succession with any probability. He was not the kind of Anglican that Antiochene Church would probably give real consecrations.
Note:: * I missed the part of it being disrespectful to refer to Bergoglio as Bergoglio, but I do not intend to refer to him as Pope Francis ever again even tentatively since the day when he "canonised" the not canonisable Roncalli and Wojtyla.

mardi 27 octobre 2015

With Matt Singleton on LXX/"Apocrypha" and on liquor in moderation

1) Creation vs. Evolution : CMI and Reformers, *sigh* , 2) Great Bishop of Geneva! : 2 Timothy 3:16, 3) HGL's F.B. writings : With Matt Singleton on LXX/"Apocrypha" and on liquor in moderation, 4) Great Bishop of Geneva! : In defense of Jay Dyer's Objections from Back Then

Matt SIngleton: https://youtu.be/gxFj4VxfIiM
There is no 67 book of the Bible.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Oh sure there is!

II Peter is 67th, or even 68th, if you count Baruch as separate from Jeremiah:

Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible, Second Epistle Of Saint Peter Chapter 1 http://drbo.org/chapter/68001.htm

And if you like a detailed discussion on why I trust the Catholic Church on that, look here:

Great Bishop of Geneva!: Why we Trust the Bible : Lita Gets It Nearly Right http://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2015/10/why-we-trust-bible-lita-gets-it-nearly.html
Matt SIngleton: bible smack: The Case for a Closed Canon
http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2007/02/case-for-closed-canon.html

bible smack: "On the road to alexandria" Responding to jay dyer's assault on Sola scriptura"
http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2012/07/on-road-to-alexandria-responding-to-jay.html
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Re first link.

OT canon may be closed, but existed in more than one version by the time of the first Christians, who took the broader collection.
Matt SIngleton: Pay attention to the maccabees quotations in the 1st link
Hans-Georg Lundahl: “There had not been such great distress in Israel since the time prophets ceased to appear among the people” 1 Macc. 9:27

Now, do you know what TaNaKh means?

Torah (five books of Moses)

Nabiim (prophets)

Ketubim (writings).

This means that though writers of Maccabees were inspired, they were not prophets. Like writers of the 4 books of Kings (or of Samuel and Kings, in Jewish 2-book division of this portion), or of Chronicles.

This means they were socially not acting like Eliah or morally not acting like Jeremiah.

Not that they were not inspired.

Second link:

"How can you drink vodka or whiskey in moderation?"

3cl of either in a cup, fill up the rest with coffee or tea after taste.

[or, in hotter wheather, perhaps mineral water or a soda]

My gramp was a distiller, I will never take the anti-alcohol "morality" of that link. Now, I am reading on past the personal attack on a man very correctly earning his livelihood in a liquor store, bbiam.
Matt SIngleton: just as correctly as selling weed. btw, this fellow would live Christianity of all types a couple years later.

bible smack: A new look at an Old Word: The dark history of egypt
http://biblesmack.blogspot.fr/2015/09/a-new-look-at-old-word-dark-history-of.html
Hans-Georg Lundahl: I am not sure selling weed is in all cases forbidden, I am sure selling whisky and vodka can be done wthout offending moderation in drinking.

Other example. You have eaten or you are going to eat. You take a 3cl of anis liquor, dilute in water and drink that before or after meal.

ALSO not drunkeness (and is very appropriate observation on how liquor is used in France).
Matt SIngleton: Well, you would have to know the guy (jay Dyer) I was dealing with. He is a very offensive arrogant individual who attacks in almost everyway he can. So I have to be rough with him.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: [To link] "They did not contain the apocyrpha in the traditional sense. The apocrypha was always separate because they were not translating from the LXX they were translating from the hebrew which did not contain the apocrypha."

In NT LXX is not TRANSLATED from, but QUOTED from.

A Greek book citing a Greek book.

Hebrews quotes Jeremiah in a way that echoes LXX and contradicts the current Hebrew text. Rabbis have even called its author dishonest as "misquoting Jeremiah". No, St Paul or St Barnabas were quoting the Jeremiah text they thought correct - from LXX.

[To comment on Jay] You might be calling me "arrogant" in a moment.

That is basically what is done when Catholics and Orthdox are loyal to the teaching of their Churches (the true and the near true) rather than to Protestant non-Churches. Protestants call them arrogant.

Being rough about good points does not equate to inventing false one's to be rough.

