HGL's F.B. writings

Bon, Marine Le Pen doit se dire "il est amusant ce Hans-Georg" ...

2012-03-05T01:14:00.003-08:00

J'ai l'habitude. En dehors des occasions de grand déconfort (comme commentaires sur une existance Tanguy* et célibataire), j'apprécie aussi quand ma mère me le dit.

Je croyais, après d'avoir lu Libération, que telle confusion s'expliquait par le fait que Marine Le Pen n'avait pas attendu les effets pervers de l'abattage à l'échelle industrielle, tel que le fait que 100% de la viande produite en Île de France correspond à 2% ou 2,5% de celle consommée en Île de France.

J'avais moi-même pas compté avec un effet encore plus pervers: surproduction de viande Halal par rapport aux besoins réels des Musulman.

Sans doute les abattoirs ne devraient pas installer une filière non halal à côté du halal. Qui suis-je à le leur dire, d'ailleurs? Je ne cherche normalement pas leur compagnie (même si mon goût pour le café et ma pauvreté protractée se conspirent pour m'y mettre un peu plus souvent que voulu) ...

Bon, en Suède on aurait fait la fête le jour que l'étiquettage se mettait en place, on a même en partie voté l'entrée dans l'UE pour avoir des règles plus contraignantes pour l'étiquettage. En lisant l'article (DirectMatin) il y a un argument que je ne comprends que très mal. Ou deux.

[Mais] le Conseil d'Europe assure pour le moment qu'une telle mesure serait "discriminatoire", arguant qu'elle permettrait d'installer des boycotts.

Effectivement, l'étiquettage a comme effet de permettre des préférences des clients de s'exprimer, entre autres en boycotts. Il y a des gens qui veulent boycotter Israel, il y en a qui veulent boycotter autre chose.

On nous a vendu, en Suède, l'UE comme une transparance réglimentée qui permettrait des achats faits par préférences autant que les achats évités par boycott. On avait le devoir de faire l'étiquettage pour tel nombre des choses déjà en Suède, l'UE en a ajouté un nombre encore plus grand des étiquettages. Et là où les étiquettages faisaient défaut, il y avait des magazines comme: Råd & Rön.

Là il y a un autre problème:

Or, c'est la réglementation européenne et non pas nationale qui détermine quelles informations doivent être fournis au consommateur.

Je ne savais pas du tout qu'une information non obligatoire sur le niveau d'union ne le pourrait pas être non plus sur le niveau national. C'est en tout cas pas pour ça qu'on a voté l'entrée en Suède en 1994! Je crois même que c'était très spécifiquement dit au contraire que l'absence d'obligation au niveau européen n'empêchait pas l'installation d'une obligation purement nationale. Les étiquettages selon les règles UE seraient donc règles minima d'étiquettages. Chaque nation pourrait ajouter.

Il me parait soit que l'argument est spécieux, on veut éviter à rendre tel ou tel service ou telle ou telle liberté à quelquun (pour qu'il s'achète la liberté ou le service dans la loge, peut-être?), alors on formule une vérité légale de manière de prétendre de ne pas être autorisé de la faire; soit encore que les règles de l'UE aient changé pour le pire depuis 1994. Alors on pourrait sortir!

Il y a des précédents. Irlande est sortie des Royaumes Unis, on a voulu punir l'Irlande avec des douanes. Résultat directe, l'exportation irlandaise diminue, les autres effets étant: l'agriculture donne plus de travail aux petits exploiteurs, et Irlande devient un pays avec des petites entreprises très florissantes, mais Irlande trouve aussi d'autres exports que la Grande-Bretagne.

Voter pour un candidat volontaire à sortir de l'UE ne serait donc pas une mauvaise idée, si c'est pour ça.

Moralement la chose est très claire: les Musulman veulent avoir la viande halal, c'est une chose, mais la revendre à des consommateurs à leur insu pour le financier, c'est de la fourberie. Avec mon article d'avant, il y a même des chances que l'étiquettage donnerait un atout au halal (et au cacher, et à la chasse) jusqu'aux temps que les petites boucheries sans étourdissement prennent la relève en viande plus saine.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bibl. Univ. Nanterre
5 - III - 2012

Joyeux Anniversaire, Chère Mère!

*Tanguy=franska uttrycket för mambo.

Cardinal Dolan and Fr Longenecker vs Kouchner et al.

2012-03-04T07:59:00.001-08:00

National Catholic RegisterCardinal Dolan Issues Letter Hinting at Legal Challenge
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/cardinal-dolan-issues-letter-hinting-at-legal-challenge

Was posted by a friend. He then quoted, without linking, this aricle about Apostate Catholics vs Faithful Catholics:

The Coming Persecution
(a priest's projection on what is to come if Obama re-elected)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2854048/posts

My comment:

You* have practically resumed what happened to French Catholicism. They are quite able to push canonisation of Abbé Pierre who had a mistress and used condoms. His partner, ideologically, pushes Georgia Guidestones agenda.

‎(Kouchner and he is alive. In Greek letters gematria does not make it number of the beast, have not checked with Hebrew letters)

Hans-Georg Lundahl
BpI, rue du Renard
Yesterday, 3d March
YooL 2012

*The you=Fr. Longenecker, not Cardinal Dolan.

Happy Feast of Saint Foila!

2012-03-03T12:35:00.001-08:00

Happy Feast of Queen St Cunegundis!

2012-03-03T12:15:00.002-08:00

Luxemburg, Bavaria, Holy Roman Empire and was crowned in the first mass in Rome to use "filioque" in the Creed. Her husband, also a saint, insisted.

Happy Feast of St Katherine Drexel!

2012-03-03T11:07:00.000-08:00

Apart from all that is said in article, Drexel Hill in Pennsylvania is under her patronage, and that is where Lloyd Alexander grew up.

Hannibal de Rivarol Obscurantiste

2012-03-01T05:32:00.002-08:00

par Hans-Georg Lundahl, jeudi 1 mars 2012, 13:43 ·

Quand Rivarol et PRÉSENT sont les média de droite sur papier, et quand en plus ils mettent en garde contre FB, ou autrement contre Internet (Hannibal se rejoint avec Marie Piloquet), alors il devient un peu difficile pour les droitistes qui sont adeptes d'eux de le comprendre. De l'autre côté, un gauchiste qui est suffisemment branché ès Choses Internet ou Viandes, d'abord s'il le notait, ne serait point écouté par la droite, ensuite il ne serait quand même pas là pour le noter.

Un site avait été répéré comme produit par une certaine adresse IP grace à FB? Technicalement c'est impossible, sauf à condition que le concerné s'annonce régulièrement sur FB comme auteur du site, quel que soit son pseudo. Car les IP répérables par FB sont ceux desquelles on s'inscrit dans les sessions. Il m'est arrivé, déplacé dans une autre ville, de ne pas me pouvoir connecter puisque l'adresse IP était une autre qu'habituellement. Un site peut répérer les IP avec lesquelles on l'utilise, pas tellement avec lesquelles on utilise d'autres sites.

C'est même dommage que les adresses IP se trouvent souvent répérés comme la seule preuve du fait que telle personne ait écrit telle chose sur la toile. Moi, je n'ai pas d'adresse IP fixe, ne possédant pas un ordi à moi-même, mais je signe mes articles, et la police à reçu des URL vers plus d'un blog par moi (j'en ai une trentaine, plus ou moins généraux et ensuite spécialisés sur certaines critères, de langue, de contenu ou d'époque).

Car, si telle ou telle chose écrite par moi serait inculpable comme criminelle, d'abord ça ne saurait pas être la totalité ou quasi généralité de mes blogs, ensuite apparaître dans un procès pourrait, juste éventuellement, dissiper certains malentendus plus ou moins volontaires qui m'empêchent d'avoir des lecteurs, mais surtout des ré-éditeurs, imprimeurs, vendeurs, des musiciens-artistes pour faire connaître et valoriser mes blogs. Le fait d'écrire n'est pas criminel. Le fait de composer n'est pas criminel. Criminaliser mes partis pris et annoncés dans certaines questions pourrait donner de publicité pour mes causes. Je ne cherche nullement la discrétion, non plus que la pauvreté évangélique.

Marie Piloquet dit que tel bloggueur de l'Arabie Séoudite a été menacé de mort après ses blogs. Et supprimer la possibilité lui sauverait la vie? Elle dit que les Arabes - qui n'aiment pas la parole trop libre (sur certaines choses), elle omet de l'exprimer - investissent massivement en internet. Quelle surprise! Et par là il s'ensuivrait que l'internet ne soit pas en train de servir réellement la liberté de la parole?

Passons aux viandes. Le Halal n'est pas viande étourdie. Le Cacher n'est pas viande étourdie. Le chassé n'est pas viande étourdie non plus. On veut quelque chose de sain sans se gâver en même temps avec des produits d'étourdissement? Alors, Halal, Cacher ou chassé.

Je n'ai rien contre la Rosette de Lyon. Mais quand l'abattoir est industriel, soit on étourdie, soit on stresse les animaux. Ni produits d'étourdissement, ni hormones de stresse sont idéaux pour accompagner la consommation humaine de viande. La campagne comme actuellement menée par Marine LePen fait les chiffres d'affaires des industries pharmaceutiques vétérinaires.

Le fond des choses, révélé, si exacte, par Libération (oui, je suis bobo, et après les journaux droitistes je lis Libération aussi, faut aimer sa classe sans détester les autres quoi), n'est pas touché par la campagne de Marine. L'abattage rituel, donc Halal et Cacher à la fois, constitue belle et bien en quatre abattoirs la quasi-totalité de la production de viande en Île-de-France, mais juste 2% de la consommation en Île de France. Pourquoi? Parce qu'Île de France importe la plupart de sa viande d'ailleurs, par exemple de Lyon. Il y a donc, par capitalisme un peu poussé, à l'instar de Chicago, un industrialisme des grands abattoirs.

Auparavant, l'abattoir était un coin de la boucherie. L'animal était abattu avant d'être dépécé dans la même boucherie. Comme ça, qu'il était étourdi par un coup de marteau (méthode des bouchers occidentaux, certains arrivaient à une force qu'ils pouvaient étourdir avec un coup de poing, sans marteau) ou juste avait à souffrir la gorge tranchée comme ça (il y a un dicton de la campagne suédois: hurler comme un porc à gorge perçue - "skrika som en stucken gris" - et la période d'abattage des porcs était juste avant Noël), il ne souffrait pas le stresse de voir ses congénères abattus droit devant lui-même. L'animal en train d'être étourdi peut souffrir du stresse, l'éliminer avec l'étourdissement neutralise certes les hormones de stresse dans leur effet, mais n'élimine pas les hormones de l'organisme. Par contre, ça arrête peut-être un peu leur production.

Pour les Musulman, s'ils veulent mon avis, autrefois ce n'était qu'autour de Aïdh el Kabir que les animaux étaient égorgés l'un devant l'autre, les autres périodes l'battage individuel était la règle, mais aujourd'hui on produit des hormones de stresse de grand abattoir toute l'année.

Pour pénicilline, vaccination ou hormones de croissance, il doit y avoir quelques semaines entre la médication ou manipulation de l'animal et ça parce qu'on veut que le produit chimique puisse quitter l'organisme complètement. Par les voies naturelles. Si le produit d'étourdissement avait quitté l'organisme de l'animal avant l'abattage, il ne servirait plus a rien, strictement, uniquement à avoir malmené l'animal avec une cuite involontaire quelques semaines avant son abattage. Et après l'abattage, les voies naturelles ne sont plus capables de nettoyer le sang ou les msucles ou le gras ou - si on pense au produit d'étourdissement - les nerfs. Item biensûr pour les hormones de stresse.

Vous voulez, à présent, manger très gaulois et très sain? Suivez l'exemple d'Obélix, chassez le sanglier, alors! Ou demandez les amitiés des gens des Pyrénées.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bibl. Musicale des Halles
1-III-2012

Human Rights Watch fait le malin avec Hongrie ...

2012-02-19T06:07:00.002-08:00

par Hans-Georg Lundahl, samedi 28 janvier 2012, 10:51
source des deux citations:

La Hongrie défie les critiques de sa nouvelle législation sur la famille
Par Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D.
http://www.c-fam.org/fridayfax/french/9316/la-hongrie-d%C3%A9fie-les-critiques-de-sa-nouvelle-l%C3%A9gislation-sur-la-famille.html

Le groupe prétend que l'article définissant le mariage « pourrait ouvrir la voie à la mise en œuvre de législations interdisant explicitement le mariage homosexuel, ce qui est contraire aux standards internationaux et européens qui interdisent la discrimination… protégés par l'article 23 du PIDCP [Pacte international des droits civils et politiques]. »

Ce n'est pas contraire au standard divin ni au standard historique humain d'interdire aux paires d'un même sexe de se faire prendre pour couples mariés. Un traité qui érigérait des standards selon lesquels ça serait contraire, se trouvant en infraction flagrant des droits et de Dieu, et des pénitents qui voudraient sortir illico d'une situation de péché mortel, ne peut obliger à quoi que ce soit.

Human Rights Watch a aussi invoqué les traités de l'ONU protégeant les droits de l'homme dans une lettre demandant au président hongrois d' « amender la constitution pour assurer le respect des droits procréatifs des femmes ». Le Goliath des droits de l'homme a exprimé son inquiétude du fait que la clause de non-discrimination pour raison « de race, de couleur, de sexe, de langue, de religion, d'opinion politique ou de toute autre opinion, d'origine nationale ou sociale, de fortune, de naissance ou de toute autre situation » ne contient aucune référence à l'orientation sexuelle ou l'identité de genre, qui seraient pourtant, selon eux, protégées par le Pacte.

Ajoutez donc une loi précisant qu'une diagnose d'homosexualité n'exclut pas du mariage (avec une personne du sexe opposé, biensûr) et qu'une diagnose de transsexualité n'exclut pas du droit et du devoir de garder le sexe avec lequel on a été créé.

Plus sérieux: Jobbik est parfois décrit comme l'aile droite de Fidesz, et Jobbik est antitsigan. Mon conseil au Tsigans de Hongrie: a) demandez à György comment-s'appelle-t-il? de mettre en scène La Princesse de Czardas et d'autres pièces qui tendent à valoriser les Tsigans, ne fut-ce qu'à tître de colorit folklorique, b) fondez une partie, dont le programme serait autant pro-vie et pro-famille que Fidesz, mais qui compte des points supplémentaires pour la protection des Tsigans, notemment contre l'obligation scolaire, contre les ordonnances antimendicité et antispectacle, et contre les indignités faites en certains pays (ma pauvre Suède en a fait beaucoup entre 1935 et les années 70) dans le cadre des DDASS et de la psychiatrie contre les vagabonds. C'est un conseil, ils sont libres vis-à-vis moi, je ne leur ai pas à dire ce qu'ils doivent faire, je dis juste que s'ils font ça, ils font le juste.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bibliothèque Audoux, Paris
28-I-2012

Jonah and Mieszko

2012-01-24T06:31:00.000-08:00

Καθολικός διάκονος : When we compare Jonah's mission with Jesus' mission we can see that Jesus did not have the kind of overwhelming response Jonah elicited.

Καθολικός διάκονος: Repent: Jonah & Jesus!http://scottdodge.blogspot.com/2012/01/repent-jonah-jesus.html

A S R (our common friend) : You make Jonah seem like such a dark story, when it's probably the funniest one in the whole Bible!

o Καθολικός διάκονος : It is hilarious and Jonah is an utterly ridiculous figure. It's hard to find light even in a fictional character who is unhappy with a God who seeks to save even those whom we hate. I absolutely love the Veggie Tales Jonah movie because it shows how ridiculous Jonah is. I have shown it to adult groups. Plus, keeping it short today.

o Hans-Georg Lundahl (ego) : If Jonah is fictional, whence come the Jewry and later Christendom of Northern Iraq? Like: if Ruth is fictional, whence comes King David and how come God permitted St Matthew to say a lie in the genealogy?

o Καθολικός διάκονος : I think we can chalk it up to immigration, as with the ancient Jewish communities that were rather far flung throughout the ancient Near East, probably most specifically the Babylonian captivity.

o Hans-Georg Lundahl : Ah, but how come they remembered it otherwise, as beginning with the prophet Jonah? Are you doubting US began with Founding Fathers and Poland Lithuania with marriage of Hedwig and Jogailo too?*

Catholicus Diaconus seems here to have deleted a post which I give the answer to:

o Hans-Georg Lundahl : Of course it remains the same. My problem is not with typology, but with not taking the story literally. Human fiction writers are able to make typology in made up characters, but God is able to make them in real persons.

o Καθολικός διάκονος : I'm not really sure where you are coming from with your questions (i.e., whether you are being serious or sarcastic). I think memories of the Babylonian captivity are well-documented in the Hebrew Scriptures. But if you are asking me whether I believe that Jonah is an historical account, my answer is simple, No. In fact, I think the truth of the book is lost by reading it in such a flat way. Either way, it is an inspired text, that is, scriptural.

o Hans-Georg Lundahl Check list:

Origen believes in typology but not reality of Flood/Arc of Noah
Theodorus of Mopsuestia believes in historic reality of Flood/Arc of Noah, but not typology
Saint Augustine states one must believe in both.

Applicable to Jonah too, and I cannot see any flatness in believing both historic fact and typologic dimension. And anyone denying historicity of purported origin of a community, is worthy to be asked if he doubts US had a George Washington too. Just to make things very, very clear, about first post on your blog:

Καθολικός διάκονος: Science & Theologyhttp://scottdodge.blogspot.com/2005/08/science-theology.html

I do not agree with your naive belief in so called consensus, especially if it is modern, and neither did Sts Stephen and Isidore

o Καθολικός διάκονος : That is all fine and well, but let's stick with the text at hand and not multiply instances, thus complicating matters and being, if unintentionally, sophistic. It is not a question of Alexandria or Antioch, but a matter of dealing the text at hand and applying the appropriate exegesis. If you take the trouble to read my post you will see what I mean.

o Hans-Georg Lundahl : Well, appropriate exegesis is Hippo rather than Antioch or Alexandria. Speaking of typology, noticed St Paul in his story? Tarshish, unwilling witness, enemy of those he preaches to ... except there is a serialism in St Paul that differs in detail of course

o Καθολικός διάκονος : Feel free to believe in the historicity of the story of Jonah, many fine Christian people do. I won't get into name-calling and needlessly multiplying instances and confusing categories to make my point. My belief may be many things, but it is not naive. While my first post was a quite a few years ago now, I stand by it. There are certainly historical parts of the Hebrew Scriptures, which are to be treated and evaluated in a different way. Again, what I posted on Jonah does not preclude those, like you, who want to read it more literally.

o A S R : No, there wasn't. Neither were the writers of Jonah not aware they themselves were writing fiction.

o Hans-Georg Lundahl ‎: "My belief may be many things, but it is not naive." - Your belief in the Bible, like CSL's is not naive enough. Your belief in scholarly consensus is, until you prove it otherwise, too naive. So where is the tradition from these purported colleagues of Tolkien writing Farmer Giles? I see none, I see a tradition that it was regarded as historical.

o Καθολικός διάκονος : Jonah is the Israelite who believes Israel's chosen-ness is something just for them, not a responsibility to make God known among the nations. Hence, he is ridiculous and foolish, but God will not be thwarted by the petty and small-minded.

o Hans-Georg Lundahl : I believe that too - and that he existed.

o Καθολικός διάκονος : Anyway, a blessed Sunday to you both.

o Hans-Georg Lundahl : You want to exonerate Israelites from producing him and his likes?

o Καθολικός διάκονος : At least those who did not view their chosen-ness in that narrow way, among whom one must number the author of this short text. Since I am not sure where this is headed, I will warn up-front that anything I even perceive as being anti-Semitic will be deleted.

o Hans-Georg Lundahl : What if the author was Jonah - after a conversion similar to that of St Paul? Including of course two stages, the storm and whale's belly and the bush that went down under the hot sun. ‎(wondering if this is going to be deleted)

o Καθολικός διάκονος : A conversion like that of St Paul would not have been possible for the author of Jonah because the Christ had not yet come, let alone been killed and resurrected. Who knows how the author of Jonah came to see the responsibility of chosen-ness? It just matters that he did and that he wrote about it in an inspired way, a way that is highly relevant for those who, by virtue of Jesus Christ, came share in the covenant.

o Hans-Georg Lundahl : I consider the recorded two step conversion of Jonah as a conversion like that of St Paul.

o Καθολικός διάκονος : Except for the small matter, which is essential to the story, that Jonah is never converted.

o Hans-Georg Lundahl : As far as I can see, he is at least converted when writing this autobiography. ‎(third person does not rule out autobiography, so did Moses and Caesar) If not at heart, at least in words and deeds. Here is anyway ...