[To link again] Back to LXX:

"If Jesus read from LXX and not the Hebrew Bible, why did he refer to the Hebrew Bible arrangement? Jots and tittles are not part of the Greek language but the Hebrew. Divisions like the Law, Prophets and Psalms are not found in LXX."

Jesus was obviously familiar with the Hebrew arrangement as well.

Also He had to know very well what His Apostles were facing from Pentecost on.

That is, He must have told them if LXX was good or bad. From what Church has taught since, it can't have been the latter.

Plus his Hebrew text may have been closer to LXX or at least Vulgate than to today's Masoretic.
Matt SIngleton: btw, At some point I know that the purpose of the group is about geo-centricity not differences of catholicism protestantism. You go ahead and post up any links you like on that topic. The purpose of the video is not to focus on our canon differences. It is focusing on natural revelation. Which protestant OEC's call the "67th book of the bible. I am saying that natural revelation is no excuse to espouse evolution or the big bang theory. We can agree to disagree on the canon and you are welcome to take up the topic with me on personal message.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Ah, ok.

Wonderful, one can tentatively chime in and say "there is no 74th book of the Bible (unless certain books accepted by EO belong*)."
Matt SIngleton: yeah basically
Hans-Georg Lundahl: I actually got that, but since Bible and its canon are holier than your point, I think I did right to correct the mistake on the more important point.

* Council of Trent defined canon inclusively, against Protestant cuttings out, I don't know any formula of it which would directly be condemning of EO versions of canon too.

mardi 20 octobre 2015

Whether Internet is Killing the Newspapers?

1) HGL's F.B. writings : Whether Internet is Killing the Newspapers?, 2) New blog on the kid : Elena Maria Vidal Needs Funding

CB: Please forgive my off topic post, but I thought this important enough to post. I've found The Remnant Newspaper to be the most well written and insightful publication out today, but they need subscribers to continue shining the light of reason and orthodoxy into our spiritually darkened world. The internet is killing family owned and operated publications, in much the same way international corporate conglomerates like Target and Walmart have destroyed family owned and operated business' where ever they go. It has to stop!

The subscriptions are very reasonable, especially considering the level of orthodoxy and journalistic excellence found on their pages, (which is unmatched anywhere online or in print), and the frequency of the issues published. They put out a full sized newspaper (online & print) twice a month for $25. per year, for online version, and $40. or $50. for the printed version, so, so, so worth it.

Do yourself a favor, as I've done, and subscribe.

God bless you!
CB linked to:: The Internet is Killing The Remnant (We Need Help) Featured
Written by Christopher A. Ferrara / Wednesday, October 7, 2015
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/2058-so-do-you-want-the-remnant-to-survive-yes-it-s-that-bad
HGL: "The internet is killing family owned and operated publications, in much the same way international corporate conglomerates like Target and Walmart have destroyed family owned and operated business' where ever they go. It has to stop!"

I think not.

For a consultation, yes, internet is fine, but one likes the pleasure of turning pages too. So, no, I plead NOT guilty.
CB: Hans, are you saying the internet is NOT killing family owned and operated publications?
HGL: As far as I know, the internet is not the culprit.

Also, the internet is a means of starting such, I have tried, but one probably culprit behind my lack of success is this urban legend that internet is killing family owned and operated publications.

I publish my stuff on the spot on internet, then I offer (so far no interested) others to print it in a republished and paid version. For which I could get voluntary royalty.

Here are my conditions:
HGL linked to:: hglwrites : A little note on further use conditions
https://hglwrites.wordpress.com/a-little-note-on-further-use-conditions/
HGL: Here are my caveats for the posts where others have contributed more than a quoted snippet:
HGL linked to:: Antimodernism : Copyright issues on blogposts with shared copyright
https://antimodernismus.wordpress.com/2015/06/02/copyright-issues-on-blogposts-with-shared-copyright/
HGL: Here are my blogs:
HGL linked to:: En lengua romance en Antimodernism y de mis caminaciones : Otros blogues del mismo escritor/oltri blogghi del stesso scrittore
http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.fr/p/otros-blogues-del-mismo-escritoroltri.html
HGL: The urban legend referred to has been killing my business, probably for years by now.
CB: So you think an urban legend, that the Internet is killing family owned print publications, is the culprit, and not the fact that the Internet has radically changed people's reading habits?