...Haydock:http://kjbibleonline.com/jonah-4/

Afterthought: It seems possible that a diaspora could have takena fictional precursor, in the mere light of human evidence of this one matter. But the Ninevites converted under Jonah were not the first precursors, it seems, there was rather before them the Assyrian officer who was cured from leprosy by a bath in the Jordan. And that first recorded pious man in Nineve after Nimrod is too well attested to be dismissed as a mythicalised precursor of people who were really first, because his story is quite well known from Palestine./HGL

o *A S R : Poland actually began in 966 with the conversion of Mieszko. Or actually, that's a useful fiction, because there was no such thing as Poles until very late in the game.

o Hans-Georg Lundahl : There was a Poland before Poles, just as their was a Francia before anyone spoke French - I have no trouble with Poland beginning with Mieszko. Saying there was no Poland before Poles is ethnocentric. There are instances of political unities harbouring more than one ethnicity or starting with only part of it. o A S R : No, there were no Poles of whatever ethnicity before Poland.

o Hans-Georg Lundahl : I did not say there were Poles before Poland. I said there was a Poland, founded by Mieszko, before Poles were united as a nation. @‎A S R - Mieszko I of Poland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mieszko_I_of_Poland:

Mieszko I (ca. 930 – 25 May 992),[2] was a Duke of the Polans[3] from about 960 until his death. A member of the Piast dynasty, he was son of Siemomysł; grandchild of Lestek; father of Bolesław I the Brave, the first crowned King of Poland; likely father of Świętosława (Sigrid), a Nordic Queen; and ....

Of course I do not agree about the theories ruling out he was blind.

Siemowit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemowit:

Siemowit (also Ziemowit) was, according to the chronicles of Gallus Anonymus, the son of Piast the Wheelwright and Rzepicha. He was considered one of the four legendary Piast princes, but is now considered as a ruler who existed as a historical person.[1]

Piast - Siemowit - Lestek - Siemomysl - Mieszko - as far as I can tell they all existed.

Afterthought: Piast was of course contemporary of Popiel. And Popiel was eaten to death by persecuting mice. About as horrible as Jonah is funny (along with the Gepetto and Pinocchio story and the Sindbad story, which are obviously indebted to Jonah.) Logically, if you call Popiel mythical it is difficult to say Piast was historical. Ultimately people calling Popiel and Piast, Jonah and the Whale fictions, are people not believing either God or the devil capable of altering the zoologically recorded behaviour of animals./HGL

Pecia system, history and using my blogs in analogous manner

2012-01-16T03:42:00.000-08:00

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuscript_culture#Pecia_system :

The pecia system was developed in Italian university cities by the beginning of the thirteenth century and became a regulated procedure at the University of Paris in the second half of the century.[5]

Via wiki from: - note [5] -Rouse, Richard H., and Mary A. Rouse. Manuscripts and Their Makers : Commercial Book Producers in Medieval Paris, 1200-1500. 2 vols, Illiterati Et Uxorati. Turnhout, Belgium: Harvey Miller, 2000. p.85.

What was it anyway?

A stationer divided his books into pecie. Each pecia was rented out and copied. Then returned and rented out and copied by the next one on the list. And so on till every copier had made a full copy of the book in question. Does this mean that the books were copied faster? Not for each one copying - except insofar as a certain sloppiness may have been subtly encouraged - but their work was more simultaneous, hence more compressed in time in relation to the exemplar. So, whatever work it was could get copied in many copies at once, from just one exemplar.

Say that one work like a Bible book takes twelve hours of work to copy. One copier would need it twelve hours and intersperse it with other hours of rest or prayer and so on. He would take, say:

- Monday: Assignment after hora nona, 15:15, start real work after 30 minutes preparation at 15:45, write on to 18:00 call for Vespers. 2:15 of 12, 9:45 to go. Hold it! He had to take a pause for praying the Rosary during 15 minutes, because he was getting stiff: only 2 of 12, 10 to go.
- Starting Tuesday: - Vesper, Meal time, Compline, Sleep, Matins, Lectio Divina, Lauds, Prime at 7 - 7:20. - 3/4 of an hour's work 7:25 to 8:10, prepare for Low Mass. 9:15 to go. - Low Mass with Communion 8:15 - 8:45, no time for work but for a Rosary before Tierce at 9:00-9:15, High Mass 9:15 - 10. - Return to work after a graciously permitted snack at 10 to work at 10:10, stays at work to 11:55. 1:45 less, from 9:15, leaves 7:30 to go. - Sexta hora at 12, lunch at 12:15-13:00. Repose 13:00-14:55. - 15, hora nona. - 15:15 there is no need to prepare, so work proceeds directly, 15:15 - 18 = 2:45, but this time two pauses for Rosary, leaves 2:15 effective work. 5:15 to go.	- Starting Wednesday: - Vesper, Meal time, Compline, Sleep, Matins, Lectio Divina, Lauds, Prime at 7 - 7:20. - It might have been breakfast if he was not on daily communion. But not on a Wednesday, a fast day. However, that leaves him extra time for spiritual reading up to Low Mass, since work schedual is lower. - Low Mass (with Communion?) 8:15 - 8:45, no time for work but for a Rosary before Tierce at 9:00-9:15, High Mass 9:15 - 10. - No snack, directly to work at 10:05. Up to 11:55 leaves 1:50, but counts as a slow version of 1:30, since he is fasting. 3:45 to go. - 12:00 Sext up to 12:15. - Back to work 12:20, no lunch yet! 12:20 - 14:55 = 2:35, minus a Rosary Break, 2:20, counts as slow version of 2. 1:45 to go. - 15:00 - 15:15, Nona Hora. - 15:20, lighter lunch up to 15:40. - 15:45 - 18 - finishes book! Triumphant Colophon written on last page! No, not quite.
Only then can book be handed to next scribe, but that cannot happen until after - Starting Thursday: - Vesper, Meal time, Compline, Sleep, Matins, Lectio Divina, Lauds, Prime at 7 - 7:20. - Correction time! I will not calculate that one. - Only then can colophon be written and only then can the book be handed on to next scribe.

Wow!

BUT, divide text into pecie of 12, and twelve scribes can be working on it in parallel - twelve copies in same time. And of course, that could not happen till after book production became commercial, right? Of course, by then a man would hire the pecia for a day, make two or three copies, or four if he was quick, next pecia next day, same number of copies:

monday - tuesday, tuesday - wednesday, wednesday - thursdaythursday - friday, friday - saturday, saturday - monday (no work on sunday)

... which multiplied by two weeks means that in two weeks twelve men had made 36 copies if they average on 3 copies per day and pecia. And the monks were of course too stupid to do that? That is of course why monks' Bibles cost a fortune and nearly nobody could afford them?

Not quite. Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. The pecia system started in Italian University cities c. 1200 and came to Paris by 1250. And before 1200? Do we have studies proving the monks did not use a similar system to make cheaper copies? No. Pecie are known to modern academics since: L. Destrez, La Pecia dans les manuscrits universitaires du XIIIe et du XIVe siècle, Paris, J. Vautrain, 1935 But the proofs imply not just this production as such but also the commercial relation between stationer owning exemplar and students serving as book copiers. Each pecia had a pecia mark. The student had a signature, a pecia number was added, with attestation of correction. Just as colophons on whole books, pecia marks on each pecia of a book served to register the fact it had been corrected - but pecia numbers were also a way of tracing copies to copiers - and making sure they had not overcopied for gain. Stationer records "five pecie for p" and if after that an example is found with the sixth pecia or two different with the 3d pecia for p, maybe p was not trusted next time? And that system, which to us proves the actual use of pecie is of course absent from monastic work. For the simple reason that monks do not have individual gain, excepting the possibility to be a little lazy now and then. An individual monk could sell nothing to noone.

So, above scheme for book copying in a monastery might have been varied if there were six or twelve monks in the scriptorium. If each put the pecia copies on his table, pecie might have been exchanged between them - and we cannot know for certain, since only after the pecie are put together do the monks add a colophon to the book.

Of course, we do have one kind of semi-indication that pecie were not used: chapters use Anfangs that start after end of previous chapter, middle of a page. Would not an organisation in pecia stop such a method? Not quite. Say an Anfang was written as starting the word on a line middle of the page, first the letter for the Anfang was written as a small letter, and only later expanded to a large capital letter. And Anfangs fit neatly under last lines of previous writing. Pecie? Yes, there could be nifty ways of getting the pecie to fit into the space allotted precisely by these Anfangs. Vary line numbers for diverse sections, and you vary the place for the next Anfang. A last pecia could start middle of first page with the small letter for adding the Anfang, then be written as a whole until finished, then add previous pecia with last lines going on to the last one, and then writen Anfang on last one. And so on. Even so, the colophon would not be written until all of the pecie were assembled in a book, if written in a monastery.

So, actually, I think varying prices for vellum had more to do with cheapness of cheapest copies available than pecia system being only invented before 1200 in Italy. But I may be wrong. My take is: an old manuscript in a monastery falling apart and monks wanting a better reuse of it than just - sorry to say this - toilet paper. The falling apart of folia or duplos or quartos making up a volume would be a handy way to start new copies being made from it. At the same time, this procedure would, if starting with pecie from oldest manuscript in monastery, have guaranteed copies from as old a text as possible. It would have made sense, even if not the particular kind of commercial sense envisaged by the stationers and the students. That is my only argument so far for saying this happened. Plus one more: stationers and students might be too hurried to invent such a thing themselves without the aid of calmer monks.

Unless, of course, the pecia system was in use among the slaves of a bibliopola under antiquity: in that case it might simply be inherited. Except that papyrus rolls were less easy to divide in pecia, perhaps?

There is another argument against monks having used the pecia system: the high value of known copies, like the book of Kells. So? They were free to vary their procedure as they thought fit, as long as they delivered a product of the desired quality!

So far my historic argument. Now for the proposition I am making. I actually am not just writing my blogs as blogs for free as simple as that, but that too. I am giving them a double function. My authorisation at:
http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/de-retour.html#furtherusenote
... means that beside the normal function, there is also the function of your online page being offered as pecia for your small scale commercial printing. Printing, not handcopying, unless you realy want to do that for fun. If you are very poor, just take it. If you are a little better off or manage to become so by my offer, do use the account on the link "donativo" for remunerating me. Oh, big publishers are also entitled to the offer, in their case I count on them giving about royalty. Only it would have been complicated to state that as a separate condition. So, I trust, first to God, next to your generosity, honesty and plain sense of fair play and fun.*

That it is technically possible can be seen by my examples.**

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bibliothèque Duras, Paris
13 Jan, Octave of Epiphany, 2012

*I am basically repeating this offer:
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2011/09/be-my-unwin-or-hooper-if-you-like.html
** http://hglwrites.wordpress.com/2011/09/14/il-aurait-du-rester-peintre-1-8/
- I handwrote, so that I could prove I was writing these things. First essay contrasts behaviour of Hitler and Chesterton after being no longer painters. If Hitler was the better painter of them, in a technical sense at least, Chesterton was clearly the better no-longer-a-painter of these.

On St Maria Goretti and Alessandro Serenelli

2012-01-09T08:48:00.000-08:00

Link:

The Catholic Defender: St. Maria Goretti

My comment (whether it be published or not):

Have you noted that even St Maria G. and her woer Alessandro S. lived under an attack on family?

She was a bit less than 12. Under Papal State administration - which ended 1870 - they could have married a few months later.

Under the new rules of "Kingdom" of Italy ("King" excommunicated and voting in Italy was at the time a mortal sin), the only way she could get out of waiting six years, till she was 18, was getting pregnant. That was basically what Alessandro proposed and she rejected.

If you do not believe me, check a historian you do believe for my facts.

More on obedience - and its limits (debate)

2011-11-30T05:14:00.000-08:00

Between myself and one FSSPX faithful. His screen name is anonymous. It is about the matter already alluded to in comments section of previous post.And he is one of the two faithful I answered in it. His attitude was such that I found it indicated to ask him about a French connexion of his, named as on FB in our correspondence, but here referred to as NN:

If NN is in St Nicolas du Chardonnet (I seem to recognise the face), you may ask her for confirmation about what the priests there say about me and about my blogs.

Taken from the Catechism of St. Pius X:
1 Q: What does the Fourth Commandment: Honor thy father and thy mother, command?
A: The Fourth Commandment: Honor thy father and thy mother, commands us to respect our parents, obey them in all that is not sinful, and assist them in their temporal and spiritual needs.
2 Q: What does the Fourth Commandment forbid?
A: The Fourth Commandment forbids us to offend our parents by word or by deed or in any other way.
3 Q: What other persons does this Commandment include under the names of father and mother?
A: Under the names of father and mother this Commandment also includes all our superiors, both ecclesiastical and lay, whom we must consequently obey and respect. Pax Christi Regis.

"obey them in all that is not sinful" - should be taken as:

all that is neither
sinful for oneself to do
nor
sinful for them to ask

see thereon Summa Theologica, II-II, whatever the Question is that is about Obedience [I found it and added:]
http://newadvent.org/summa/3104.htm#article5*
=============================
(a parallel is adduced for illustration in beginning of corpus, read it if you like):

On like manner there are two reasons, for which a subject may not be bound to obey his superior in all things. First on account of the command of a higher power. For as a gloss says on Romans 13:2, "They that resist [Vulgate: 'He that resisteth'] the power, resist the ordinance of God" (cf. St. Augustine, De Verb. Dom. viii). "If a commissioner issue an order, are you to comply, if it is contrary to the bidding of the proconsul? Again if the proconsul command one thing, and the emperor another, will you hesitate, to disregard the former and serve the latter? Therefore if the emperor commands one thing and God another, you must disregard the former and obey God." Secondly, a subject is not bound to obey his superior if the latter command him to do something wherein he is not subject to him. For Seneca says (De Beneficiis iii): "It is wrong to suppose that slavery falls upon the whole man: for the better part of him is excepted." His body is subjected and assigned to his master but his soul is his own. Consequently in matters touching the internal movement of the will man is not bound to obey his fellow-man, but God alone.

Nevertheless man is bound to obey his fellow-man in things that have to be done externally by means of the body: and yet, since by nature all men are equal, he is not bound to obey another man in matters touching the nature of the body, for instance in those relating to the support of his body or the begetting of his children. Wherefore servants are not bound to obey their masters, nor children their parents, in the question of contracting marriage or of remaining in the state of virginity or the like. But in matters concerning the disposal of actions and human affairs, a subject is bound to obey his superior within the sphere of his authority; for instance a soldier must obey his general in matters relating to war, a servant his master in matters touching the execution of the duties of his service, a son his father in matters relating to the conduct of his life and the care of the household; and so forth.

=============================

Now, will or won't you ask her? I am not ordering it as your superior, for if so, I would have nothing to back that up with, I am just asking it, as a personal favour from you to someone who feels wronged and may be so. Not that all charity is absent in every respect - indeed I was given a larger sum of money today - but that does not make the kind of backbiting I suspect any less wrong if it occurs. And if not, I find it a bit funny no one has been printing my blogs and paying me a voluntary sum for it.

I do not want to hear any slanderous talk against holy priests.

I do want to hear, from other parishioners, via you, if these priests have been holy or if they have been slandering me and my blogs.

So, do ask her.

Pride is a denial of God, an invention of the devil, contempt for men. It is the mother of condemnation, the offspring of praise, a sign of barrenness. It is a flight from God's help, the precursor of madness, the cause of downfall. It is the cause of satanic possession, the source of anger, the gateway of hypocrisy. It is the fortress of demons, the guardian of sins, the source of hardheartedness. It is the denial of compassion, a bitter Pharisee, a cruel judge. It is the foe of God. It is the root of blasphemy. Pax Christi Regis.

Thank you very much. Then it is up to God who is proud in St Nicolas du Chardonnet, if anyone is ... I still want to know if your friend is a parishioner there and what has been being said about me, if that is the case. That I am proud, perhaps?

Demons once heaped praise on one of the most discerning of the brothers. They even appeared to him in visible form. But this very wise man spoke to them as follows, "If you cease to praise me by way of the thoughts of my heart, I shall consider myself to be great and outstanding because of the fact that you have left me. But if you continue to praise me, I must deduce from such praise that I am very impure indeed, since every proudhearted man is unclean before the Lord (cf. Prov. 16:5). So leave me, and I shall become great, or else praise me, and with your help I shall earn more humility." Struck by this dilemma, they vanished. Pax Christi Regis.

Wonderful. A beautiful story. But what I ask of St Nicolas du Chardonnet is not praise, it is cooperation with my project for my life and - in case of my blogs - livelihood. When young Marcel Lefèbvre met a watchmaker out of work, he did not tell the watchmaker "you are proud if you want to remain a watchmaker, why don't you offer your services to Swatch, they might have a cleaning job and if you do it well they might even let you advance to something related to watchmaking" - instead, he made sure that people of Tourcoing who needed watches repaired got his adress so he got his livelihood made through mending and maybe amking watches on his own again. Now, when it comes to this writer - yes WRITER - up to yesterday I have not been very much encouraged to find readers. And for this composer I have not had my pieces played. And for this prospective family man, girls who might have been in love with me and whom I was in love with have been turned away from meeting me, one after another. That is not warning a man against pride, it is ruining a man by pride.

Oh, one more thing: my writing IS not an apostolate. It INCLUDES Apologetics. As did CSL's, as did Chesterton's. It includes phlilogy, as did CSL's, it includes citizenship in face of tyrannous abuses of public power, as did Chesterton's. I am more than fed up with being measured in this respect by standards of pure spirituality, as if I had renounced all earthly things and had no earthly or rational motive for what I am doing.

And if they happen to think my Apologetics bad, I can see why they would not want to help me get that printed, but hardly why they would also want to stop me from getting my guitar sonatas (really guitar sonatinas, but "sonatina" is not Latin) played for money!

Or my string Quartet. Or my poems printed. Or ... do you get the point?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Mansionibus
St Andrew's Day of
the Y o o L 2011

*SUMMA THEOLOGICA: Obedience (Secunda Secundae Partis, Q. 104) is being quoted, not my correspondent, between the lines of = signs.

On obedience having limits. Answering two faithful from the flocks of the FSSPX.

2011-11-26T04:38:00.000-08:00

a child born to wicked parents owes them every bit of respect due to parents...including a broad modicum of obedience...excepting commands that ...contradict divine positive law"

- or the law of the land (human positive law) or the law of human nature. Or commands that exceed the natural authority of parents. For instance, if I were to marry a fourty year old maid (to take an instance which is not the case), I might be obeying my father, who might have a kind of modern hysteria about pedophilia, but I would be doing so against my inclinations to marry in a way that gives hope for children, and in ordering me to do so, he would exceed his rights according to divine, natural or positive, or human positive law.

[Main subject of the discussion, but digressive here:]So, Abe Lincoln had no right to impose on anyone to celebrate the arrival of the Mayflower (and as Chesterton said, English would have the right to celebrate its departure), but Catholic Bishops having with Leo XIII (condemner of Americanism) ruled that Thanksgiving is not equivalent to "Mayflower Day" - a day to be shunned if ever it were so named - it is quiet licit to celebrate Thanksgiving, and I think one should. It is also a reminder to Prots that if even the state can institute a day of public Thanksgiving, year after year, the Christian Church can do so which preceded the US of A.

‎"the child born in a Roman province was born under roman law"

- not quite, he was certainly born under Roman Administration, but not automatically under Roman Law. Or rather a mere provincial was born under the administration but not the law, a citizen under the law but not the administration. Our Lord was thus under Roman Administration, as his fosterfather showed when registering for taxes in Bethlehem, but St Paul was under Roman law and could not be crucified, only beheaded.

"The base of your studies should be the encyclicals of the Popes and also the books of Archbishop Lefebvre, which are very precise summaries and explanations of the Popes' teaching. Be careful of all theories which may distract you or lead you away from this teaching, and look to the priests for guidance and help in understanding; formation is their direct responsibility."

- No, formation of intellect is the intellectual's direct responsibility. The one formation which is the direct responsibility of priests is formation of conscience, in admonitions in confession, and formation of faith and conscience in sermons and catechism. But asking your priest to direct your studies is up to you, no priest has any right to class you as an heretic or to refuse you the sacraments because you study on your own and do your own formation.

Also, the priest could be, and the priests in St Nicolas du Chardonnet are in ascertained fact deficient in parts of social morality. There is a field where they have done great deeds, reminding of Mirari Vos, but when it comes to the rights of the poor, they are sometimes simply led by their noses by modernist administrators. And, quite obviously, they are impoverishing this here writer by treating my blogs as forming part of those "all theories which may distract you or lead you away from this teaching". Their attitude seems to be: if Hans-Georg agrees with us, he is superfluous, and we have expressed it better, if he does not, he is not Catholic and should not be read. As a result my blogs are not read by the one public that might appreciate them.