The fact that people access most of their news and other information digitally, and not through the printed medium has even impacted large news organizations compelling them to upload all of their stories online, because most people just aren't buying newspapers anymore. This is precisely the problem that The Remnant Newspaper is voicing; it so easy and convenient for people to get their fill of news for free online, that people are not paying for print subscriptions, or even online subscriptions to trusted publications like they were before the Internet became the dominant source for information. So in precisely this way, the Internet is killing family owned and operated publications, like The Remnant.

You said, “For a consultation, yes, internet is fine, but one likes the pleasure of turning pages too. So, no, I plead NOT guilty.”

It's great that "you" still enjoy the pleasure of turning pages, (you should get a subscription to the Remnant Newspaper) but, as I've just pointed out, enough people have discontinued purchasing subscriptions to printed publications that both corporate, and smaller family-owned publications have noticed a drastic reduction in subscriptions. Here is the key point, without those vital subscriptions, family owned publications face the very real possibility of going out of business. This is a direct result of the use of the Internet. It seems to me that the only way someone might disagree with the statement "the Internet is killing family owned publications," is by interpreting it literalistically.

Now, if you think I'm still mistaken, it's going to take more than an assertion to convince me.
HGL: "(you should get a subscription to the Remnant Newspaper)"

For the moment, that is impossible.

I have not any money, I am, as internet writer not published on paper, not earning from my writings, except by making publicity for my blogs while begging. Also, as I am homeless, I have no place to store them. Also, I have no work paid for an employer buying my time, so I have more time than most to do research on internet.

Even so, some pages here are very long and do tend to tire me with scrolling and I would very much welcome an opportunity of turning pages instead, and if even so I was tired before reading through, at least knowing a page number where I left off.

"both corporate, and smaller family-owned publications have noticed a drastic reduction in subscriptions. Here is the key point, without those vital subscriptions, family owned publications face the very real possibility of going out of business."

How many have?

It takes more than a theoretical assertion, more like give me titles and former publishers.

The Remnant is the first case I hear of - over the internet. And they are not out of business yet.

At least one can give me credit for writing some stuff that is too long to read comfortably over the web and thus giving an incentive to buying it in book or magazine form.

As to subscriptions, I wonder if book format might not be a better deal now we are dealing with internet.

News for april 2016? Do one printing for the few subscribers you have, but see to it you can go on selling it for years to come, even with new prints, if demand for backnumbers should increase. Which they might do more for some issues than for others.
CB: No, The Remnant has not gone out of business yet, that is precisely why they wrote the article, and why I have posted it, to alert people to this problem and asking for people to subscribe, TO SAVE THEIR BUSINESS.

The Remnant may be the first case "you've" heard of, but this is a problem that's been going on beginning in 2009 and has only snowballed since then. I didn't say "the Internet HAS KILLED family-owned publications," I repeated, what the Remnant is saying, that the Internet IS KILLING their business, in the same way that it's hurting other print publications.In 2009, just in the United States, 105 newspapers went out of business, and 10,000 newspaper jobs were lost. In this first year alone, print ad sales fell by 30%.
CB linked to:: Gigacom : Two charts that tell you everything you need to know about the future of newspapers
Mathew Ingram : Apr. 11, 2013 - 2:58 PM PDT
https://gigaom.com/2013/04/11/two-charts-that-tell-you-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-future-of-newspapers/
CB linked to:: TheAtlantic : This Is the Scariest Statistic About the Newspaper Business Today
Derek Thompson Mar 18, 2013
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/this-is-the-scariest-statistic-about-the-newspaper-business-today/274125/
CB: European newspapers are having the same problem.
CB linked to:: theguardian : European newspapers search for ways to survive digital revolution
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jun/12/european-newspapers-digital-revolution
HGL: ".In 2009, just in the United States, 105 newspapers went out of business, and 10,000 newspaper jobs were lost. In this first year alone, print ad sales fell by 30%."

How many of these were local papers with local news rather than same news every paper?

How many of these had tried to cater to changing needs, like more space for reprints in book form?

How many tried things like online versions and printing "most read stories" as best of collections?

If the 105 newspapers employed 10,000 employees, by themselves, then they were hardly small business. If on the other hand most jobs were lost in big business papers, this means the losses are mainly there, and small papers only lost 105. I mean if the 10,000 lost were in big business run papers distinct from the 105 that went down.

Funny or not so funny enough, it is in 2009 that I came to Paris, as an internet writer, and I seem to recall conversations about my project involving the kind of accusation against internet and thus against me.

First chart seems to imply newspaper advertising revenue is back to 1950's level.

Maybe it is a mistake for a printed paper to have much advertising revenues. Readers get so much ads over the web anyway.* Getting more out of book format may be a better deal and in that case also advertising products of oneself and of similar minded small editors.

However, less paper used for newspapers is also not quite a bad thing.

* That was the point of one article. 1 dollar spent on internet advertising = 16 dollars not spent on advertising in papers.

jeudi 15 octobre 2015

L'islam, deux maux, le pas si mal et le pire

Le pas si mal, un peu tolérable, à mon avis: Vidéo partagée sur FB : Vision du mariage par les wahhabites (Arabie saoudite & Qatar)
https://www.facebook.com/sebastien.andele/videos/577403339032233/
RR: va N T M connards qui veulent exporter leurs façons de vivre du moyen age
D'autres commentaires: même genre.
HGL: 1) Je n'ai rien contre le moyen âge 2) "9 ans" c'est l'âge minimal pour la puberté chez les deux sexes, comme 18 ans c'est le maximal. Le NORMAL est 12 et qqs mois (ou entre 11e et 14e anniversaire) pour la fille et 14 (ou entre 13e et 16e anniversaire) pour le garçon. [Normal comme minimum, c'est à dire.] 3) Chez les Musulmans, "le père étant garantie" le consentiment parfaitement libre des contrahents juvénils n'est pas en cause; chez nous, pour ce consentiment, faut aussi une maturation du cerveau qui a lieu entre 10 et 12 chez les deux sexes. Pour nos critères, 9 est et restera trop jeune, pour les leurs, non. 4) Il y a une autre maturation du cerveau qui a lieu entre 18 et 25. Il ne faut PAS faire de celle-ci le critère du libre consentiment. Par contre, ce qui est faux, chez eux, est que le père puisse décider pour un mariage sans consulter sa fille et plus précisément son libre consentiment. Sans doute y a-t-il très souvent de fait une consultation, mais c'est grave que celle-ci n'est pas obligatoire. Chez eux. 5) C'est au moins louable qu'ils ne permettent pas la consommation du mariage avant un âge minimal. Il semble y avoir eu, il y a peut-être encore, des talmudistes qui déscendent beaucoup plus bas dans les âges. Même pour la consommation. 6) Le pire chez les Musulmans, c'est plutôt la situation des esclaves.
AC: nos fillettes, adolescentes ou jeunes femmes ont un bel avenir devant elles !!!!!
HGL: sauf celles qui, jugées trop jeunes pour être mères, quoique déjà enceintes, sont obligées soit à avorter, soit à faire adopter l'enfant à la naissance.
PE: Comme il le dit bien dans cette vidéo, le pédophile Mohamed, qui prit Aïcha pour épouse alors qu'elle n’avait encore que six ans, est le modèle à suivre. Tout n'est-il pas dit dans cette assertion?
HGL: Notons que par rapport à la biologie reproductive (question de consens libre à part), il n'était pas pédophile, car il attendait probablement la puberté de sa femme. À 9 ans. Par contre, du point de vue de la liberté de consentir, il aurait dû attendre jusqu'à 12.
Ajouté:: Quant au simple contrat de mariage, il correspond un peu à un contrat de fiançailles chez nous, et St Thomas précise que 7 ans (un an de plus qu'Aïcha) est de rigueur pour pouvoir le faire avec le consentement parental. La mère de St François de Sales fut fiancée à 8 et mariée à 14, il me semble.
PE: Selon les sources religieuses Hadith, Aïcha avait 6 ou 7 ans quand elle s’est mariée à Mahomet et 9 ans lorsque le mariage fut consommé... Vous n'appelez pas cela de la pédophilie, vous ? Ci-dessous, une fillette de 9 ans...
HGL: Comme dit, le contrat de mariage doit être distingué de la consommation. Aïcha a pu être précocement développé (la puberté est chez les deux sexes en cas normal, non jugé pathologique, entre 9 et 18, mais les deux extrêmes sont précisément extrêmes). Dans ce cas, ce qui manque pour qu'il aurait pu licitement le faire est le libre consentement, qui n'est pas à présumer avant 12 environs.
Le pire: sur un autre file de discussion, même groupe.
LC: voilà jusqu'ou le fanatisme et l'hérésie d'une religion peut pousser ses adeptes a exprimer des inepties aussi incohérantes, innomables

Metronews : Daesh justifie le viol à répétition pour convertir les femmes
13-X-2015
http://www.metronews.fr/info/daech-justifie-le-viol-a-repetition-pour-convertir-les-femmes/mojm!NoHuKVxh1PgyA/
Signature en signes chinoises: L'esclavage arabo-musulman en Afrique noire

L'esclavage arabo-musulman en Afrique noire
Afrika-United TV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWhWQwJI8QE

qui est le vrai mechant, enfin la verite!
HGL: Daech et le viol ... vous savez le côté "pédagogique" de leur esclavage.