Because Modernist Catholics are against them due to my Creationism and Geocentrism, Jews have again and again been given access and obviously "forgotten" - because I am a Christian and on top of that a Catholic, claiming there is a visible Church succeeding the older Israel and they are not its visible successors, Muslims are put off by the fact that I compare Mahomet to Joseph Smith, Mormons are not quite thrilled by my comparing Joseph Smith to Mahomet, Orthodox dislike my defense of filioque and my defense of St Robert Bellarmine against the calumnies of a Paul Ballaster - ex-Franciscan, defrocked, died stabbed by a Catholic as Greek Orthodox archbishop of Mexico city and both Americas - nor are they too fond of my defending Cardinal Stepinac, besides they are cosntantly asking themselves whether it is proper "for a monk" - I am not a monk - or "a prophet" - I am not a prophet - to ask for money.

So, St Nicolas du Chardonnet and similar advising formation only under a priest's advice and priests disadvising from my blogs, that is a bad stab in the back to my livelihood as a writer and essayist. If they condemned part of its contents, they would have to do so publically, and therefore publically acknowledge, if not my doctrine, at least the fact that I expressed it. They do not want that. They prefer, up to now, backstabbing. And if they told you what you say, they are erecting a principle which is not true. Of course, priests may have indirect responsibility for formation, like Cardinal Newman said in his "Idea of a Catholic University". That is another thing.

A typical example of their attitude to me, in St Nicolas du Chardonnet is the way they pray for me. Now, a few months ago, I was writing to Mgr. Williamson saying "I am a writer, I want to be paid for my writing, do not block me, do not pray for God's providence to block me" and he obviously took it as meaning "I want to be a writer in the future" since next hour, day or week I found on the internet a course of writing. Or on how to improve writing.

Now, the past weeks I had the pleasure to read the Chardonnet. One thing that Fr. Chautard said was that jobs are getting more and more tied up to large companies, so getting a real meaningful job is less and less possible and therefore less important as a consideration for finding your work. He also stated that being an internet technician - "informaticien" - is a not very noble calling. I wrote him a letter in which I stated, again, that I am writing on the internet, and reminded him of fact that as much as a text can go from paid format on paper to free format on internet (like Bibles online), likewise can they go the other way, from the free form on internet to the payable form on paper. He must have taken that as an obstination in wnating to be an internet technician, for if not, and if he did not pray for that, how do you explain I found right today this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Op3QLzMgSY&feature=topvideos_education
Lecture 1A | MIT 6.001 Structure and Interpretation, 1986

That was, however, not a complete waste of my time. The thing about black box abstraction is that there is no such thing as an algorithm for turning electronic or chemic processes into understanding or for that matter any other kind of experience. There is an algorithm for turning simple understandings into chains of complex understaning so that the result is as sure as the simple understandings themselves, and that algorithm is called logic. But there is no such thing as an algorithm for turning non-experience into experience or non-understanding into understanding, non-cognitive into cognitive. A good thing to know. A good thing to write about.
Of course, "computer logic" is making an algorithm for signs to echo the algorithms of logic. It is in no wise any thing that makes computers understand anything whatsoever.

And that includes language. That is the profound reason why computer translations suck.

But sometimes having people pray for you according to their misunderstandings can be painful. I guess that week when I was thinking time after time of sodomitic acts that disgusted me was Fr Beauvais praying that I might get duly disgusted at sodomy. As if I were a homosexual. Which I am not. I am neither homosexual, nor homoliberal. But in St Nicolas I can be passed off as either, or could till recently, due to priests refusing to take direct note of what I write them or same priests insisting on reinterpreting it, as if I were unable to express my real needs and intentions correctly in a text not needing reinterpretation.

I suppose such praying for me instead of talking to me is a result of taking Mgr Williamsons advice "some people you can not discuss with, only love and pray for". For a man who was habitually naked and dirty and throwing imself in fire and water, I would agree. But for a man trying to have his blog articles reprinted as essay collections or his music scores played before paying audience, I think that is not an applicable advice. Any more than for 12 guys not washing their hands before every meal or picking wheat ears on saturdays.

Not that I compare myself to the Apostles in holiness of vocation, of course.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Georges Pompidou library
of Beaubourg*/Paris
26-XI-2011

*It is in the gay district, but I go to the library to write on computers, not to make trysts with gay men. Actually the library would probably not be the best place in all Beaubourg to do so. It is much more a studentish, even to some extent a young Muslim and Immigrant studentish thing.

When CSL was wrong, Charles Gore was wrong before him, I think. Pt 1

2011-11-24T08:23:00.000-08:00

by Hans-Georg Lundahl on Thursday, November 24, 2011 at 5:10pm

C. S. Lewis died, one hour later John F Kennedy was shot, Aldous died even later
When CSL was wrong, Charles Gore was wrong before him, I think. Pt 1

In Georges Pompidou library of Paris, I found exactly one work by Charles Gore. It is in its present edition from 1963 - the year that CSL died. So going down to look for it, I was afraid it might be only a namesake. I was wrong in that fear. Everyman's Library No. 924 is indeed from 1963, but as other Everyman's Library, it is a re-edition of an older work. The Philosophy of the Good Life is a series of 12 Gifford Lectures held by Bishop Charles Gore - as Anglicans style him - in 1929-1930, and modified before print by his personal contact with the lecture hearers, which was one part of the conditions prescribed for lecturers.

A Bibliography reveals that he 1889 wrote Roman Catholic Claims - presumably a rebuttal of them - and 1930 a small tract, Lambeth on Contraceptives - I fear it was an acceptance of the Lambeth Conference of that year, a first of Christian Confessions accepting contraceptives. Neohimerite Orthodox took another forty years before accepting them, and Roman Catholics fortunately have not accepted them. Not Trads, nor Vatican loyalists at any rate.

Now, equally from 1889, there is, in Lux Mundi, The Holy Spirit and Inspiration. I fear it was less traditional even than Divino Afflante Spiritu by Pius XII from 1943, passages of which shocked me as modernist at the time I rejected that pope.
I do not have that work, but I do have his words on Zarathustra (not an inspired author) and on Moses (an inspired author) in this work. And he is not right.

With Zarathustra, he claims that Zoroastrian priesthood under Sassanides drew their prophet closer in time, ch II p. 32:

"The gulf which separates the religious thought and social outlook of these hymns from the rest of the Avesta, or from Persian religion as wehear of it in the sixth century B.C. and later, must represent a great interval of time."

Why? What if Zarathustra was simply before as other parts after conquest of Babylon? He seems to accept the kind of topsy turvy arguments that his disciple CSL so clearly refuted in Fernseeds and Elephants. A gulf in content or outlook not perceived by the adherents of a tradition but clear to a XIXth C professor? Using that as an argument in dating? Uh uh!

One of our authorities, Dr. J. H. Moulton, is content to postulate a date not later than the eighth century B.C. But Ed. Meyer and others--with reason as it seems to me--require us to go back to some date not earlier than 1000 B.C. Let us be content to leave the date in uncertainty.

So professors are not certain of the real date, but they can still be certain that the ancients were wrong about it? As if ancients were no authorities and XIXth C. critics were! For, here we come to the footnote on bottom of this same page:

The later Parsi priesthood, perhaps infuenced by their desire to bring the now mythical and divinized Zarathustra nearer to their own time, put him in the seventh century B.C. ...

Thus one century later than the latest date Gore is willing to accept. The century before Cyrus and all that. Now, it is quite plain that the Zoroastrian religion as accepted later under Sassanides is more at variance with the Hebrew religion than Cyrus needs have been. The book of Esther too is explicable as relating an early conflict between Jewish and Zoroastrian religion, ending in a temporary setback for the Zoroastrian one. And influencing later Zoroastrianism, so that it appears allied to later Judaism (also against Christianity, as we find when Chosroes III invades Palestine). But neither this consideration, nor the fact that Zoroastrians claim 700-600 B.C. as the dates stands up to the XIXth C. "authorities" of Gore. Neither do they respect the alternative tradition very much (continuing footnote):

But the Greeks, relying on earlier tradition, assigned to him a very remote antiquity--6000 years before Alexander or 5000 years before the Trojan War (Plutarch).

What if Plutarch found Zoroastrians worthier of respect than Isis worship and set an early date to rival Egyptian remote dates? The Chronological Snobbery back then was all for Remote Antiquity (this chronological snobbery still exists, but only if dates are pre-Biblical, older than Creation according to the Bible). I even checked wikipedia, which in its present shape indicates that Plutarch compared Zarathustra to Osiris and Isis mythology. It seems that the Avestas about his life assign to him duels with demons - part Gandalf in Khazad Dûm, part Jesus refusing Satans temptation (like Luther, Zarathustra seems to have regarded second thoughts about his personal illumination as temptations from the evil one). But nothing supernatural about his death, Avesta does not mention it, Shahnahme says he died murdered at the altar. And recent research is more prone to accept the traditional dates, half a century to a century before Cyrus. My sources are Qui était Zarathoustra?, also (following link from previous): Fr-Wiki-Zoroastre and its English counterpart (click "English" button in left margin).

Now, here come we to Moses, a thoroughly bad piece of XIXth C. philology if ever there was one (p. 128):

I will confess myself to be a conservative critic. I mean, for instance, that, while recognising to the full that in the Pentateuch a great deal is attributed to Moses, the great founder of Jewish nationality, which was in fact elaborated in a gradual historic process, the stages of which we can trace more or less clearly in the literature, yet I find it difficult to doubt that the fundamentally ethical character of Israel's worship of Jehovah must be traced back to its Founder ...

Sorry, Gore. That is not Christian. That is applying to the Pentateuch the same method which your disciple CSL so rightly rejected in Fernseeds and Elephants. Pope Pius IX was so right to say - by implication condemning the opposite thesis in the syllabus - that Protestantism is not quite just another form of the same Christian faith, in which it is equally possible to please God. If Pusey might have proven him wrong, you as succeeding Pusey proved him right.* Intellectually speaking, this is not Christianity. It is academolatria. And as we get to Church Fathers, let us quote them rightly. Here is Gore (next page):

Again, we cannot doubt that St. Chrysostom was right when he described the material of Jewish religious rites--'the sacrifices, the cleansings, the new-moons, the ark, and the temple itself,' as derived from their pagan background.

The footnote goes to Hom. in Matt. vi. 3 (P. G. lvii, col. 66) - do please note that the words "derived from their pagan background" are not in Gore's quote. I have read St. John Chrysostom's against the Jews, on internet, and I know that his thought is not that they were simply pagan customs without divine correction, but rather they were divine concessions to their pagan attitude, which they had when coming out of Egypt.

Indeed, if we accept that thought, and accept that God brought Israel out of Egypt, as Christians are bound to, we must accord that the ritual descriptions are from Moses' own time. How so? We know that the Israelites, coming out of Egypt, were not quite content with a merely ethical core of religion, without any ritual. St. Chrysostom describes them as addicts to ritual of a pagan type. So too did they show themselves before Moses, when adoring the Golden Calf.

Therefore it was not quite safe for God to leave their ritual sense empty for later accretions, he had to give them a very detailed ritual of the right sort - in a sense - in order to preserve them from what was a detailed ritual of the wrong sort - in every sense. And, as the fulness of revelation had not yet come, the detailed ritual could not yet be that of the New Law, nor of the Holy Mass, it had to be a shadow and a makeshift. But it had to come at the beginning of Aaronite priesthood because Aaron himself had bowed down to that Golden Calf.

Actually, I did post a link to St John Chrysostom's Adversus Iudaeos on the MSN Group Antimodernism which was closed down in February 2009.** Maybe that was construed as "unacceptable antisemitism" and part of the reason the group was closed down (if my group was the real target, since all groups were closed down, in a fashion that did in actual fact not admit saving all messages from one group to the new kind of groups that MSN lanced - I tried on a much smaller side issue group).

BBL/Hans-Georg Lundahl

*The Gorham case had done so even in a worse way: The case of the Rev. M. Gorham against the Bishop, of Exeter, considered. - Adress to the Clergy of the Diocese of Vermont, by John H. Hopkings, D.D., Bishop of the Diocese. (1849) J. H. Hopkins said therein:

The second opinion, held by some, extends the benefits of infant regeneration, in all cases where the Sacrament is rightly administered, to a complete spiritual renovation of nature: the child being made, in the very act, a living temple of the Holy Ghost, and becoming a new creature in so excellent a sense, that the future aim of the Christian life is chiefly to be directed to the maintenance or recovery of baptismal purity. This notion, to my mind, seems quite untenable.

**Confer history at What was MSN Group Antimodernism? and history of close down at Help for safeguarding messages and Handicapped by a freemason.

Over 500 views, excluding mere index pages:

2011-10-26T06:59:00.000-07:00

Most read of my blog posts, only those over 500 readers
par Hans-Georg Lundahl, samedi 15 octobre 2011, 19:41

paidophilos? ego? - 1094
Sects, Historical Critical Method, Post-Confessional Christianity - 822
Sonata Nemetodurica - 608
... - 555
Aus Chromosome/Wiki/de (Koredaktion) - 507

I have excluded mere index pages./HGL

Comments:

Hans-Georg Lundahl do click links ...

Hans-Georg Lundahl Oh, I forgot one French message as I was considering it mainly as index page, but there is also text on it:

Hans-Georg Lundahl deretour: Oui, oui, non, non

Hans-Georg Lundahl The text on the page itself is in French ...

478 Hebrews liberated today in the Orient.

2011-10-18T10:00:00.000-07:00

Gilad Shalit and 477 from Hamas. Best of luck to all of them, I'd like to celebrate with Falafel, Kebab and half a bottle (or a whole bottle with company) of either Yarden or Adom Atic.

It is also the feast of St Luke evangelist. http://o-x.fr/rrxn

Be my Unwin or Hooper if you like.

2011-09-23T07:29:00.000-07:00

par Hans-Georg Lundahl, mardi 20 septembre 2011, 14:26

Unwin was the publisher of JRRT, Walter Hooper publishes what CSL left behind.

In other words, I ask any reader of these lines, who ever dreamt of publishing books, to consider publishing my blogs.

Here are the conditions: link.

Here is a bit about the method, materially: link about page positions and link about using them.

Here is an example, nearly ready made, only print out, copy in double sided, fold, bookbinder's deal or homemade, cut up pages on top, in French: link to first eight pages, the rest of the 64 being on previous links, except the very first.

Here is why: blogs are a part of internet. If and if so when internet shuts down, blogs as such are lost. The texts on them or images on them need not be. Copy from net to word or open office, then print out then position pages, then make originals for double sided copies, then make double sided copies as many or few as suits your purse (initial investment) and taste for openness or discretion (do you want to make a business or just a homey very secondary income or just gifts to friends?) - and the texts are saved, on paper, even if the blogs close down.

Of course this presupposes bloggers that allow this. Do not do this if the blogger does not expressly allow this. I am one (see conditions above), maybe the first. You may be the next. Anyway, if you have a home, you are better suited than I right now to storing the books you make than I was when I made them.

Best of luck:

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Clermont s Oise
20 sept 2011

À l'Abbé Guy Pagès

2011-07-26T06:14:00.001-07:00

La nature est constante dans son essence - croyez vous alors que, au moins depuis le déluge et l'abréviation de la vie humaine, la limite naturelle et biologique réproductive et mentale a été constante là où St Thomas d'Aquin la trouvait (12 pour la fille et 14 pour le garçon, en moyenne) ou ne le croyez-vous pas?

On peut s'améliorer ou s'empirer, mais ça concerne la morale, pas le naturel. Même une société peut s'améliorer ou s'empirer en devenant par exemple plus catholique ou moins catholique.

La société où une fille de treize ayant couché avec un garçon était censée se marier avec lui bien avant la naissance de leur enfant ou la société moderne où une fille de treize ayant couché avec un garçon est censée avorter le plus vite possible - quelle société trouvez-vous la meilleure? Pour moi, la décision est faite il y a bien longtemps, dans un village où les avortements étaient un fléau et en lisant St Thomas, notemment ses propos sur le mariage.

Si vous voulez me retirer de vos amis, c'est votre liberté.

Quote about Our Lady vs Abortion

2011-07-21T01:07:00.000-07:00

"Pregnant to someone other than her husband when she was engaged to be married and hounded by people determined to kill her child because He threatened to bring down the established order, Our Lady could give lessons to every teen rebel out there about surviving the odds."

Bloqué de Blogger sur les Bibliothèques Municipales de Paris

2011-05-18T11:28:00.001-07:00

J'ai donc écrit le message sur un document google:

Lien - URL abrégé o-x.fr/m9zd - ou sur shrt.st/11mh

Did Gauß deserve this?

2011-05-08T23:56:00.000-07:00

par Hans-Georg Lundahl, lundi 14 mars 2011, 11:56

Enough admonishment—it's time for the warning. A word of caution, children, before we discuss the arcane contents of this stygian course: some mathematics were not meant for man to understand. This is Cartesian devilry of a black and necromantic sort, dreamed up by the twisted designs of sinister scholastic gods, existing purely to tempt and destroy mankind with its elusive secrets. Topics to be covered include: non-Euclidean geometry, dividing by zero, Cthulu's Principle of Inverse Sanity, approaching and surpassing asymptotes, Fermat's Next-to-Last Theorem, gazing into the depths of a parabola, and the dreaded unit circle. There will be a midterm approximately halfway through the semester, a final exam, and a group project in which you will be made to calculate the precise time of your own death using an abacus made of haunted rosary beads. (source here, do not read it)

I think it might be better to improve one's state when dying by making a rosary of non-haunted abacus beads, but apart from that, is modern mathematics as bad as this?

Well, when his famous curve is put into such asocial purposes as making school grades relative (middle quality grades always being the most and high and low quality having equal minorities, one starts to wonder.

THEN there is the famous "3 i" times "3 i" equals "minus nine", in other words, the assumption that "minus nine" is one number and needs a square root.

And that comes from "if plus nine is a number nine more than zero, there must be a number minus nine which is nine below zero". Which is rubbish. It is rubbish, but it has some conventional uses, like reading thermometres, and such where "zero" means something other than "nothing". But going from "3i * 3i = -9" to an application would get you into trouble. Even for a "numbers' field" a X-axis and a Y-axis would maybe multiply by each other, but hardly each land on the "minus side" of the other while multiplying by itself.

I advocate a return to Greco-Roman, Classico-Mediæval concepts in mathematics. What Euclid and Boëthius hold in common would hardly deserve things like this persiflage, preparing for mathematical studies as if preparing to study black magic.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

A Week in London (12 - 19 sept 1665) - of interest in Medical History

2011-05-07T08:47:00.000-07:00

par Hans-Georg Lundahl, lundi 21 mars 2011, 20:57

Of 8297 buried, 7165 of plague.

309 of feaver, 134 of consumptioon, 121 of teeth (bad teeth gone too long to cure by extraction?), 101 of spotted feaver.

64 of convulsion, 51 of griping in the guts, 49 of surfeit, 43 as aged, 42 in childbed, 33 of dropsie, 18 of chrisomes.

17 each of rickets and as stillborn.

16 as infants, 15 of wormes.

11 each imposthume, rising of lights (accident?), tiffick.

9 stopping in the stomach.

5 each abortive, flox and smallpox, jaundies, scowring and thrush.

3 each frighted, of grief, vomiting and of winde.

2 each of ague, bleeding, cough, kingsevil, scurvy and stone.

1 each apoplexie, burnt in his bed by a candle at St Giles, Canker, Gowt, Killed by a fall from the Belfrey at Alhallowes the Great, Lethargy, Palsie, Spleen, Strangury, Suddenly, Timpany.

For the rest, if I jave counted not correctly, no medical or accidental reason is given.

Christned: Males 95, Females 81, In All 176.

Buried: Males 4095, Females 4202, In All 8297.

Plague: 7165.

Increased in the Burials this Week: 607.

Parishes Clear of the Plague: 4

Parishes Infected: 126.

The Aßizes of Bread set forth by order of the Lord Maior and Court of Aldermen:

A penny Wheaten Loaf to contain Nine Ounces and a half, and three Half-Penny White Loaves the Like Weight.

"la fin d'une utopie meurtrière" ... parce que Ben Laden est mort?

2011-05-07T08:44:00.000-07:00

par Hans-Georg Lundahl, samedi 7 mai 2011, 17:42

Ça me paraît très et peut-être trop naïf.

Cheik Ahmed Yassin s'était prononcé avec modération et bon sens dans un interview de BT (Borås Tidning) en 1998. La Mossad l'a tué quelques ans après, et ni leur utopien'est finie - ils détiennent entre-temps Gaza, pas tout à fait dans l'avantage des Palestiniens Chrétiens - ni elle n'est devenue moins outrée, au contraire le successeur du cheik s'est exprimé dans le sens du Jihad mondial.

Rappelons ce qu'avait dit le cheik dans cet interview. En traduisant du suédois, d'après mémoire:

BT: Est-ce que vous promettez le paradis aux kamikazes?

AY: Non, seulement Dieu peut le promettre. D'ailleurs je ne suis pas sur qu'ils vont au paradis. (pause) Mais c'est de la défense [légitime]*

...

et:

AY: Le fonds du problème est religieux. La solution doit l'être aussi.

Comment ne puis-je pas être d'accord? St Pie X avait reçu Theodor Herzl, et refusé de bénir le zionisme. Bon, le successeur de cet ex-professeur invalidisé par les zionistes dans une attaque est un homme qui rêve d'introduire la chariate partout.

Et je serais soulagé parce que Ben Laden est mort? Hamas a bien pu se passer de Ahmed Yassin, Al-Qaïda se passera peut-être un peu trop bien sans Ben Laden aussi.

Entre 2001 et 2011 - quel changement des mentalités y a-t-il eu dans les sociétés occidentaux? A-t-on une vue plus musulmane ou de culture musulmane des choses? Est on plus sécuritaire, plus bossiste, plus méfiant envers chaque chose qui semble un peu dévier, plus exigeant de virilité chez les hommes? Alors, si Ben Laden n'a pas gagné sa guerre, nous n'avons pas gagné la défense du Christianisme et de l'Église, et de la société occidentale auparavant surtout connue et reconnue comme Chrétienté non plus.

L'optimisme d'avoir vaincu l'islamisme aggressif avec la mort de Ben Laden me paraît postiche. Il n'était pas Sultan, on n'a pas à attendre qu'il soit succédé par un autre Sultan moins violent comme Soliman le Magnifique (coupable du premier siège des Turcs à Vienne) par Selim II. Il était dirigent charismatique d'un mouvement, et des choses comme ça peuvent parfois trouver plutôt quelqu'un de pareil même s'il n'est pas proche que quelqu'un de proche mais pas très pareil.

Donc, je ne crois pas qu'il s'agisse forcément de la fin "d'une utopie meurtrière". Quid alors de ce mot "utopie"? Tandis que l'Occident se veut mieux défendu qu'en 2004 contre les attentats, entre temps les Chrétiens d'Orient sont persécutés et l'Occident ne les défend pas malgré une présence militaire. Les gardiens de sécurité en Occident sont aussi, entre-temps, plus souvent Musulmans qu'avant, au moins parce qu'il y en a davantage en total. Ils font d'autres choses que de juste garder les Occidentaux contre les attentats. La vue sur l'alcool et sur le travail et l'oisivité, et sur la polémique chrétienne contre l'Islam ou d'autres fausses religions- je viens de voir un site salafiste qui attaque Benoît XVI pour ses mots en Regensburg, mots qui ont, en média français été traduits selon les préjugés musulmans plutôt qu'après leur signification grammatical dans l'original - au moins en France la vue sur ces choses s'est islamisée. Donc, même mort, Oussama peut être fier d'avoir changé, au moins pour ce temps, la société Occidentale.

Meurtrière? Oui. On peut respecter les kamikazes, on ne nie pourtant pas que Ahmed Yassin avait raison de ne pas être trop sûr de leur entré au paradis. Oui, il y avait une mot dans la phrase "fin d'une utopie meurtrière" qui, effectivement, convient assez bien. Un mot sur trois, c'est pas mal pour un média conventionnel, trouvez-vous?

Mais hélas, la façon dont on en s'est débarassé était aussi un peu meurtrière. Comme Pizarro qui ne laissait pas Atahuallpa paraître devant Charles V pour être jugé, un peu. Et la court internationale de La Haye, aurait-elle bien jugé?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Beauvais

7-V-2011

*Le suédois "sjelfförsvar", modernement "självförsvar" peut se traduire défense ou défense légitime, litéralement c'est "défense de soi-même". En quelle que ça soit la langue que le journaliste et le cheik ont utilisé - arabe, anglais ou français, je n'ai lu que la traduction suédoise.

1947 et 1976

2011-04-18T11:14:00.000-07:00

par Hans-Georg Lundahl, lundi 18 avril 2011, 20:10

Dans ma famille: naissance de ma mère, décès de mon grand-père.
Dans les catéchismes francophones: le dernier catéchisme préconciliaire, Pierres Vivantes.

Dieu sait si je suis ou si je ne suis pas prédestiné à la gloire éternelle. Je puis déjà dire que je ne suis pas prédestiné à préférer Pierres Vivantes au dernier catéchisme (dont j'ignore le tître) préconciliaire.

Est-ce que je me fais comprendre?

Soyons sérieux, laissons les choses personnelles.

Pierres Vivantes - selon ce que j'ai compris - dit que l'église est le peuple de Dieu. En cela ce n'est pas une œuvre condamnable. Elle semble avoir oublié et laissé tomber en oubli la distinction entre Clergé et Laïcs. En cela elle n'est pas louable. Car l'Ancien peuple de Dieu faisait une différence très nette entre le tribu de Lévi et les autres tribus. Le Nouveau peuple de Dieu le fait entre clercs et laïcs.

Est-ce que je me fais comprendre?

Il y a des gens qui me posent des questions à propos mon attitude sur tel ou tel sujet, et qui semblent consternés quand ils entendent ce que je pense. Il y en a parmi les gens qui me reçoivent comme volontaires, moi sdf. Et il savent que mon projet est d'écrire. S'ils pensent que j'écrirais autre chose, plus favorable à Pierres Vivantes, moins au catéchismes préconciliaires, au cas qu'ils me laissent en pauvreté et dépendance à eux, et demandent aux autres de le faire aussi, alors ils se trompent.

Est-ce que je me fais comprendre?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
18-IV-2011, Lundi de la
Semaine Sainte
Paris/Beaubourg

Pour anglophones: http://o-x.fr/rrxn

Creationism and Geocentrism are sometimes used as metaphors for "outdated because disproven inexact science"

2011-04-16T08:41:00.000-07:00

par Hans-Georg Lundahl, samedi 16 avril 2011, 17:33

I was just today reading The Missing Spanish Creoles by John McWhorter, and found a chapter heading or subchapter heading entitled "creationist at the cocktail party", which I did not read, and then this passage:

We do not imagine scientists supporting Ptolemaic astronomy while courteously "not denying" that Copernicus' ideas might have "some validity." The earth cannot "kind of" revolve around the sun--heliocentrism cannot be "considered as a possible aspect of" geocentrism. The evidence simply does not allow this.

Very good rhetoric ... but ... let us take it piece by piece, once again:

We do not imagine scientists supporting Ptolemaic astronomy while courteously "not denying" that Copernicus' ideas might have "some validity."

Guess what Tycho Brahe did? Oh, for introductions, he was an astronomer in Scania and Hven, back then belonging to Denmark. My compatriot, so to speak. He was also teacher of John Kepler. One more thing, though his system is referred to as Tychonian, his surname is Brahe, a noble family. Tycho or Tychon is a Greek given name meaning chancy.

The earth cannot "kind of" revolve around the sun ...

True enough, good logic says it either does or does not.

...heliocentrism cannot be "considered as a possible aspect of" geocentrism.

Now, that depends on what aspect is considered. Sphere of fixed stars, sun, moon, earth may well form a geocentric system, whereas in the meantime sun, mercury, venus - not earth but - mars, jupiter and saturn form a heliocentric one. Which is precisely what Tycho thought and taught.

The evidence simply does not allow this.

By evidence I suppose is meant logic. Earth either does or does not revolve around sun. But when we consider that Tychonian and Modern Astronomy as far as logic is concerned are both valid, the question of evidence becomes interesting.

There is the evidence of accuracy. Aristotle thought Mars somehow revolved directly around earth. Ptolemy that it revolved around and eccentric that revolved around earth. Tycho that it revolved around the sun that revolved around earth. That is in itself a series of growing precision. Next logical step would be for a geocentric to add that revolutions are elliptic rather than circular. But this step was done by a heliocentric, who hankered back to another heliocentric coming between Ptolemy and Tycho Brahe. So the series of growing accuracy reads Aristotle, Ptolemy, Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, John Kepler. Copernicus was as heliocentric surrounded by a less and a more accurate geocentric, by Ptolemy and Tycho. Tycho Brahe as a geocentric was surrounded by a less and a more accurate heliocentric, by Copernicus and his disciple John Kepler. Would seem as if chosing geocentrism or heliocentrism had nothing to do with accuracy.

Except that, after Newton giving heliocentrics a physics, refined by Laplace, Titus-Bodes came more accurate still. And after Einstein gave heliocentrism another physics, he came still more accurate. Well, if it had just been one physics, and if there had been no alternative physics even thinkable or ever thunk, that might have settled it. We are talking about the physics of "earth is always drawn inwards towards the sun by gravity and always missing it by previous movement's inertia." AND the physics of "gravity is a geodesic in space" and of "light bends to gravity of great masses, so optics are just nearly optics now".

Now, before we do any problematising of these physics, were there other physics before them? Yes, indeed: "Mind rules bodies: in human mind's case it is only through own human body that it rules other bodies, in case of angels and demons and of God, there is no 'proper body' involved as condition for ruling bodies other than self" - a physics that was inherited from antiquity and not radically altered - at least not as radically as the "Scientific Revolution" - by Christianity. Meaning, stars as fiery matter and planets as reflecting matter are movable by some kind of spirit or other. Meaning the masses and gravities would not be the decisive factors or only decisive factors for observed orbits. Meaning daily motion of universe attributable to God.*

Now, there is no real parallel observable on earth itself proving the physics of millions of revolutions by continually readjusted equilibrium of earth's velocity and earth's pull inwards, sunwards, a possibility. If two forces are to balance in resulting in several revolutions, earth's gravitational pull on things down here is not one of these forces. Any movement where it is involved will be stopped by that gravitational pull (if such be the physics of falling) long before getting anywhere close to even an arc degree or two of a revolution about earth. Stones on strings are not obvious illustrations of an equal inward pulling force, since the string obviously is an object with a superior in-holding stability than the centrifugal force. Motor bicycles or cars rolling around weels to inside of a wall also illustrate that the wall as such is not an equal inward pulling or inward pushing force, but a superior inward holding stability. If the string is of rubber, we at least have the option whether at any point the ball is held back it is a case of equal inholding stability or equal inpulling force. Because in the rubber string there is a kind of sense in which inholding and inpulling is the same thing - but which of them is determinating in the case of the stone on an ordinary string? Modern physics says "the inpulling". Can we know it? Also, the onward motion - which keeps the object from getting in to centre - is not really upheld for many revolutions without added propulsion, whether it be string and stone, rubber string and ball or motor vehicle inside walls of a big tub. Even if a balance between a clearly inpulling force like gravity and an on- and outpushing force like inertia is possible, can the balance be maintained over revolution after revolution for centuries without any personal will and wisdom to guide it?**

But even so, I would like to see an experiment where the one force is clearly inpulling and not an inholding stability and where the other is inertia. Maintained for more than one revolution. If a strong magnet can do the centripetal thing and skating can reduce friction to maximise effect of inertia as centrifugal thing, that might illustrate what I am looking after. So, we have satellites, supposedly also illustrating this - but are they there because of gravity or because angels are kind to well meaning technicians?

So, then there is the optical evidence. Before we go on, we realise first that we are talking about space, and about space we have not seen from anywhere else than our own position or pretty close ones. What could there be as a kind of end to it? Stars clustering near outer edge, forming a sphere? Or just the end of stars clustering all over the inside? Or no end at all, even that involves stars clustering all through the inisde, if you can bring yourself to hold that as a possibility. Now, if stars form a sphere, are they all fixed in relation to each other or do they move? Obviously, one thing is settled by optical evidence, long before this controversy, long before the telescope: that moon, venus, mercury, sun, mars, jupiter and saturn do not belong to an outer sphere of stars, since they cover stars and move along the zodiak. We are now only considering stars in the zodiak and similar ones north of it to Ursa Maior and south of it to Southern Cross. As far as could be seen before telescope, the stars in that seeming sphere (real or true) do not move in relation to each other. When Galileo and St Robert Bellarmine argued - a bit unequal arguing, since between suspect and judge - about heliocentrism and geocentrism, St Robert who was out there to find out whether Galileo had proof or not, concluded he had none, and even counterproof: the Virgo and the Pisces, opposing each other - I am taking this example to clarify what I personally guess they were talking about - look the same whether earth is closest to it or whether sun is closest to it, meaning earth stays same distance to them. Meaning earth is proven immobile as the sphere of fixed stars, except that one moves on a daily basis, though Galileo would have it it was only earth that moved. Or that the annual movement in relation to the zodiak is done by the sun rather than by the earth. Galileo answered that the reason was that the change was too small because the stars are too distant for this phenomenon to be seen. A perfectly reasonable explanation, but a lack of proof in his own time, none the less.

Now, has heliocentrism been vindicated by optic proof after better telescopes or not? With a sphere of stars equidistant or an elliptoid of stars with a continuity of change of distance to the centre of cosmos, and none of the stars moving in relation to the others, we could very well have seen whether centre of cosmos was earth or not. If it was earth, Pisces and Virgo would stay exactly same angular sizes on opposite seasons and between, but if it was sun that was centre and earth that moved, Pisces would have exactly as much greater angles in September as Virgo in March. Now, modern cosmology is not this kind of heliocentrism any more than this kind of geocentrism. Both of them were, as far as optical evidence is concerned, refuted by the phenomenon of 1838. Actually I think both were extinct among astronomers long before that date. Except among Catholic ones, as a theoretic possibility of proving St Robert right or wrong.

What was discovered in 1838 can be explained two ways, as far as optics are concerned: if the stars form a sphere, some of them move in relation to others. In time with the sun. Now, with angelic explanation, there is no problem with that interpretation. Atheism favours and basic Christian tenets (leaving out the specific questions about Joshua that landed Galileo before trial) allows the other interpretation, the current paradigm in cosmology. Earth moves annually, and the reason why not all stars move annually, why Pisces is no bigger in September in same way as Virgo in March (dates when earth is between sun and zodiakal sign, opposite of when sun is between earth and them, obviously), is the difference of the distances to the stars. Not all stars in same constellation are even equidistant to us, to our solar system and to earth and sun. Possible. But not finally proven.

As said, there is no problem with the angelic explanation.

Even as a complement to masses and gravitations explanation, angels are not to be ruled out.**

Now, if there had been a telescope close to Saturn on board Cassini watching proxima Centauri, there might have been proof for or against modern cosmology, at least if not in its excludion of God and angels, insofar as it says the cluster of stars is spread all through cosmos and sun a star with earth as annually revolving satellite.

Hypothesis 1: Proxima Centauri seems to move annually because it moves in time with sun. Corrollary: should be seen as moving annually from Saturn too.

Hypothesis 2: Proxima Centauri seems to move annually because, angelic or not, earth moves annually and star stands still. Corrollary, since Saturn revolves non-annually and very much slower around sun, a very different parallax, larger than the 0.76 arc seconds we see from here, and some 90 times slower would be the expected outcome. If this is true, using parallax - stars' visible movements in other direction from moving earth - as measure of distance is feasible, since inversely proportional to distance. Not so in Hyp. 1.

Problem: the Cassini sond, which is on Saturn, or rather one of its moons, is not equipped with big telescopes.

So, there is no optic proof for modern cosmology either. Not where it differs from Tycho Brahe's cosmology, such as it would be if correcting circles to ellipses. Because one hypothesis has simple been ignored over centuries by "serious "scholarship". Same centuries as have seen "serious scholarship" grow and grow in funding and societal importance. Last of these, centuries in which Geocentrism becomes a metaphor - to be used freely in every other science, including linguistics and discussions of whether Atlantic English Creoles share a grammar because the black slaves made a grammar from scratch when hearing words and commands but little real speech with English, or whether they share the grammar they learnt at St Kitts, influenced by Cormantin, by the language of Igbo. Yes, there are a few decades now, to judge from my own experience, in which a Christian envisaging hypothesis 1 (Tycho Brahe and St Robert modified rather than Kepler + Einstein) may get a feedback not easily distinguishable from the one for people backbiting me and regarding me as a fool or a liar about my convictions.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bibl. Audoux, Paris
16-IV-2011, St Lazarus Saturday

*[23607] Contra Gentiles, lib. 1 cap. 13 n. 27 Nec est contra hanc rationem quod motores inferiorum orbium movent motum sempiternum, et tamen dicuntur moveri per accidens. Quia dicuntur moveri per accidens non ratione sui ipsorum, sed ratione suorum mobilium, quae sequuntur motum superioris orbis.

**[23615] Contra Gentiles, lib. 1 cap. 13 n. 35 Ad hoc etiam inducitur a Damasceno alia ratio sumpta ex rerum gubernatione: quam etiam innuit Commentator in II physicorum. Et est talis. Impossibile est aliqua contraria et dissonantia in unum ordinem concordare semper vel pluries nisi alicuius gubernatione, ex qua omnibus et singulis tribuitur ut ad certum finem tendant. Sed in mundo videmus res diversarum naturarum in unum ordinem concordare, non ut raro et a casu, sed ut semper vel in maiori parte. Oportet ergo esse aliquem cuius providentia mundus gubernetur. Et hunc dicimus Deum.

source: http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/scg1010.html

Quand je laisse un panneau avec l'adresse d'un blog, comme aujourd'hui dans la cage d'escalier de Bibl. Buffon ...

2011-04-13T07:37:00.000-07:00

par Hans-Georg Lundahl, mercredi 13 avril 2011, 16:27

... je prends biensûr le risque que quelqu'un le prenne, soit quelqu'un du personnel soit un des visiteurs.

Comme aujourd'hui dans la cage d'escalier de la Bibliothèque Buffon.

Bon, il y aura cet article sur ce blog, je l'écris ici d'abord, puisque c'est le blog de mes écritures FB:

http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/

Que quiconque le soit qui l'ait pris comprenne, que j'ai fait le panneau pour qu'il soit annoncé, soit quand je fais la manche, par moi-même, soit comme je viens de le faire, dans le bâtiment. Qu'il le prenne où qu'il le veule (si c'est un bibliothécaire, il n'a pas le droit de le réexposer dans le cage d'escalier, je crains), mais qu'il l'expose!

Je veux des lecteurs sur internet, je veux biensûr aussi des lecteurs qui achètent mes articles sur papier, donc j'ai donné aux lecteurs, à tous, le droit de les imprimer ou copier autrement pour d'argent, et le droit - devoir parfois moral, mais pas devoir opposable juridique - de m'en verser un peu.

Voici le lien vers mes dispositions, il est abrégé, donc facile à retenir:

http://shrt.st/ui1

Mais si c'est un marxiste ou musulman - ou maçon ou rotarien ou féministe - ou même un chrétien (ou juif, ils semlent me vouloir bien dans ma personne, mais pas dans mon projet) qui l'a enlevé pour m'empêcher de faire connaître mes écrit, qu'il comprenne que j'ai marre de chez marre des salopards qui me font ça, et qui, derrière mon dos probablment prétendent en plus me rendre service, comme si je n'avais pas sû ce que j'étais en train de faire.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bibliothèque Buffon*
13-IV-2011

Oui, la Bibliothèque Buffon à Paris, pas un autre!

A modest proposal refused by intrigues, time after other ...

2011-04-09T04:49:00.000-07:00

Correspondence with the husband of the woman who writes under pen name Elena Maria Vidal.

Excuse me, did your wife, formerly my friend, block me? And if so, why is she still following my blogs?

The one important thing where I did bother her was about "shrt (dot) st (slash) ujx" (a link that has been signalled as abusive, which I still cannot post as a link, abusively enough!) and asking her to either do an edition herself or spreading the word. I wonder because I saw, under Christine Niles' status, comments directed at [initials and first names of Elena Maria Vidal].

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Hans-Georg, I honestly have no idea. I'm sorry that I can't be of more help.

I take it you are married to [Elena Maria], and if you have no idea, you would be in a better position to ask her than I whom it seems she has blocked.

[later:]

Christine Niles just unfriended me. [see below]
a) she attacked the Catholic blogosphere as including Calumny and Detraction
b) when I tried to tell her this anti-internet campaign in certain Church quarters blocked me from my living, she unfriended me. Would your wife possibly have had similar motives? Or is that guess too wild?

Mr. Lundahl, I am currently focused entirely on securing full-time employment, so I haven't been following either [Elena Maria's] or Mrs. Niles' posts closely.

You are focussed on securing full time employment?

a) do you totally rule out entrepreneurship on your own?
b) if not, would you take a try at printing as books or booklets and selling my work, as explained in the conditions on link I could not post as such? And it is blatantly irrelevant if you had followed your [your wife's] FB postings closely or not. My first missive here started with a request to simply ask her, even leaving her free to do the answering.