Une grande victoire contre l'islamisme serait donc de décrédibiliser la carte de la pédagogie et resensibiliser contre l'esclavagisme dans toutes ses formes, y compris celles qu'on excuse chez nous comme de la "pédagogie"!

On Tolkien's Developed Views on Geo-/Helio-question

Alex Naszados: The young Dominican who wrote this doesn't say anything Earth-shattering, and offers the standard idea of geocentrism as a spiritual reality, but not physical (I know someone who says he is a geocentrist who does not believe in literal geocentrism). I guess this is at least slightly better than people like David Palm and Karl Keating, who insist on confusing traditional Christian cosmology with pagan geocentrism (which interprets a central position with being the "anus" of the universe).

He did make some remarks about Tolkien that were new to me.

Overall, he doesn't seem overly polemical. And as someone who studied physics at Stanford, he should be interested in "The Principle" & "The Journey to the Center of the Universe".
Linked to Br. Anthony VanBerkum, O.P.: Recovering Geocentrism
Posted on October 14, 2015 by: Br. Anthony VanBerkum, O.P.
http://www.dominicanajournal.org/recovering-geocentrism/
Hans-Georg Lundahl: The comment about Tolkien was new to me too.
Citing Br. Anthony VanBerkum, O.P.: "Tolkien set the fictional world of his primary works, such as The Lord of the Rings, in a prehistory of our own world, and he used a geocentric cosmology within his stories to enhance their air of antiquity."
Hans-Georg Lundahl: This I did know.
Link to HGL/own blog: New blog on the kid : A Relevant Quote from J. R. R. Tolkien
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/p/a-relevant-quote-from-tolkien.html
Hans-Georg Lundahl: However, here ...
Citing Br. Anthony VanBerkum, O.P.: "However, later in life he began to question this discrepancy. In his stories, cosmological knowledge comes primarily from the supernatural beings who created the entire universe and so know how the solar system is truly arranged; their geocentric cosmological accounts then seem to be blatant lies."
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Hmmm .... Joshua's Long Day? I mean, both God and solar angel, and if there had been such a thing as a "tellurian angel" (which heliocentrism would seem to require) would presumably also know very well what was happening and the Holy Spirit inspiring Joshua's daring would hardly have allowed to the words to be what they were, unless He were by Joshua confirming Sun and Moon are really ordinarily moving around us.

By now I hope Tolkien and wife have had a good look at the Tychonian workings of substellar parts of universe.

The two main Inklings do not always give the right answers (for some others one might say they are more into wrong ones) but they are posing the right questions (which is often true of the others as well).

lundi 10 août 2015

St Nicholas of Myra, Old Catholic Parish - a correspondence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : Ascii Code Gematria
http://triv7quadriv.blogspot.com/2013/09/ascii-code-gematria.html

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

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

* consider stars are moved by angels.

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

New blog on the kid: - But Parallax Guarentees the Distance of Kepler 452, Right? Right? Don't...
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/08/but-parallax-guarentees-distance-of.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sunday 9-VIII-2015 later
Them to Me

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Conservative in Worship",

"Moderate in Doctrine",

&

"Liberal on most Social Issues".

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

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

God Love You, Brother! émoticône like

Me to them:

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

Them to me:

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

Monday 10-VIII-2015
Me to them

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

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

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

Added later

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

ARE you?

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

You have unmasked yourself as being not a Catholic.