Mr. Lundahl, your cause would be better served if you took a far less antagonistic and demanding tone with people you've never met. If you have written works of merit that you would like to publish, I would strongly recommend you consider Lulu.com or one of the numerous other, new self-publication solutions available. Many new authors are experiencing success well beyond what they could otherwise expect via traditional publishers: http://is.gd/dtnTB3 I must now conclude this dialogue. Good luck and Godspeed to you, sir.

My dear, I would not be taking an antagonistic tone if there had not been loads of people who could well have used my self-publishing scheme for their own and - if they gain sufficiently - my profit, who nevertheless prefer foisting on me schemes incompatible with it.

The electronic version of my essays can be read for free, and I do not think they are inferior to an e-book. There are, however, people who will not touch internet, there are also people who like reading on paper on occasions when internet is inavailable. That is one area where my proposal - already made, I do not intend to withdraw it - comes in. For others and for me, financially. = 1
2) Another would be people who do themselves only read me online, but who think I merit support for being readable for free (Maecenas, et c). For me, financially.
3) A third would be people printing me and gaining money, but being themselves too poor to send me money. For them financially. That case would be morally incating for second category.

Point is, I have accomodated all three by the conditions I have given, I have been doing this for long - years, actually, and people who take your attitude have been less than supportive with getting categories 1 and 3 going, less than generous as category 2. Thus, I think one can by now have some sympathy for an attitude you brand as "antagonistic" and "demanding".

Especially as your position "securing time employment" seems to put you potentially in categories 1 or 3 rather than 2.

HGL

Oh, by category 1, I was rather describing their potential customer base than themselves, but smart as you are, I hope you got it.

And, no, what I ask has NOTHING, NADA to do with affirmative action of some kind because I am in the street. But I think the suspicion of your being guilty of such, if helping me to publish outside editing professionals, may have something to do with your rejection.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ84b-KdTV8

John H. McWhorter, who is speaking against affirmative action as it is now applied, is one of my black heroes. Since in 2005 I read his The Missing Spanish Creoles. I wrote both your wife and Christine Niles not to hesitate to comment about something that sucks - saying it sucks - by using comments section under the blogposts.

Christine Niles, when challenged if she thought me guilty of calumny, detraction or rash judgement assured me she had read none of my blogs - but she did not explicit which ones in Catholic blogosphere (in which there are hundreds) she thought failed her moral standards. And my problem when trying to spread word about my project is precisely people who have read nothing on my blogs. And still think them worth avoiding to read.

Mr. Lundahl, as stated in my previous message, I am unable to continue and must now conclude this dialogue. I wish you luck in your endevours.

I get the feeling - btw, since this is internet, take your time! Take up the concluded dialogue today or tomorrow or next week or after easter as you wish! - that your "disability" to answer is a question of being privy to either some info about me, that you are afraid would offend me, or some intrigue against my project, that you do not wish me to speak up against.

Funnily enough, this morning among the personnel of a homeless guys' coffee club, I met an informatician who wanted very much to know the obvious facts I have told over and over - that I have been a teacher but much longer either student or out-of-work before getting out-of-home, and, that I do my blogging from libraries. Usually I even sign each post with the name of the library where I wrote or finished it. Networking related to the fact that I contacted you?

I did not quote above letter to expose Elena Maria Vidal - I take her pen name, and the letter was to her husband - or him (I here post only the fact he is her husband) BUT to show a kind of attitude I have been having to deal with year after year since it became known in France that I write on internet.

Christine Niles has no pen name, she is known under her own name at her university. The status on which the unfriending was done was about "calumny, detraction, rash judgement" which according to her there was plenty of in the Catholic Blogsphere.

Since in St Nicolas de Chardonnet it had been unfairly preached against FB after it became known I am on it, I suspected she or the priest who had prompted her to post the status, had similar motives: to counteract me getting known.

So, I challenged her basically to check my blogs, see if there was any calumny on it, if yes, to condemn it in comments under the blog post in question, if no to clear me of suspicions.

Since she unfriended me I have no access to my own comments, her original status included a link to a passage of catechism, here are her other ones:

Christine a écrit :

« Hans, I have no earthly idea what you're talking about. »

[presumably I tried to explain]
Christine a écrit :

« Hans--There are hundreds of Catholic bloggers, and I have never read a single post from any of your blogs, so why you think I was targeting you in particular is beyond me. I didn't even have you remotely in mind. »

[As occurred to me: I the most obvious suspect of calumny in blogging - obvious suspect since my writings are obviously calumnied - anyway, Moslems would consider it calumny to compare Mohammed to Joseph Smith, as I have done or to raise obvious questions about Moslems actually hunting slaves themselves among black and Europeans and considering it righteous jihad: and Catholic clergy in France would be very eager to listen to them and not so eager to tell them they find no fault in my writings, especially since I do not join their attacks on the Ayesha marriage of Mohammed and advocate, to anger of secularists and feminists, a marital age lowered back to 14/12 from 18/18 limit current all over most of Europe. Even so, if she has not read me, whom has she read to tick her off on that note? My feeling is, she was passing on a message from some priest, and he did not care to either comment or clear me either, but went through her, as knowing we were friends on FB - yes, that info is public to all of her and all of mine friends, or was till she unfriended me. And us having been friends so long and her having read no single post of my blogs? It is not for lack of invitations, really!]
Christine a écrit :
« Time to revise my FB friends list... »

Which is where I lost access to my part of the conversation. Her parts came not only on her wall, but also as e-mail notification.

I take this again:

http://o-x.fr/s006 - short link to my profile, linking to my blogs;
http://shrt.st/ujx - --- to English version of proposal made
http://shrt.st/ui1 - --- to French version of proposal made.

As to "why not e-book?" see my answer above to husband of Elena Maria Vidal.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bibliothèque de Mouffetard
Paris V^e Arrondissement
April 9^th YooL 2011.

Holy Roman Empire explained for US, but we are heading back for Rome now, Pt III

2011-04-07T09:00:00.000-07:00

par Hans-Georg Lundahl, jeudi 7 avril 2011, 17:53

Part I is previous note, and in case you missed it, part II is on a status - it is a debate - but also safegurded on my blog of FB writings here:

http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2011/04/part-ii-more-on-guilds-than-on-holy.html

Now, in part I, I used the word Reichsunmittelbar, the noun of which is Reichsunmittelbarkeit, which - I used wikipedia - translates as Imperial Immediacy.

Historians have queried about how such a thing could make sense, I gather from the article. Nuremberg and Munich are both in Bavaria. Munich is capital of the Duchy, later Kingdom. Nuremberg is not capital of the Duchy or Kingdom. Guess which of them was, under the HRE (before the Duchy became a Kingdom), Reichsunmittelbare Stadt or Reichsstadt? If you answer Munich, supposing it makes sense that Munich is directly under Empire but Nuremberg under Munich, you have got it all wrong. Of course, in a sense, Bavaria being directly under the Empire and Munich being capital of Bavaria, Munich was directly under the Empire too, but only as part of Bavaria. Nuremberg was Immediately under the Empire in its own right. Taking the Washington D.C. parallel will serve us again, I will briefly quote from Wikipedia:

The District is no longer 100 square miles (260 km2) due to the retrocession of the southern portion of the District back to the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1846. The District's current area consists only of territory ceded by the state of Maryland. Washington is therefore surrounded by the states of Maryland to the southeast, northeast, and northwest and Virginia to the southwest.

Territory ceded is one key-word. So is territory retroceded. Nuremberg was made imperially immediate by cession from Duchy of Bavaria, finalised in 1219, by Frederick II the Stauffer (what an omen for its XXth C. history: as I was arguing with an anti-Monarchist, for each Frederick the Stauffer or Vlad the Impaler or similar, there is one dozen or at least half a dozen good Habsburgs or Wittenbergs - you know Vlad's hoby, Frederick's was making condemned criminals eat like some ten or twenty together and then cutting one or two up each half hour to study digestion like a "why can't they serve science, since they couldn't serve society" kind of cynicism: but in the XIX^th C. there were people among German professors of History whothought him a cool guy and who regarded the Habsburgs as backward or well-meaning retards or something). It was retroceded Sept 8 1806. When I say the cession was finalised in 1219, I mean emperors had already been looking well at it since XI^th C. - archeologists think the royal court buildings of St Egidius and St James are early, and in 1065 it is a district of its own, by decree of Emperor Henry IV. Conrad III gives it as a fief to the family of Nether Austrian nobles Raabs, and when the last of them dies withoutmale heirs ... anyway, the point is that the Emperor made Bavaria cede Nuremberg because he wanted his palace in Nuremberg. It was part time Imperial Residence. There were pretty many of them. And that was true of late Roman era too. Constantinople, Ravenna, Vienna (yes, for Marcus Aurelius, and yes, Vienna is that old: it might have become a Roman oppidum about the same year Our Lady was born) ... in the Holy Roman Empire of Germanic nation this was systematic. Magdeburg had been an imperial palace under Otto I, back in the Xth C. And Emperors enjoying such power over states - at least when possessing a part of it personally - was a sign that the Empire was very really an Empire.

Its retrocession to Bavaria was as said during the Napoleonic wars. The newfounded Kingdom of Bavaria - former Duchy, added on to Palatinate (as you may guess it was called that originally due to another Imperial Residence, and Regensburg was where Emperor Arnulf of Carinthia took submission of Bohemian royal heirs in person) and parts of Swabia and Franconia - paid a debt. During Middle Ages a man could not lose his freedom due to a debt of money, neither could a country, but Napoleonic era was pretty obviously more capitalistic or commercial in ethos.

This brings us to another change made during Napolenic wars: Salzburg was no longer a Bishopric and Quedlinburg no longer a nunnery immediately under the Empire. How come there ever where such? They are as absent from US, as Chicago was from HRE! Could it have Roman precedents?

Actually yes. There was a time when Legions were drawing back to Rome from the periphery, when stranded troops, so to speak, had to manage on their own. In Britain we talk of Sub-Roman Britain, where King Arthur was not yet by any means English. In France we have Syagrius, last man in place stranded between Visigoths and Burgundians, facing Atilla with Huns and their Ostrogoth allies, himself allied to the Bretons of Bretagne, who fled from Britain (- because Arthur had already failed, perhaps? - Arthurian Chronology is not very clear!) but when he died, his successor was no officer, but a bishop. Even when he was around, St Genevieve had been as good as a one woman garrison of Paris, now St Remigius took over. He did not hand over Paris to Clovis until he could baptise him in Reims first. Paris resisting a Pagan takeover was the foundingstone of the future HRE.

A city now called Mautern was in Roman timas Favianis. Its non-military garrison chief was St Severin. He was the greatest defender of Rhaetia Secunda, as long as it could be defended.

So, yes, this was a Roman thing too. I was going to cite the status of Athens as a free city under Trajan when talking about Nuremberg, but somehow it feels more apposite to mention it with Spiritual Principalities of the Empire, which the not holy Empire of Napoleon did away with. After all, philosophy and arts are some kind of spirituality even in themselves, when Pagans do not attach them to the true religion. And they were Trajan's motives.

Some Orthodox have made some heavy weather about Catholic bishops of Rome and Salzburg not being content with humility of purely spiritual power, but they too have had rulers over territories who were spiritual men. Can one mention Mount Athos? At least one ought to mention Montenegro. But here endeth part III/HGL

Part II, more on Guilds than on Holy Roman Empire

2011-04-07T05:46:00.000-07:00

PFH (status and comment):

reminds everyone, Rousseau was the first distributism, if that is not so, tell me how he differed or how distributism is not anti-God

don't bother, we all know it is

Distributism is FOR boundaries between properties, Rousseau is AGAINST them. If you had not said "reminds everyone", ... wait - is this an April Fools joke? [not so, unfortunately]

CWK:

Distributism doesn't benefit people, it just puts price controls on the cost of labor, and that's nothing more than socialism. Inmho.

"price controls on the cost of labor"?

Well, Catholic states have been all for price controls, both for this and for other costs.

"different people have work skills that allow them to work at jobs that pay a lot higher wage than a person who is a low wage worker working for minimin wage at Mc Donald's."

Distributism might consider forbidding McDonald restaurants. = Oblige local owners (yes, franchising is a pretty distributist thing as far as it goes) to better working conditions and wages. Anyway, it is not the absolute skills that allow McDo workers no better job than at McDo, but someone's estimation of relative skills.

But that would not be like seizing the McDo restaurants for government, it would be like obliging them to do a decent thing for employees and for customers. The franchising central entity might also be forbidden to tax restaurants for use of McDo insignia.

BUT, a goldmsmith should be better paid than a blacksmith. A blacksmith better than a cobbler. And a cobbler handsewing shoes should be better paid than people using the McKay machine marketed by a Yankee during War between the States.

Not meaning any of the three should be employees, primarily. This is not utopia in the sense of has never been, will never be. This is backward, and some of us are proud of it.

CWK:

Hans-Georg Lundahl "Well, Catholic states have been all for price controls, both for this and for other costs." Prove it

[commenting on sth said by codebater on my side:] ‎"Do not get me wrong, I do not think you would agree, but I take a certain pride in unity of the comparison.
As for the second part, if we are using the same definition and idea of “price control,” than I humbly submit that your definition of socialism is too broad. Would you consider price control by regulatory guilds, as found in Medieval Christendom, to socialistic?" There's a difference between collective negotiations and price controls, although Guilds can price themselves so high that they're no longer usable, when that happens, people start to think about how they can do without or circumvent whatever service the guilds offer.

"Guilds can price themselves so high that they're no longer usable, when that happens, people start to think about how they can do without or circumvent whatever service the guilds offer." - When that happened the city state considered the guild to have broken contract and itself free to allow free masters (masters outside the guild) to trade in the city. Same thing if quality was lowered or otherwise considered insufficient. Which is proof of the proposition you wanted proven.

How is it proof? By the fact that according to contract between guild and city state normally - contrasting with the case in point - only the masters of the guild were allowed to establish themselves in the city. Goods from outside were taxed by tolls, in order to protect work opportunities / enterprise opportunities within each city.

In my answer to C[WK], above, I mentioned "city-states". I felt this calls for clarification. So I wrote this note (on my other profile): (link to FB here replaced by link to Pt I)

http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2011/04/explaining-holy-roman-empire-in-terms.html

PFH:

"catholics states have always had price controls" [sic!]
rubbish!

restraints on trade are in direct violation of the magna carta.

about the boundaries around property issue; in the first place, i was comparing the two in their phi...losophy, not so much in their politics. The philosophy, in ether case is, "we were all pretty much good, with some exceptions, then some institution came out and now we are mostly selfish and everything is bad". In the one case, that institution was private property, in the other case, that institution was the illusive "capitalism" never defined of coarse, as definitions are pre-romanticism and therefore not traditionalist or groovy enough for distributists who are all about feelings, never doctrine.

That said, you have yet to give an argument for that arrangement other then that it is not communism and people used to do something like it....

About a "society of small owners" why should people be made to own who would rather not?

Because you put proffits ahead of human welfare

P[FH], on April 3 I wrote - and now I copy-paste: "Well, Catholic states have been all for price controls, both for this and for other costs." ‎5 hours ago you quoted me as saying - now it is your quote that I copy-paste: "catholics states have always had price controls" [sic!]

Lesson, when you quote on internet, use copy-paste to ensure exact quote. The quote supposedly from me that you wrote is indeed rubbish, but it is as quoted by you, not from me. I never use the phrase "have always been for", I used the phrase "have been all for"="not at all against".

On his comparison between Rousseau and Chesterton: ‎"The philosophy, in ether case is, 'we were all pretty much good, with some exceptions, then some institution came out and now we are mostly selfish and everything is bad'."

Not so. Not only is there a vast philosophical leap between positing a pre-property society destroyed by private property and recording a pre-Capitalist society destroyed by Capitalism, Chesterton is not saying that "now we are mostly selfish", but that selfish people by owning too much are empowered to destroy too much for more decent people.

"restraints on trade are in direct violation of the magna carta."

‎1) It remained in function as law for a very short period of time, a Pope absolved King John Lackland from the oath and signature thereof.
‎2) You have not quoted the exact phrase in which "restraints on trade" are forbidden by it.
‎3) Even if they were, I very much doubt if people back then would have regarded price control as you regard it, i e as "restraints on trade".

You are as bad when attributing positions to Chesterton as when attributing them to me. "In the one case, that institution was private property, in the other case, that institution was the illusive 'capitalism' never defined of coarse," - But he DID define it. He defined it as the kind of economy in which most of the capital is owned by a minority of the population and handed out to the rest mainly as wages to people who cannot dream of owning the company themselves.

Contrast Guilds, in which regulations limited number of employees, in which therefore each company being small the needs of the community of each branch was served by a pretty big number of companies, meaning that a pretty large part of the population were owning their companies. And since, under the guilds, they had previously been employees, known back then as journeymen, that meant employees had a hope of becoming owners if getting really good at the work.

You may argue that some branches are not capitalist but guild system in this distinction: I agree, so did Chesterton. And what is more, he never said everything was bad. He said inns were still good, but were better before brewery got big capitalist. He wanted to keep inns and return brewing to the guild system. Any microbrewery that opens is a boon to Chesterton.

"as definitions are pre-romanticism and therefore not traditionalist or groovy enough for distributists who are all about feelings, never doctrine." - Sorry, but your rudeness beats your own record of ignorance! First of all, if anything is about feelings and not about doctrine, it is not romanticism but enlightenment. Voltaire beats Ruskin any day in sentimental meandering without worrying about facts - and so do you.

As a second I was going to say it was wrong to put Ruskin in the same bag as .... Coleridge? .... because both are labelled Romantics. But by naming Ruskin I already said it.

‎"About a 'society of small owners' why should people be made to own who would rather not?" - Why indeed? And why do you presume that most non-owners would rather not own? Indeed, the kind of stress owners are put through in debts incurred before getting owners (inheritance duty does something to keep indebtment alive among owners), and by competition about the bankers' good-will and confidence, is discouraging enough, but that is one reason Distributists hate usury - which is clearly a very long-standing Church Teaching! - and no indication they would also hate being owners if that were feasible without mortgages. As was the case under guild system.

"The capitalist believes a firm's purpose is to serve the customer and that alone ought keep him afloat. The distributist believes the firms should be made to stay afloat for its own profits." - The Distributist believes that the fewer firms there are, the fewer people are in a real position to be customers. How many non-owning customers now are so only through dole from state or from consummation loans?

Yes, any one branch, a reduction of firms with a cheapening of production by use of machinery will serve the customers who are owners or employees in all the other branches, but if it happens in branch after branch, the mathematics are a bit different for that. Since it lowers considerably the number of real owners of productive property.

If Capitalism were so convenient for a Catholic life, how come so many of them donate to PP? See second quote on FB collected on this blog of mine:

http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2010/05/i-have-posted-quotes-on-fb.html

Here closeth part II, the debate on guilds. As far as blog message is concerned. Further comments on same status will go to comment parts of this blog post. God willing and wheather permitting./HGL

Explaining Holy Roman Empire in terms of comparing to US. - Pt I

2011-04-07T05:11:00.000-07:00

par Hans-Georg Lundahl, jeudi 7 avril 2011, 13:19

I used the word "city-states" about the local authorities who dealt with guilds and who could put some kinds of pressure on them for, say, price regulation. And it occurred, who ever in the US thinks of Munich or of Lubeck as city-states? When you read in your school manuals that these were important German cities, what does this suggest? NY? LA? Chicago?

No Chicago in Holy Roman Empire.

One thing is for sure, you can rule Chicago out. In 1806 Napoleon ended the traditional form of the HRE of Germanic nation. Austrian Empire is one immediate legitimate successor state, German Union was pretty soon another, but changes were made. HRE of Germanic Nation properly known so in history was the era between Charlemagne and 1806. And in Germany that was before the Industrial Revolution. A city where bulls arrive from all over the place on trainloads, and leave as corned beef in Tin Cans every day to all over the world was basically unthinkable in HRE.

More than one Washington D.C.

But there is another big difference between Chicago and a city that was Reichsunmittelbar - which nearly all important and many less important cities were. Chicago is local authorities in the sense it is a local department of Illinois which is a state of US. Whether or not Illinois can be considered a sovereign state is beside the point, it has at least a legislature, and therefore a legislation other than neighbouring states. So had Lubeck. So had Cologne or Francfurt. They had a status like the one City State of US: Washington DC. It is not part of a State but directly under the Union. The phrase word Reichsunmittelbar means "directly under the empire" or "directly under the realm".(Translated as Imperial Immediacy).

Magdeburg and Lübeck

Magdeburg long had this status too, but lost it. Before that, the Constitution of Magdeburg - Magdeburger Stadtrechte - was model for city states all over the North East, outside the Empire, where German cities connected to mission were protected, originally, against Pagan sackers and captive hunters (for slavery or some places even human sacrifice) by Ensiferi and Teutonic Knights (Riga was at one time sacked by them - when they were in conflict with its Archbishop and the Pope and posing obstacles to the baptism of Gedimynas of Lithuania). For Hanseatic league, it is more often the Constitution of Lübeck - Lübsches Recht - that stands model. And Riga, Reval and Memel, though in the land of the Teutonic and Ensifer Orders followed Lübsches Recht.

I think this means you see a certain point about calling "local authorities" in Lübeck or Cologne or Nuremberg (Munich was not Reichsunmittelbar, but under Duchy of Bavaria) "local authorities": in US this gets you another notion than back then and there.

States developing out of states.

The United States also has states like Virginia or Kentucky and Tennessee or Maryland. Now, Kentucky and West Virginia were originally parts of Province of Virginia, Tennessee of North Carolina. Similarily, both Palatinate and Austria were originally parts of Bavaria, and Savoy of Burgundian Kingdom which came to the HRE in 1032. When Dauphiné of this Kingdom came under France in 1349, Emperor Karl IV made the Savoy Reichsunmittelbar in 1361, and its Count was named Reichsvikar for the old Burgundian territory - a kind of steward for the Kings of Germany/Roman Emperors between death of one and lection of next over all of the Kingdom of Arelate (such stewards were only over large territories, not over the Empire as a whole), even if the loss of Dauphiné restricted the practical authority to Savoy, and some added counties like Geneva county excepting the city (1401) and Nice County including the city (1388). The relations between France and Germany in the Middle Ages and up to Louis XIV even further over three wars started or backed by Germans no longer in the old Empire (1870, when Bismarck tricked his Prussian King into a war by forging the contents of a telegram, 1914, when Berlin flouted Belgian neutrality, possibly 1939 if the Polish soldiers attacking Danzig were really Germans in disguise, but even if not, Hitler had shown bad faith in Austria and Bohemia in 1938) - these German French Relations were a bit like the differends between US and Mexico over 19th C. Florida, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California la Alta ... but Alsace/Elsass and Lorraine/Lothringen changed hands more than once. Over centuries one or other of the two could not keep the upper hand permanently.

Bavaria, Palatinate, Austria

The Duke of Bavaria - very early a Wittenberg - was an elector, one of the men entitled to chose a new King of Germany and Roman Emperor at the death of previous one: but at Reformation a part called Palatinate (Pfalz) was divided from it and became a Protestant elector, also of Wittenberg family. The Palatinate counts gave rise to two royal families: the Pfalz dynasty in Sweden with Charles X Gustavus (who beat the Poles and the Polish Wasas renounced their claim to the Swedish throne, plus lands previously under Ensifer order taken by Wasas), his son Charles XI, his grandchildren Charles XII (our last great warrior king, except Charles XIV John, a k a Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte, but he succeeded an usurper)and reigning queen Ulrika Eleonora whose husband Frederick I have occasion to the quip about the Swedish clock moving from 12 to 1; and their relatives who reconverted to Catholicism when becoming Dukes, later, after 1806 Kings of Bavaria.

Another county had been cut off Bavaria much earlier, when Magyars were still heathen, the Ostmark, which later was raised to a status of Duchy of Austria - not all of today's Austria but Vienna with surrounding Nether Austria and neighbouring Upper Austria. Its best rulers were perhaps the Babenbergs - mostly called Leopold, one of which was a saint, after them came the King of Bohemia, and when he rebelled about not being elected when a poor count of Habsburg was, this Habsburg who was a very pious man and had never dreamt about being elected got both Bohemia and Austria as damages for rebellion of Ottokar.

Bohemia and Hawaii

There is a striking feature of the HRE that one could have a position in it and at same time rule people outside it. But the Kingdom of Bohemia was not a real example of this. Back in the Tenth Century both Bohemia and Moravia though already existing as states, applied for membership so to speak. That is, like Hawaii for the US, their rulers submitted to the larger state that spoke another and larger language and were incorporated. This did not mean, in either case that the old language was abandnoned, but in both cases the larger language was imported. There were German speakers in Prague and Sudeten from Tenth Century to the Twentieth. How is that for fairness in Woodrow Wilson, who supported Czech nationalists who said only Czech must be spoken there? Hitler may have been a jerk for upsetting the peace of Woodrow Wilson, and he certainly was breaking promises made to the allies when he did so. But the situation of these Germans makes it understandable that some looked at Hitler as a hero in 1938. Imagine Hawaian nationalists claiming to expel everyone from Hawaii who speaks no Hawaian and confiscate his property? Or Welsh nationalists wanting to expel all whose mother tongue is English, unless they learn Welsh? That is about the absurdity these men were submitted to. Not because all Czechs are jerks, not because U S Americans voting for Woodrow Wilson were jerks, but Woodrow Wilson himself was a jerk. He was a freemason. And his citizens knew too little of Europe to protest against it. I do sympathise with Americans who do not want to make as bad a show with the Muslims, but when I read an American writing about Sarah Palin - who has at least decent family values and is decent in US matters where US will be setting an example one way or the other - that she knows nothing about Foreign Policy who thereupon implies he knows sufficiently about European History between Wilson and Franco to sum up all fascists in this or that fad Mussolini embraced for some while, I feel knowing little about Old Continents is pretty endemic in US. I will return to this, when asking why HRE and later Austrian Empires were wiped off the map.

Constitution of member states monarchic in HRE

Typically, unlike US, member states so to speak of the HRE were hereditary monarchies. Republics typically were city-states as the Reichsunmittelbare Städte we started this discussion with.

Other states typically were Duchies, Counties, and in one case one Kingdom, Bohemia. Bavaria and Saxony only became Kingdoms after 1806. Prussia was a self-proclaimed Kingdom but outside borders of HRE. As Hungaria for the other great dynasty, for the Habsburgs: but Hungary got its royal status from a Pope giving it to St Stephen. And counties were more like states than like shires. Difference between a duchy and a county? When summoned to war, the army of a duchy was led by a duke, roughly corresponding to a general, but the army of a county by a count (graf), roughly equivalent to a vice-general.

Rural republics featuring Secession: Switzerland, CSA

So, what about rural Republics? Yes, there were. Obwalden, Nidwalden, Uri and Schwyz were such. But none of them were Reichsunmittelbar. They were under Habsburgs, and if the Habsburg in Vienna was no bad guy, his representative over there, a certain Gessler was. William Tell led a rising against him after he had toyed around too much with his Christian conscience. These four Waldstätte - literally forest shires, thus smaller than what counties were in HRE - were the first secessionist states of what in 1648 became Confederatio Helvetica. Yes, the CSA in relation to the Union was a blueprint of Switzerland in relation to the Empire. Except that CSA was beaten, CF was not. Actually these very four cantons were to secede once again in 1847, attempting not full sovereignty but more autonomy than CF Protestant anticlericals in Bern and Zurich wanted to allow them. The Sonderbund of 1847 failed. I was discussing HRE yestarday with a man who claimed monarchy was mostly corrupt - among other things he said most Kings in OT were idolaters or tolerant of Idolatry, which was true enough or Jeroboam, Ahab, Jehu and others in the North Kingdom, but false in the Kingdom of Judah, where only three Kings were bad enough not to figure on the kosher version of Our Lord's genealogy (the one in Saint Matthew, according to principle "unjust ancestor does not count as ancestor"). He also asked whether "accountability to the people" existed there. Obviously the people of Schwyz, Uri, Obwalden and Nidwalden could demand more accountability from the power when William Tell rose against Gessler in full HRE, than when Sonderbund of 1847 failed to rise against anticlericals in central government of Bern, Confederatio Helvetica. And as obviously the lessened real accountability to the people had something to do with Bern Government having better arms than Gessler had. As to formalised "non-violent accountability to the people", as on same discussion I said, has not saved people from school compulsion, from psychiatry, from abortion and contraception funded by the fisc, or - as the example of 1847 shows - from anticlerical outbreaks of persecution against Jesuits and Franciscans.

Did rural republics exist elsewhere? Depends a bit on what era and what level. Under Charlemagne all Empire - France too - was divided into Counties led by Counts nominated by the Emperor, but under the counts you had rural republics comprising all free-men. Know what, here is another parallel: under Charlemagne and under George Washington there were slaves. Under Franz 1806 there were no longer slaves nor are there under present administration of US. Unless you count the victims of Child Welfare, of Psychiatry, of School Compulsion, or the employees of Industrial Corporations. Which were non-extant under Emperor Franz in 1806.

Know what - this is long, I will try to publish this as the first part. A second part will be quotes from a discussion./HGL

PS: And yes, one reason for breaking off is that I am as yet not sure of extent how much the rural republics under Charlemagne survived outside the Waldstätte/wood cantons.

Fifteen visits from Iran this week ...

2011-04-06T03:47:00.000-07:00

... what a coincidence, there is a lot of Irani readers on some other blogs too!

Argument with an Atheist presented on ...

2011-03-17T08:53:00.001-07:00

My New Blog, here is the message:

http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2011/03/question-of-contemporary-evidence.html

Terre plate dans l'Évangile? Que nenni!

2011-02-26T10:38:00.000-08:00

par Hans-Georg Lundahl, samedi 26 février 2011, 13:24

C'est exprimé un musulman buccailliste ainsi:

Ceci se produit durant la tentation de Jésus par Satan, le verset dit que Satan a pris Jésus jusqu'à une très haute montagne et lui montra tous les royaumes de la terre. Cette mentalité montre que l'auteur a cru que la terre était plate, parce que l'auteur a cru qu'en allant très haut sur terre, telle qu'une montagne, vous pouvez voir tous les royaumes de la terre, et vous verrez toute la terre ! Nous savons tous que ce n'est pas possible, ni vrai, même un vaisseau spatial qui va dans l'espace,même au-dessus de la terre ne sont pas en mesure d'afficher toute la planète à la fois! Alors comment voir toute la planète depuis une montagne?

L'auteur présume que la terre était plate, un carré, qui est la seule façon dont on pourrait effectivement aller à un point très élevée et afficher toute la surface du sol, possible que si toute la surface est plate!

Où ça? ICI (cliquer)*

Magnifique.

D'abord: qui est ce qui montre ça à Notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ? Satan. Est-il connu pour montrer les choses telles qu'elles sont? Non. Dans le jardin d'Eden il n'a pas dit la vérité à Ève, sur cette montagne - réel ou son illusion, n'importe! - il ne montre pas la vérité. Il montre un modèle, il montre dans une forme proche de la télévision, mais par pouvoir spirituel, il ne montre pas par les seuls moyens optiques. L'objet de Satan n'était pas d'induire notre Seigneur dans une erreur sur la forme de la terre mais dans une erreur sur le pouvoir. Et là encore Notre Seigneur n'a pas été trompé.**

Ensuite: pour les Catholiques comme pour les Orthodoxes, les Pères de l'Église sont l'interprétation obligatoire de l'Évangile comme de la Torah, comme des psaumes, commes des écrits que les Musulmans ignorent même. Or, des Pères de l'Église ont accepté bien avant la naissance de Mahomet que la terre est une globe. St Basile le grand dans son Exaëméron se trouve devant le problème: puisque la terre est ronde et le soleil ne peut être aux deux côtés de la terre au même temps, comment doit-on interpréter les soirs et les matins des jours de la création? Il répond - sa réponse a sa valeur à partir du quatrième jour que Dieu créa le Soleil au moins - que les jours et nuits sont des jours et des nuits au-dessus du Paradis Terrestre ou peut-être au-dessus de Jérusalem et Bethléem. Il y avait donc quelque part une limite entre les dates - le soleil continue et pour lui c'est toujours le même jour mais sur terre tel midi là est le soir d'un jour aux Hébrides (je prends juste un exemple, je ne suis pas en train de lire Exaëméron, mais l'explication est celle-ci, car il a été resumé par St Thomas dans la Somme Théologique) et un peux plus loins c'est le matin du jour suivant en Chine. Il vivait au quatrième siècle après Notre Seigneur, donc trois siècles avant Mahomet. Et trois siècles encore avant Notre Seigneur Érathosthène avait déjà calculé de l'angle entre le midi à Caire et Assouan la taille environnente de l'Équateur.

Non, si le Quran affirme la rondeur de la terre, c'est bien, mais ni un miracle, ni un devant par rapport à la Bible.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Mouffetard/Paris V
26-II-2011

*En plus le Musulman a cité un chapître autre que le vrai. C'est Matthieu 4:8-9 qu'il cite. Pas le chapître 3.

**Voir le verset dix. Quand aux implications terre-plattistes, je cite encore le commentaire de Douay-Rheims Bible Online pour le verset:

"shewed him"... That is, pointed out to him where each kingdom lay; and set forth in words what was most glorious and admirable in each of them. Or also set before his eyes, as it were in a large map, a lively representation of all those kingdoms.

Un article en réfutation de Buccaille cite aussi que celui-ci aurait dit que Mahomet serait conscient que la lune reflète la lumière du soleil - mais ceci ne semble en rien une découverte moderne. Les réflections (oui, ha ha) sur la rélation entre pouvoirs impérial et papal montre cette conscience bien en chrétienneté du moyen age, pas des lecteurs avides du Quran du tout. C'est bien évident si on regarde les phases de la lune, je crois que c'était connu déjà par Aristote. Et ce n'est pas nié dans la Bible. Item pour le cycle des eaux.

"l'explication est celle-ci, car il a été resumé par St Thomas dans la Somme Théologique" - je viens de regarder Q 70 en ligne en espagnol. Suis-je juste trop fatigué, est-ce une autre question, ou est-ce qu'il s'agit des notes en bas de page? Je ne la trouve pas.

Je l'ai trouvé.

St Augustin d'Hippone De Genesi ad Litteram livre I chapîtres X § 20 - XII § 25 aborde le problème si la lumière créée au début ait fait la rotation autour de la terre comme aujourd'hui le soleil, et aussi où il faisait jour et nuit les temps si appelés par l'auteur de la Genèse. Il se refère à un "on a proposé" que la note du rédacteur identifie à St Basile de Césarée, In Hexaméron VI, 2, "lu par Augustin dans la traduction d'Eusthatius".

Desclée de Brouwer, 1972, Bibl. Augustinienne, Œvres de St Augustin, 48, septième série:

La Genèse au Sens Litéral en Douze Livres, (I - VII), pp. 106/107 - 114/115 (doubles pages, latin français) ET les pages 588 - 590.

Pie XII aurait arreté les tuéries de Juifs s'il avait parlé?

2011-02-24T10:42:00.001-08:00

Quelle sornette!

St Pie X n'a pas pu arreter les tuéries de Catholiques en France - un pays au temps de Clémenceau moins sécularisé et moins Protestant que l'Allemagne de l'époque d'Hitler. Pas très vite.

Le clergé français a suffi pour que Maréchal Pétain arrête de déporter les Juifs volontairement. Après Vel d'Hiv, il était prisonnier, il s'en est plaint en 1944 à Paris.

HGL

Odinn - Åsa Haraldsdottir of Agder - St Olaf, Rex Perpetuus Norvegiae

2011-02-05T11:38:00.000-08:00

par Hans-Georg Lundahl, samedi 5 février 2011, 20:37

Odinn was the far off ancestor of Åsa Haraldsdottir of Agder whose son was grandfather of Harald Hairfair, first King of Norway, from whom descends Olaf Digre, whose relics and other intercession (several times for a sinful and reckless brother) proved him a saint. Another saint, a bishop, decreed that from then on Kings of Norway should not rule in their own name, but as vassals of Saint Olaf, Rex Perpetuus Norvegiae.

Perpetual King of Norway, that is.

Dear saint Olaf, pray for our lands, pray for those who labour under the burden of sinful ancestors, and for conversions of such who refuse to give up false religions founded by such, whether Odinn or Mohammed!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bibliothèque publique d'Information
5 - II - 2011

Dear Saint Agatha, thank you for that day thirteen years ago!

Debating Richard Aleman and two others on food line ups for the poor

2011-02-05T10:51:00.001-08:00

Richard Aleman:

Next article for Gilbert Magazine: The Banishment of Agapē

Los Angeles City Councilwoman Jan Perry: “Feeding people on the street is not hygienic, it's not sanitary, it's not good for their health.”
Starving isn't good for their health, Ms. Perry.

Have you considered one possibility: one can feed them/us otherwise than "on the street"?

BD:

No, but you see, if they starve, they go away and people like Ms Perry don't have to look at them

Richard Aleman:

Hans, organizations do offer indoor food sharing but it does not reach many urban poor who are often in other parts of the city. Outreach programs help access the poor and also establish rapport with them. This is a tool local governments could use to decrease homelessness and poverty. Working with these groups has been beneficial in places like Fort Myers, where gov't works with local food banks (instead of working against them).
That's exactly right, Brian.

France is like Fort Myers. It has its ups, it has its downs.

AA:

Since when is street food too dangerous for the public? It's okay for a man to sell hotdogs out of a cart, shouldn't a soup line be okay?

Richard Aleman:

I'm wrapping up my article - but briefly, I've researched restrictions popping up all over the U.S.A. Miami, Orlando, Denver, Cleveland, Atlanta, Myrtle Beach, Vegas, Nashville, and many others.

In Winter, Soupe de St Eustache is usually an option for good food. Even so, once I saw a fist-fight, once I got insulted by a Slav I did not know. Several times I see drunk men and each time a lot of waste plastic is not being thrown away in bins by us ourselves.

AA, hotdog sellers usually do not deal with 400 people during 1 h, and most of their customers do not know each other, do not fight each other, are not drunk when trying to buy a hot dog, or if so, at least have style for being drunk.

Richard Aleman:

Hans, I read complaints about trash. The solution: the city could provide more trash bins.

No, no, no.

The "customers" may have ten trash bins before them, some won't use them.

BD:

Or just have an incentive program for each bowl, whatever you turn in you get $0.10 or something. That will get picked up quick.

It is for some a question of fatigue, for others a question of drunkenness ... and not all will even get to the 10 c either. Besides if in plastic that would be just another expense of it all.

I use trash bins, but only about nine times out of ten. And i am one of the sober ones.

AA:

I was surprised to find out that a county down the coast also has made it illegal to 'panhandle'. Their ordinance does say that standing/sitting still and holding a sign doesn't count, but they still crackdown on people for it. We get calls as well, which the deputies normally handle by checking warrants, cautioning them about getting in dangerous traffic, and offering a ride to our Rescue Mission.

Hans-Georg - we've got different expectations here about hospitality and the poor. There are reasons that people fight. Customers 'have style'? I've done charity, and I've done food service - paying customers definitely aren't 'better people' - some of the worst I've met were ordering and paying.

Sitting/standing still with sign doesn't count? God Bless them for that law! Better than France!

Here that is two months prison (in theory) "agressive" - with dog or walking after - three months.

And when two people start pushing each other on that trottoir - sidewalk - some passers by are shoved as well.

Some paying customers may stink, but in a hotdog business there are often not five of them at eight o clock each evening.

"stink" as far as behaviour is concerned, I am not talking about smell.

AA:

Never been to an American city, eh? ;-)

Not since age nine.

My favourite hospitality is the one given me by a particular.

BD:

if begging gets you 2-3 months in prison, why can't France deal with the Gypsies? On top of what ever punishments lying and conning and stealing get you.

BD, notice the "in theory". Application is sporadic. Police and guards prefer just telling you to go.

Still - AA: I would be surprised if 5 people at eight o'clock returned evening after evening and behaved badly. At three o' clock weekend mornings, that is another matter.

Or even eleven o'clock, some evenings.

I repeat: my favourite charity is the one given by particulars.

And of course, the punishments for begging, and the punishments for ordering others to beg, DO increase the lies and cons. Selling homeless papers over price, collecting for a center for the handicapped ... two cons gipsies do here in Paris.

‎"organizations do offer indoor food sharing but it does not reach many urban poor who are often in other parts of the city."

Same goes for food distributions

BD:

Yep, they are vile. And the stupid American tourists think they are for real and support their lifestyle. Which only makes sure they will teach the immoral way of life to their kids.

AA:

Hans-Georg - I managed an upscale espresso bar for a few years in a major American city. We had dozens of the most obnoxious people I've ever met who returned multiple times a day to demand, berate, belittle, scream, whine, throw tantrums and threaten. Baby wants candy, and they want it now.

I grew up in a ministry family as well (who worked in the US, Senegal, Nigeria, Togo, Benin, France, Switzerland, Belgium, Cameroun, UK, and else.) Our experience is that most of the poor are quite grateful for help *if* they are treated with dignity. Yes, we ran across some 'stinkers' - but that sort of behavior often comes from previous trauma, substance abuse, or even demonic oppression. If the men are fighting on the street because they are homeless, hungry, and drunk - odds are that the *drunk* part is related to the violence, and not the other two conditions. There are 'helps' for all of those conditions as well - and we should have those resources available to those who have abuse, trauma, mental/emotional illness, or spiritual oppression. And, of course, we have Christ's commands to us regardless of the condition of the fields, or what we think of the work.