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

___________________________

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

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

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

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

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

jeudi 28 mai 2015

I was tagged about Karl Keating on Behemoth

Here is first the link to his article:

Catholic Answers : Was Job's Behemoth a Dinosaur?
Karl Keating
May 25, 2015
http://www.catholic.com/blog/karl-keating/was-jobs-behemoth-a-dinosaur

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

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

"So marshes are characterized by short plants. According to Wikipedia, the titanosaur was up to 130 feet long (not up to 200 feet long, as the Kolbe Center article suggests) and as much as 24 feet tall at the arch of the back. How could an animal that big “find shade” among plants that were only waist-high to a man? (Please, no jokes about elephants hiding in strawberry patches.)"
Hans Georg's answers:: Sauropod kind of which Titanosaur is one of the largest (it would seem sauropods qualifying as Mokele Mbembe are smaller) might have included size varieties incapable of finding shade in a marsh before the flood, or even not so, if plants were huger (we have seen huge fossil ferns, haven't we. This does not mean that those surviving after flood need also have been that large.

Also, finding shade in the marsh may refer rather to finding it in muddy waters than finding it under plants. But Mokele Mbembe seems to be right size for finding it under mangrove trees too.
Karl Keating's article:: "Then there is the remark that Behemoth “is not frightened by the Jordan River rushing into his mouth.” I can see how this might be true of a hippo, but it hardly sounds like a useful description of a titanosaur."
Hans Georg's answers:: Once again, Behemoths come in different sizes.

The remark on "largest among God's ways" may refer to Titanosaur size, the remark on not frightened by the Jordan River rushing into its mouth, if at all referring to opening the mouth while bathing in it as it could also refer to a comparable size between Jordan river and mouth, may refer to smaller specimens.
Karl Keating's article:: "The water moves so slowly that a child can stand in the shallows without danger of being knocked over. No titanosaur would be “frightened” by the water’s speed."
Hans Georg's answers:: Could refer to fright of water amount - Behemoths could [if so] not be waterboarded by a Jordan River sized influx.
Karl Keating's article:: "The Kolbe Center article says that the description in the book of Job is sufficient for us to “confidently identify” Behemoth as a titanosaur."
Hans Georg's answers:: Here I disagree with Kolbe centre. I think Behemoth means a kind, like dog. Titanosaur would be a breed, like Great Dane.

I think Kent Hovind would have done a better job (excuse pun, please!) than Kolbe Centre arguing the point.
Karl Keating's article:: "There are two things we can say “confidently” about this article, though:"
Hans Georg's answers:: If you care to put your confidence in vanities.
Karl Keating's article:: "it demonstrates that the Behemoth, whatever it was, wasn’t a dinosaur,"
Hans Georg's answers:: False, bungling a demonstration that it was a dinosaur doesn't amount to inadvertently proving it wasn't.
Karl Keating's article:: "and it does a disservice to the Church by promoting a preposterous argument."
Hans Georg's answers:: Keating does a disservice to the Church and to truth by being so very preoccupied with what is "preposterous" in the sight of secularists, or even in his own view, since he probably shares their ridicule for it.

Disservice to the Church is putting it very mildly.

I think that attitude was how Pharisees, preoccupied with what Pilate would consider preposterous, as well as Huigh Priests, started attacking Christ over feeling He was "doing a disservice to Qahal Israel".
Note:: I haven't read the article by Kolbe Centre, it may be less bad than the purported refutation with provided quotes and citations made it appear.

Here is their article:

Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation : Historical Evidence for Dinosaur and Human Co-existence
http://kolbecenter.org/historical-evidence-for-dinosaur-and-human-co-existence/

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

Kolbe Center Advisors
http://kolbecenter.org/contact-us/special-creation-advisors/

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

HGL's F.B. writings

Pages

samedi 5 décembre 2015

Father John Matthew Fewel posed a few questions

mercredi 2 décembre 2015

Bergoglio misuses "Fundamentalism" too ....

lundi 16 novembre 2015

Ruari McCallion Tries to Make Allowances for my English

vendredi 13 novembre 2015

Bergoglio NOT Getting Gnosticism, Discussion on FB

mardi 27 octobre 2015

With Matt Singleton on LXX/"Apocrypha" and on liquor in moderation

mardi 20 octobre 2015

Whether Internet is Killing the Newspapers?

jeudi 15 octobre 2015

L'islam, deux maux, le pas si mal et le pire

On Tolkien's Developed Views on Geo-/Helio-question

lundi 10 août 2015

St Nicholas of Myra, Old Catholic Parish - a correspondence

jeudi 28 mai 2015

I was tagged about Karl Keating on Behemoth

Correspondence de / of / van Hans Georg Lundahl

Antworten nach Sorte

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere

Répliques Assorties

Mes profils FB · my FB profiles · mina FB-profiler

Membres

Archives du blog

Qui êtes-vous ?

En défence de FB