@ BD: Vile? No.

I do give money when gipsies beg honestly, when I have some coins left I have no use for.

@ AA: "dozens of the most obnoxious people I've ever met who returned multiple times a day to demand, berate, belittle, scream, whine, throw tantrums and threaten"

- you have seen them, then, each time. The other customers have not. Except that one time.

In a food queue the stinkers turn up at same time.

"Our experience is that most of the poor are quite grateful for help *if* they are treated with dignity."

Yes. MOST. And one question of dignity with me is trying to avoid those other few as often as possible.

"Yes, we ran across some 'stinkers' - but that sort of behavior often comes from previous trauma, substance abuse, or even demonic oppression."

No doubt. But the explanations do not make their company pleasant for the other ones who eat while getting ulcers from listening.

‎"There are 'helps' for all of those conditions as well - and we should have those resources available to those who have abuse, trauma, mental/emotional illness, or spiritual oppression."

Even if not wanted?

That will get the distribution feared and avoided by some.

‎"And, of course, we have Christ's commands to us regardless of the condition of the fields, or what we think of the work."

The command is to feed the poor. Not necessarily to do so on the street at a fixed hour.

Indeed, that may have been part of Pharisaic hypocrisy.

AA:

Yes, the other customers do that in front of, and to each other. Sometimes the police have to be called. Nothing like watching two wealthy women fight over a 'rice krispy treat'. I suppose it changes one's views. (Though, I was always taught 'poor folks have poor ways, and rich folks damn mean ones' - so I was never surprised.)

As for mental illness on the street - I cannot speak for your jurisdiction, but that used to not be the case here in the USA. As part of the cultural shift of the 60s-70s along with the Sexual Revolution there also came the dismantling of the traditional helps for those who were disturbed. That was seen as 'limiting their rights', however, and the solution was that the mentally ill (and demonic possessed) were simply dumped on our streets. I don't know if France came to it the same way, or if it goes further back to the Revolution. But here - that is part of the larger problem. However, especially in our present economy, the great bulk of the homeless are *not* dealing with anything more than the trauma of loosing their livelihood and property, being sick, and the stresses related to keeping themselves and their families together.

But a line up is not a question of how the majority behave or how the mean behaviour is: it is a question of how the worst behave.

And how about not just testing the food next time, by eating same before or after, but taking turns eating during the line up to feel what it is like to eat when that happens. Not one evening, when you may be lucky, but evenings of one week on a row.

Mornings, the personnel of one breakfast do eat with us. But that is one breakfast a week. And breakfasts are always (or nearly so) better than evening line ups.

And it is not a question of understanding either. There are conditions of fatigue and hunger under which one man may understand oh so well what is going on with the other one, but will still not be anything but traumatised BY THAT BEHAVIOUR, and UNDER THAT LINE UP.

I did actually walk away from a sermon held by a priest who took the feeding of the four thousand or the five thousand as an example of how to give alms. Because obviously it was not. Christ did not make these people come there to feed them, they came to hear. And he fed them while they were together, because they were together anyway.

I do consider the bishop of Paris a heretic in moral theology even for the fact of - at least back then - preaching not to give directly to poor but only or foremost to organisms.

It was one at Église St Laurent, a lady at reception, who told me that.

Le Pape se prononce sur la communication virtuelle?

2011-01-25T08:07:00.000-08:00

[par Hans-Georg Lundahl, mardi 25 janvier 2011, 12:47]

Et ça ne serait pas typique de la communication tout court?

Dans le monde numérique, transmettre des informations signifie toujours plus souvent les introduire dans un réseau social, où la connaissance est partagée dans le contexte d'échanges personnels.

Et transmettre des informations oralement ne signifierait pas les introduire dans un réseau social? Sa Sainteté réserve donc toute interaction orale pour échanges avec des étranger complets qu'il n'a jamais connu et auxquels il ne reparlerait jamais (donc pas de son propre réseau social) et sous la réserve qu'ils ne doivent pas faire autrement (pour que les informations ne soient pas introduits dans leurs réseaux sociaux non plus)? Je ne crois pas ça.

La claire distinction entre producteur et consommateur de l'information est relativisée et la communication tendrait à être non seulement un échange de données, mais toujours plus encore un partage.

La différence entre "échange de données" et "partage" ne me parait pas claire, donc je ne suis pas capable de me prononcer sur le "plus encore". Par contre: "la claire distinction entre producteur et consommateur de l'information" ne se trouve normalement pas en dehors de la relation entre auteur et lecteurs distants ou David Attenborough et le public de télévision. Dans la classe il n'y a pas cette claire distinction, même la paroisse permet parfois des paroissiens à commenter sur la prêche. Benoît XVI ne va pas ignorer le cas où Nestorius fut hué par un simple laïc à Constantinople, à propos son refus d'appeler la Sainte Vierge Théotokos. Il y a des lecteurs qui ont écrit à Tolkien et CSLewis, il y a des spectateurs qui contribuent par téléphone aux programmes populaires, il y a de même sur la radio. L'internet l'intensifie.

Cette dynamique a contribué à une appréciation renouvelée de la communication, considérée avant tout comme dialogue, échange, solidarité et création de relations positives.

Fort bien.

D'autre part, cela se heurte à certaines limites typiques de la communication numérique : la partialité de l'interaction, la tendance à communiquer seulement quelques aspects de son monde intérieur, le risque de tomber dans une sorte de construction de l'image de soi qui peut conduire à l’auto complaisance.

Typiques de la communication numérique? Mais le pape rêve!

Dans une conversation alors, son interaction avec l'autre est totale?
Dans une conversation il partage tous les aspects de sa vie intérieure?
Dans une conversation il ne se construit pas un image de soi qui le conduit à l'auto-complaisance?

Alors, il lui reste quoi à confesser dans le sacrement de pénitence? Alors, pourquoi la confession privée plutôt que publique devant toute la paroisse comme le veulent les sectes évangélistes? Si on n'a honte ou pudeur ou timidité (ou simple jugement de non-relévance pour le contexte) de rien dans ses conversations, pourquoi pas confesser le tout sans réserve devant tous? Mais il rêve!

Et ses lettres sur papier, qui ne sont pas numériques, quoique virtuelles, il y partage tout sans réserve, il a une intéraction totale, il ne se construit aucun image de soi? Mais il rêve!

Ou peut-être il ne rêve pas, mais répète, bêtement un slogan anti-internet de quelque psychologue appartenant à quelque synagogue de Satan. Car là, dans les synagogues de Satan (il y en a plusieurs), on multiplie les critères inutiles et fait des petites considérations partielels en même temps qu'on néglige les considérations les plus élémentaires de la justice et de l'équité pour ne rien dire de la charité.

Je viens juste de lire la troisième paragraphe de son message (<--- lien à cliquer) pour

LA 45ème JOURNÉE MONDIALE
DES COMMUNICATIONS SOCIALES

dont la date prévue est le 5 juin 2011 et qui s'appelle:

Vérité, annonce et authenticité de vie à l’ère du numérique

Déjà dans la quatrième paragraphe, je crois avoir traqué quelle synagogue de Satan est coupable. Les psychologues.

Les jeunes, surtout vivent ce changement de la communication, avec toutes les angoisses, les contradictions et la créativité propre à ceux qui s'ouvrent avec enthousiasme et curiosité aux nouvelles expériences de la vie.

Les angoisses ne sont pas ceux des jeunes, mais des psychologues. Ce qu'est très évident.

[j'ai prolongé l'article d'origine avec des commentaires:]

Autre citation:

Les croyants, en témoignant leurs plus profondes convictions, offrent une précieuse contribution pour que le web ne devienne pas un instrument qui réduise les personnes à des catégories, qui cherche à les manipuler émotivement ou qui permette à qui est puissant de monopoliser les opinions des autres.

Déjà le fait de communiquer par internet plutôt que par télévision ou même salle de classe permet beaucoup moins aux puissants de monopoliser les opinions des autres.

Par contre, j'ai vu sur internet - dans certains réseaux - des tentatives de faire un front commun pour le Christ et pour l'Église et d'exclure les fidèles dont le témoignage est dissonant de ce front commun.

Comme pro-Espagne, notemment en 1492 (Grenade et Hispaniola), 1519 (Tenechtitlán), 1531 (Pérou), 1939 (prise de Madrid) et comme peu diplomatique face à des subterfuges trop mauvais et hyperréclamés pour l'anticléricalisme ou l'athéisme, je me trouve parfois en position de "témoin dissonant". En plus que je suis géocentrique et créationniste.

Qui est mon «prochain» dans ce nouveau monde ? N’y a-t-il pas le danger d'être moins présent à ceux que nous rencontrons dans notre vie quotidienne ordinaire ?

Un rencontre virtuel et un rencontre physique peuvent tous les deux être qqc que nous passons très vite ou que nous donnons beaucoup d'attention.

[En plus, pour beaucoup des gens internet est précisement une partie de la vie quottidienne ordinaire]

N’y a-t-il pas le risque d'être plus distrait, parce que notre attention est fragmentée et absorbée dans un monde «différent» de celui dans lequel nous vivons?

On vit dans des mondes différents, que ça soit sur le web ou pas. La personne derrière l'écran il y a dix mille kilomètres d'ici est comme la personne derrière la plume et le pepier il y a dix mille kilomètres d'ici et X jours en plus avant. Il y a des gens pour qui vivre est beaucoup répondre à des lettres. Il y a aussi des gens pour qui le quottidien n'est pas social du tout.

[La fonction chat risquerait effectivement à distraire l'attention et la fragmentiser, mais on n'est pas obligé d'en faire son moyejn principale comme communication numérique]

Avons-nous le temps d’opérer un discernement critique sur nos choix et de nourrir des rapports humains qui soient vraiment profonds et durables ?

Mais on ne le fait pas toujours non plus dans sa vie dite réelle. Même moins que sur internet souvent. Partout il y a des gens avec qui on se supporte assez bien tant que tout est superficielle. Ce n'est pas chaque rélation sociale qui doivent être un mariage: au contraire, si nous croyons la monogamie.

[Si la question ne s'agit pas de ne pas toujours l'avoir, mais de ne pas l'avoir du tout, alors aussi il y a une réponse au pape et une très bonne: on a le temps qu'on donne et on donne ce qu'on veut moins ce qu'on se trouve empêché de donner.]

Il est important de se rappeler toujours que le contact virtuel ne peut pas et ne doit pas se substituer au contact humain direct avec les personnes à tous les niveaux de notre vie.

TOUJOURS? Et en plus À TOUS LES NIVEAUX?

Notons qu'ici il ne s'agit pas de numérique, mais en virtuel en général. Le contact entre auteur et lecteur est virtuel. En certain cas même unilatérale, à moins que soit réelle aussi - ce qu'est le cas - les intercessions que nous pouvons faire pour les âmes en purgatoire, que nous pouvons demander à eux et à celles au ciel.

J'aurais aimé avoir un pape avec plus de contact virtuel avec St Thomas d'Aquin, peut-être. Et moins de contact direct avec certain connards.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Mairie du III/Paris
prolongé sur
Bibl. Audoux/Paris III
25-I-2011, fête de la
Conversion de St Paul Apôtre.

OrchOR - what is that?

2011-01-20T09:49:00.001-08:00

We are now January 12 ...

Here I found out what Orch-OR is:
source

"In this paper we propose that aspects of quantum theory (e.g. quantum coherence) and of a newly proposed physical phenomenon of quantum wave function 'self-collapse' (objective reduction: OR -Penrose, 1994) are essential for consciousness, and occur in cytoskeletal microtubules and other structures within each of the brain's neurons. The particular characteristics of microtubules suitable for quantum effects include their crystal-like lattice structure, hollow inner core, organization of cell function and capacity for information processing. We envisage that conformational states of microtubule subunits (tubulins) are coupled to internal quantum events, and cooperatively interact (compute) with other tubulins. We further assume that macroscopic coherent superposition of quantum-coupled tubulin conformational states occurs throughout significant brain volumes and provides the global binding essential to consciousness. We equate the emergence of the microtubule quantum coherence with pre-conscious processing which grows (for up to 500 milliseconds) until the mass-energy difference among the separated states of tubulins reaches a threshold related to quantum gravity. According to the arguments for OR put forth in Penrose (1994), superpositioned states each have their own space-time geometries. When the degree of coherent mass-energy difference leads to sufficient separation of space-time geometry, the system must choose and decay (reduce, collapse) to a single universe state. In this way, a transient superposition of slightly differing space-time geometries persists until an abrupt quantum classical reduction occurs. Unlike the random, 'subjective reduction' (SR, or R) of standard quantum theory caused by observation or environmental entanglement, the OR we propose in microtubules is a self-collapse and it results in particular patterns of microtubule-tubulin conformational states that regulate neuronal activities including synaptic functions. Possibilities and probabilities for post-reduction tubulin states are influenced by factors including attachments of microtubule-associated proteins (MAPs) acting as 'nodes' which tune and 'orchestrate' the quantum oscillations. We thus term the self-tuning OR process in microtubules 'orchestrated objective reduction'('B>Orch OR', and calculate an estimate for the number of tubulins (and neurons) whose coherence for relevant time periods (e.g. 500 milliseconds) will elicit Orch OR. In providing a connection among 1) pre-conscious to conscious transition, 2) fundamental space-time notions, 3) non-computability, and 4) binding of various (time scale and spatial) reductions into an instantaneous event ('conscious now', we believe Orch OR in brain microtubules is the most specific and plausible model for consciousness yet proposed."
...
"In this paper we apply certain aspects of quantum theory (quantum coherence) and a new physical phenomenon described in Penrose (1994) of wave function self-collapse (objective reduction: OR) to specific, essential structures within each neuron: cytoskeletal microtubules. Table 1 summarizes how quantum coherence and OR occurring in microtubules (Orch OR) can potentially address some of the problematic features of consciousness."

When copying table, I insert debate, my comments in underscore, JR's in italics, the quote from above as such:

Problematic Feature of Consciousness	Possible Quantum Solutions
Unitary sense: "binding problem"	1) Non-local quantum coherence; Indivisible macroscopic quantum state (e.g. Bose-Einstein condensate); 2) Instantaneous self-collapse of superpositioned states (Orch OR).
Superpositioned states would only explain "unitary sense" - the "common sense" of St Thomas Aquinas - perfectly, if resulting "unitary sense" was neither of the original sense impressions. Instead it combines both, like seeing and hearing a waterfall or talking to a person you look at.
Transition from pre-conscious/sub-conscious to conscious processes	1) Sub-and pre-conscious occur in quantum computing mode 2) Automatic, autonomic functions occur in classical computing mode 3) Quantum classical transition. (Wave function "self" collapse - Orch OR -is intrinsic to consciousness).
Supposing there is such a transition.
Non-computable, non-algorithmic logic	Orch OR is non-computable.
Well, non-computable by mathematics does not mean irrational as far as predicate logic is concerned. He means non-computable in the Godelian sense. It's not computable by bit-logic. (He's making a claim that the "Hard-AI" position is false)
(Apparent) non-deterministic "free will"	Non-computable, but non-random wave function self-collapse (Orch OR).
If so, it would not be free will, but determined by accidents of self-collapse of wave functions.
Essential nature of human experience	1) Wave function self collapse (Orch OR) from incompatible superposition of separated space-times; I have evidence of this. Very compelling evidence but it's of the kind I'd like to talk about only in private. Let's just say the chances of it being wrong are 1 in 2.4x10^57. No. This is a public debate. ... I deleted that letter, and it does not prove that mind is quantum mechanical as opposed to not mechanical at all in nature. It does not prove information as percieved or known is the same thing as a wave function or collapse of such. 2) Pre-consciousconscious transition; Well we have a subconscious which affects our thinking. According to Freud and Jung. 3) Effectively instantaneous "now"(Orch OR) collapse. It is.
Orch-OR does not account for all attributes of essential nature of human experience. Saying consciousness and will are primal does. It is primal in Orch-OR it just hides it. Information does not exist unless the wave-function collapses. And the first wave-function to collapse had to be by Orch-OR -by definition. Thus mind is primary in Orch-OR -even if it conceals it by saying that there are two ways to collapse a wave-function. ..."Information does not exist unless the wave-function collapses."... That is what I deny precisely.

Why would they be that anyway? (Quantum Physics & mind debate)

2011-01-20T09:35:00.001-08:00

by Hans G. Lundahl on Thursday, January 6, 2011 at 4:23pm

Here is what I found on top of a document:

It asserts, roughly, that if indeed we humans have free will, then elementary particles already have their own small share of this valuable commodity. More precisely, if the experimenter can freely choose the directions in which to orient his apparatus in a certain measurement, then the particle's response (to be pedantic-the universe's response near the particle) is not determined by the entire previous history of the universe.

Source document

Why would a particle be "determined by the entire previous history of the universe" anyway?
What does that mean, even in determinism, as opposed to being determined by a strand of causation reaching back to the beginning of the universe?
Why would a particle determined by free-will as opposed to being determined by the entire previous history of the universe be in itself free-willed? I smell a terminological error:
- a) this supposes any behaviour of anything or any event is either determined by the entire previous history of the universe or free-willed.
- b) what if beside the two there were behaviours and events determined by free-will?
- c) what if there are not even any events determined by the entire previous history of the universe but only those that constitute acts of free-will and those that are determined by acts of free-will?

So far my challenge. To JR, known also from two debates on geocentrism (my stance) and heliocentrism (his).

1) ‎scripsi: Why would a particle be "determined by the entire previous history of the universe" anyway?

respondisti: "Cause and effect. In essence Conway and Kochen are pointing out that we couldn't have free will in a clockwork universe. If it's all dictated by Newton's laws of motion and so forth then everything proceeds along like billiard balls with no free will to do otherwise."

a) cause and effect implies that every physical cause has its effect unless hindered: it does not imply that every physical effect has only physical causes.

resp: No, but whether physical or unphysical it would still be "a clockwork universe" if there was no true indeterminacy in either physical or unphysical form.

b) (see 2) a clockwork is interconnected, but even on an atheist view we would not have one clockwork universe, but a clockworks universe: even with an original clockwork at big bang, we would have a branching out into different independent clockworks, like the galaxies, like the solar systems, like each planet, like different places on earth:

[resp: Well yes, but ultimately all of these clockworks in the big bang would originate at a first cause back at the singularity.]

a man cannot be seen to be affected by storms on Venus or CO2 freezing on Mars, nor can a man in France be seen to be affected by everything that goes on around the Gulf of Mexico, though he is affected by weather, which is affected by Gulf Stream. But the Gulf Stream originating is only one thing of the things that go on in the Gulf of Mexico, and the Gulf Stream is only one thing which affects the weather in France, and the weather is only one thing that affects a man i France.

resp:No but theoretically in a clockwork universe if we go back far enough all of these things would be caused by the same thing.

c) NOTHING is dictated BY Newton's laws. The question is if all is dictated ACCORDING TO Newton's laws by previous only physical causes. That does not only contradict a speculation about free will, it contradicts the most elementary piece of introspection even or especially if it is just glancing introspection in an extrovert person doing an extrovert thing.

resp:Yes, exactly, IF everything is dictated by Newton's laws then free will is impossible. That was the essence of Conway and Kochen's theorem. Basically if there is free will we must conclude that there is more than just Newton's laws.

‎2) scripsi: What does that mean, even in determinism, as opposed to being determined by a strand of causation reaching back to the beginning of the universe?

"It's the same thing really."

Not so. Under 1 b I stated the difference. Shall I take the response as meaning you do not consider the naturalistic view a clockwork universe but a clockworks universe, and "determined by all the previous history of the ENTIRE universe" a piece of loose terminology?

Ok yes, see I would think that everything would have a singular starting point. But yes that may also be valid -clockwork(s). So even if all of the casual chains are unlinked in a Newtonian world we could figure out the position and velocity of every particle at any point in time and then compute out how everything will behave for all points in time going out to eternity. And hence since everything would be predetermined there would be no room for free will.

‎3 general, scripsi: Why would a particle determined by free-will as opposed to being determined by the entire previous history of the universe be in itself free-willed? I smell a terminological error:

respondisti: "In itself it's not, but the idea is that if we have indeterminism in particles we might be able as minds to exploit this indeterminism in a special way so as to tap into it and give us "willed indeterminism" (ie. we will something which can not be predetermined by someone else)"

In that case it would be determined by indeterminacy of particles. Or?

In a sense yes, though the trick is that the indeterminacy would have to be exploited in such a way that it could be exploited by the mind.

A good thing to remember here is that at the quantum level you are not dealing with "particles" so much as you are wave-functions or "wavicles." It's not like a particle gets "a mind of its own" and randomly bumps into a mind causing it to do something that it wouldn't ordinarily do.

In particular in Penrose's model the mind is a special kind of wave-function that behaves in a certain way unlike any other kinds of wave-functions. In this case it's the same indeterminacy that you would get in any other quantum system, but you can exploit it because it's internal to you -the self-collapsing wave-function that is identical with your mind.

I have the feeling from your response, a will in your philosophy is not a prime reality in and of itself, but a human will is a product of particles in the brain.

[resp:It's not particles remember. That's the catch. Everything at the bottom is indeterministic in nature and precise location in time and space also break down. Particles exist in precise places in space and time, and so it's a misconception to think that these are particles in the proper sense of the word.

In a way everything seems to behave "mentally" far enough down -I'm presuming the patterns in the wave-function are ultimately the thoughts in God's mind.(because of Universal Orch-OR -like in my video) And then our minds are subsets within that. Now granted I'm a neutral monist and I think it's all information at the bottom -and minds are just special kinds of information, but there is a distinctly "mental" component to the world when you dig far enough down into it.]

Behind this I do smell a dichotomy that is stated as the terminology I attribute you under 3 a: this supposes any behaviour of anything or any event is either determined by the entire previous history of the universe or free-willed.

Well not free-willed per se. Obviously you can have subatomic particles behave in indeterministic fashions which are not willed. But the point is that things are either deterministic of indeterministic, and that if we have free will it would be because we've found a way to tap into the indeterministic part of it and use it somehow.

‎3 b) scripsi: what if beside the two there were behaviours and events determined by free-will?

respondisti: "It's not "free-will" as such as the particles aren't minds in and of themselves, but they do display indeterminacy in the quantum regime."
Thank you for saying the particles are not minds in and of themselves. But leaving particles aside: can there in your general view of philosophy be something neither indetermined as in free-willed nor determined as in physically caused by physical causes only but determined by free-will?

Well the definition of free will is that it is both determined by free-will yet "indetermined" as observed from the outside. Meaning you can determine exactly what you will do but I can not predict what you will do -even in theory- from the outside. Only you know.

scripsi 3 c) what if there are not even any events determined by the entire previous history of the universe but only those that constitute acts of free-will and those that are determined by acts of free-will?

"That would be interesting, and in fact if my Universal Orch-OR theory about God is right then it would follow that EVERYTHING at some level or another would be freely chosen into existence by God, which would mean not predetermined by mechanical causation. Though it appears that God freely chose to collapse a series of quantum states which gives us a decent approximation of deterministic laws at most levels."

My point can be made further precise by the questions:

d) could there be a God that is free-willed and NOT a wave function of the Universe? If not, why not?

Yes and no lol. I'm sure there might be some who subscribe to my Universal Orch-OR model that say it couldn't be any other way, but as for what I believe personally let me try to see if I can break this down. It might be a bit tricky.
Basically the totality of existence -including stuff outside the universe is ultimately Platonic in nature -rather than material -I know it's surreal but just follow. And the largest Platonic form which encompasses all others is ultimately God's Mind. Within that we have different modal realities:

Wiki: Modal Realism

and one of these modal realities happens to be our own which is defined by the Schrodinger equation. Now a mind in my philosophy is an "isomorphic information pattern." And you can have nesting isomorphisms all the way up and all the way down. The isomorphic structure we are in is defined by the Schrodinger equation, and hence any isomorphic information patterns we see will automatically have to be wave-functions collapsing by Orch-OR.

So in a sense yes God's mind (as viewed from our end) has to be a Universal Orch-OR, but that's because of how our universe is defined. However God's mind might appear differently to universe's defined by different sets of mathematics than ours.

In a sense I may have mislead a little bit by directly equating the Wave-function of the Universe with God's mind (but that is because the atheists will only accept what is immediate to them). Now to be sure it is God's mind, but it is the "lower bound" of God's mind -only the part we can observe from this end.

e) could in the universe there be other free wills than God's?

Also yes and no lol! They would exist but in a sense would be part of God's will as well. This seems like it might contradict a first, but it has to do with my "nesting isomorphisms" thing. Basically our minds are contained in God's mind the same way that nesting Russian dolls contain others. And so God's free will would ultimately be the only free will, but in a sense we would share it as God's free will would overlap or perhaps "superpose" our own.

‎4 ) I think I will cut the strands here and give a general short answer. Leading up, if you like to new strands:

a) A "non-physical" cause would still be a cause. But it may well be a free-willed cause.

Well let's suppose you have that. So you have material causes as well as supernatural causes -and both with their rules. From those rules we can pre...dict what would happen -it doesn't matter if the causes are physical or not. If that is the case then we can not have free-will, because the whole idea is that you can't predict what someone will do with free-will.

The free wills need not follow deterministic rules.

The results from spiritual causes, including free-willed ones would, which would make the results predictable for anyone having beforehand access to the free decisions, i e to God omniscient.

To us the results would not be globally predictable.

You may predict what result a certain squeeze of thumb and index and a certain turn will do to the writing, but that does not mean you can predict what someone else will write.

Even a clockworks universe or a clockwork universe will be unpredictable since you simply do not have access to all interlocking strands of physical unfree causation.

b) Free will implies indeterminacy as to something. Not indeterminacy as to everything. A man deciding whether to look or not look at a woman is not deciding whether he is virile and what effects that look might have on him.

But the point that Kochen and Conway are getting at is that if we have free-will that can not be predicted, then we have to get that unpredictable element from somewhere. A clockwork universe does not give us an unpredictable element. A universe in which we have free will thus therefore have an unpredictable element somewhere buried in it.

The classical Christian answer is that the universe contains unpredictable elements, where God, angels, and human minds figure. Unpredictable not as in totally haphazard like exact chaos pattern of falling paint drops, but unpredictable as in indetermined. We experience that ourselves.

Why should the source of free wills be other than a free will?

c) A particle determined by free will is determined. Not by the "entire history of the universe" nor by a partial clockwork leading back to one original cause, but by a decision taking place within the history. Still counts as determined. The decision itself being indetermined.

Ok, scrap "determined." Replace it with predictable. Free-will would then be something which is not predictable yet determined.

Determined and predictable are not interchangeable.

A dancer is not determined by any clockworks to take p...art in the dance, he is thus indetermined, yet, if skillful, predictable. Which is my geocentric take on why stars and planets even if guided by angels follow predictable patterns of movement.

His feet are determined by his will. Not by an outside cause making the will obsolete. They are predictable insofar as the dance is.

The feet of a man walking are also determined and also by a free will, but very much less predictable.

And where each drop will fall if you drop a bucket of paint is entirely due to physical causes, or so it seems, but still unpredictable.

Free-will is an unpredictable thing, indetermined by outer causes except those that define the choice. Its results - moving hands - moving instruments - moving objects are determined by it. And sometimes calculable, sometimes not.

d) God is not determined by his creatures except insofar as he choses to be: and we are not free against God except insofar as he lets us. Still we have true own minds, true free wills.

Yes, like I said our free-will is overlapped or "superposed" by God's.

Neither overlapped nor superposed. Defined insofar as our creator defines what kind of free will we have and what kind of choices we have.

e) God has created only one world, though he could have created possible other worlds. (as against Giordano Bruno)

Hmm, No. As for this universe who knows, however there are definitely parallel worlds with versions of us playing out different histories in those universes. Quantum mechanics tells us this and the existence of parallel universes has even been exploited to produce quantum computers.

If you want further proof I have something to show you if you'd like in private. Though I would prefer if you not show anyone else.

I saw that proof, they are not really proof of parallel universes.

I do not know what a quantum computer is, but if you attribute its observed behaviour to "parallel universes" I think you are as far off the mark as an ordinary computer being looked at as "good at mathematics" or a translating programme being looked at as linguistically competent. I Smell a terminological or logical very red herring here.

on to second part of debate ...

Ayesha's marriage was brought up in a discussion.

2011-01-09T12:27:00.000-08:00

par Hans-Georg Lundahl, dimanche 9 janvier 2011, 21:24

We were also looking at a video. It linked to another one.

Commenting on this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SfUKGp4iMg&feature=related

1a) puberty: extreme low level 9, extreme high level 18
mean age for puberty, 14 + a few months for boys, 12 + a few months for girls
(medical fact).

1b) physical brain development (ignored by that Muslim) setting out on largest brain size: 10-12 both sexes

so, a girl who has a puberty at age 9 does not have the same brain as she would have at age 12.

St Thomas Aquinas actually comments on this when debating that insufficient age is an impediment to marriage.

2) Juridics in "Britain" 1400 years ago: 12 for girls, 14 for boys, same as in Spain one hundred years ago or in Papal states up to Italy's takeover by invasion.

That is founded in Roman Law, in which the island known as Britannia, both British (Welsh, North Welsh) and English Kingdoms and Principalities partook.

But Arabia maybe did not partake in Roman Law as far down as where Mohammed was from.

3) Maturity? Not having been taught reasonably early how to change diapers does not make one a baby. Having a taste for making oneself look more childish than one is, does not make one a baby.

That Muslim is therefore a liar when he claims that modern westerners mature more slowly than any human creatures before them. He is lying about God's way of creating us, and that is a pretty big lie.

A man of 17 or 18 could be a military commander today. Would it mean war? Probably. But would it mean loosing the war? Not necessarily. Charles XII of Sweden became King at that age. Could he have waited being king while maturing?

Actually that was the law in Sweden, he should have started ruling at age 25, and the country should have been run by his tutors up to then.

That ALSO is founded in Roman Law. A man who inherits an estate was not considered mature enough to run it before he was 25. But by then he could already have been married for eleven years, he could already have children.

Charles XII had to run a country before he had time to marry. He never married. He was chaste but instead of loving sex he loved violence and instead of loving home he loved danger. Why did he rule at 18 despite the law? Because his father also had been orphaned too young to rule, and his tutors had abused his minority.

But Charles XII, King at 18, worked, as far as easy early victories were concerned.

4) He is however right to point out that pedophilia is not about marriage.

A girl married at fourteen in Sweden - of immigrant family to a man of his religion - was "taken care of" and forcefully put in an orphanage, her husband was jailed as a pedophile offender and exiled to Morocco.

I wrote a pamphlet to defend that marriage. 18 is not a natural limit for marriage, nor is it the traditional one in Europe.

S'il y a un dommage sociétal en "choisissant les gènes transmis aux futurs générations" ...

2011-01-04T04:40:00.000-08:00

by Hans-Georg Lundahl on Tuesday, 04 January 2011 at 13:33

Pourquoi pas, vient de lancer un homme dont je vais pour l'instant taire le nom. Si les gènes choisis sont bonnes, si le fait de choisir est volontaire, pourquoi pas?
Première observation: cette liberté des parents est un esclavage subi par leur progéniture. L'homme a défini comme cas un couple qui est fertile et qui voudrait choisir eugéniquement l'unique embryon parmi une centaine selon la perfection génétique. Obviement l'embryon choisi ne serait plus tellement procréé que créé par des parents qui jouent au bon Dieu avec leurs progéniture. Et les autres - ses frères et soeur! - seraient sacrifiés de vie comme les esclaves d'un chef de tribu païen et barbare. Esclavage la plus absolu sous les parents pour tous, fardeau sur la conscience du survivant de ce fait ne sont pas des conséquences théoriques, mais garantis. Car un couple de parents capable d'exiger des leurs enfants d'avoir exactement les bonnes gènes est capable d'exiger tout. Et aura exigé tout des 99 embrya tués.

Deuxième observation: l'esclavage subi par la progéniture dans un cas comme ça ne l'est pas seulement sous les parents, mais également sous les médecins ou sous quelque corps professionnel ou légal investi du pouvoir dont les médecins aidant cette atrocité croyaient être investis. Des parents peuvent s'humaniser face à un enfant réel. Les institutions qui commettent des atrocités sont moins aptes à le faire.

Déjà donc pour le prétendu bénéficiaire de cette énormité il y a donc un double dommage très considérable. Si un tri comme ça se répète, ce dommage individuel et familial devient sociétal.

Troisième observation: pour arriver à légaliser un tel cauchemar de criminalité, il faut que la société perde encore davantage ses bons répères pour en avaler des pseudorépères. Une société faisant ça est une société qui subit un dommage considérable.

Pseudorépère un, le plus "ad rem": "on est esclaves de ses gènes, on se libère en les changeant". Faux, en les changeant on ne demeure plus soi-même. Donc le sujet prétendu de libération cesse d'exister. "Mais alors on pourrait être altruiste vis-à-vis un autre être dont on aurait produit la liberté". Faux aussi: il n'y a pas de devoir à un telle altruisme, ni de mérite, et une "humanité créé par l'humanité actuelle" serait en position d'esclave, précisément comme l'individu envisagé.

Pseudorépère deux: "le tabou contre l'eugénisme est irrationnel, puisque le tabou contre l'avortement a été abandonné". Pas, notons-le, par tous. Et ça ne prouve pas que "le tabou" contre l'eugénisme soit de quelque soit la manière irrationnel, ça prouve plutôt que celui contre l'avortement était pleinement fondé.
L'esclavage dont souffrirait un être "choisi" comme ça serait celle dont souffre déjà les frères et sœurs des fétus avortés. On se sent en certain quartiers déjà "un projet" de ses parents plutôt qu'un égal potentiel pendant son enfance et réel à l'age adulte.

L'esclavage sous un système plutôt que sous un couple individuel est déjà la triste réalité en Suède. Les parents sont déjà traités comme fonctionnaires, pas de l'état, mais de l'élite de fonctionnaires en école, médecine, psychiatrie et DDASS qui gère ce sale système.

Pseudorépère trois: "on sauve l'Occident comme ça" - non, on redonne la victoire au Carthage. À Carthage qui méritait la destruction, comme Tyre et Sidon. Comme Tenochtitlán par Cortés. Comme Jéricho par Josué. On ne sauve pas l'Occident en y préférant le pire qu'a jamais offert l'Orient. "Sauver" dirait quoi dans ce contexte? Garder en quelque forme d'existence en faisant subir des tortures morales éternelles? Ou perpétuels sur terre, tant que ça durera, éternelles dans l'audelà pour les perpétreurs d'une telle saleté de révolution.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Mouffetard/Paris V
4/I/2011, St Odilon

C'est ça que Pr. Ignaz Seipel S.J. et Engelbert Dollfuß entrevoyaient en Hitler et dans le nazisme. C'est pour ça que le parti nationalsocialiste a été interdit en Autriche, c'est pour ça que Dollfuß a été tué par un nazi qui fut ensuite décoré par Hitler.

Hoch Dollfuß!

J'aurais pu ajouter le risque de faire subir dommage purement génétique par maladresse. Les généticiens ne sont pas omniscients.

Temoin d'un faux miracle, abbattu par des policiers?

2011-01-03T03:25:00.000-08:00

by Hans-Georg Lundahl on Monday, 03 January 2011 at 12:22

Regardons ce que St Augustin dit de l'activité démoniaque par laquelle les religions païennes sont fondées, remarcons que comme parallèle à la véracité des saints écritures il prend la véracité des historiens païens:

[Livre X, la Cité de Dieu] CHAPITRE XVIII.
CONTRE CEUX QUI NIENT QU’IL FAILLE S’EN FIER AUX LIVRES SAINTS TOUCHANT LES MIRACLES ACCOMPLIS POUR L’INSTRUCTION DU PEUPLE DE DIEU.

S’avisera-t-on de dire que ces miracles sont faux et supposés? quiconque parle de la sorte et prétend qu’en fait de miracles il ne faut s’en fier à aucun historien, peut aussi bien prétendre qu’il n’y a point de dieux qui se mêlent des choses de ce monde. C’est par des miracles, en effet, que les dieux ont persuadé aux hommes de les adorer, comme l’atteste l’histoire des Gentils, et nous y voyons les dieux plus occupés de se faire admirer que de se rendre utiles. C’est pourquoi nous n’avons pas entrepris dans cet ouvrage de réfuter ceux qui nient toute existence divine ou qui croient la divinité indifférente aux événements du monde, mais ceux qui préfèrent leurs dieux au Dieu fondateur de l’éternelle et glorieuse Cité, ne sachant pas qu’il est pareillement le fondateur invisible et immuable de ce monde muable et visible, et le véritable dispensateur de cette félicité qui réside en lui-même et non pas en ses créatures. Voilà le sens de ce mot du très-véridique prophète « Etre uni à Dieu, voilà mon bien ¹ » .Je reviens sur cette citation, parce qu’il s’agit ici de la fin de l’homme, de ce problème tant controversé entre les philosophes, de ce souverain bien où il faut rapporter tous nos devoirs. Le Psalmiste rie dit pas : Mon bien, c’est de posséder de grandes richesses, ou de porter la pourpre, le sceptre et le diadème; ou encore, comme quelques philosophes n’ont point rougi de le dire: Mon bien, c’est de jouir des voluptés du corps; ou même enfin, suivant l’opinion meilleure de philosophes meilleurs : Mon bien, c’est la vertu de mon âme; non, le Psalmiste le déclare Le vrai bien, c’est d’être uni à Dieu. Il avait appris cette vérité de celui-là même que les- anges, par des miracles incontestables, lui avaient appris à adorer exclusivement. Aussi était-il lui-même le sacrifice de Dieu, puisqu’il était consumé du feu de son amour et (209) désirait ardemment de jouir de ses chastes et ineffables embrassements. Mais enfin, si ceux qui adorent plusieurs dieux (quelque sentiment qu’ils aient touchant leur nature) ne doutent point des miracles qu’on leur attribue, et s’en rapportent soit aux historiens, soit aux livres de la magie, soit enfin aux livres moins suspects de la théurgie, pourquoi refusent-ils de croire aux miracles attestés par nos Ecritures, dont l’autorité doit être estimée d’autant plus grande que celui à qui seul elles commandent de sacrifier est plus grand?

¹ Ps. LXXII, 28. SOURCE

Bon, et si les OVNI étaient aussi des fausses divinités qui sont "plus occupés de se faire admirer que de se rendre utiles"? C'est à dire normalement des démons. ALORS, ce n'est pas forcément en délire que se trouvait l'homme de 25 qui fut abattu par un policier.

D'ailleurs, il a visé sur les extrémités du policier, pas les organes vitales. Il a touché une tibia et un épaule. Le policier l'a tué, mais il ne l'a pas confié à la psychiatrie. Pourvu que l'histoire dans les nouvelles soit exacte. Laquelle? Celle-ci.

Ce jour de Sainte Géneviève, prions pour que les gendarmes réagissent avec plus de circumspection et moins d'hystérie que dans ce cas ci. Selon DirectMatin l'homme de 25 était "inconnu des services de police" c'est à dire il n'avait pas commis des crimes, ni de violence, ni autres. Il avait juste été diagnosticé avec "schizophrénie" à moins que ce mot s'utilise à tort et à travers dans la publication. Par cette diagnose, le fait qu'il voyait des OVNI - qui peuvent, selon Saint Augustin très bien être des démons - lui a valu l'alternative "soins" de la psychiatrie ou se défendre contre les policiers venus l'y amener. Cette défense - non meurtrière - lui a valu d'être abattu comme un chien atteint de la rage.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ste Geneviève, 3 janv. 2011
Paris, Mairie du III

origin of thoughts - as phenomenon and as each single one of them if it comes from self or sometimes not

2010-12-08T07:36:00.000-08:00

Fr Timothy Curtis:

From where do our thoughts originate?

My first answer: where does mathematical truth (or error) come from?

a man and a calculus will both tell that two plus two equal four
the calculus will do it because when you push two calculi and then two more you end up with four calculi
a man will tell you because he knows (or at least because he believes*)
a man and a calculus might both tell you correctly that 13*13=169
but on a calculus it is more likely to give an error like 168 or 170 (the man using it accidentally pushing a caclulus too many or to few as compared with intention) or even making it 13*12 or 13*14 (making the additions one time too many or too few)
in the mind it is more likely to be an error of 163, because that looks closer to 13

which is a clear indication that mind is something other than matter, it is something that can experience (if not itself at least) mathematics, as calculi cannot: such a difference has to be ontological

Then I checked what Fr Curtis was talking about and added:

"the Fathers of the Church talk a lot about the suggestion of demons but this implies a loss of freedom with respect to our thoughts."

No more than suggestions from mortal friends or foes.

A suggestion of the demon can be accepted or rejected. St Ignatius of Loyola set up a few rules for discerning whether an "inspiration" (idea that strikes you) comes from the Good Spirit or the Bad one.

Looking eagerly for approval or disapproval in contemporary "conscience" was not one of his criteria.

And he was a hesychast before being anything like a scholastic, never ceased to be.

Before answering, FrCurtis had also another answer from FrDeacon Christopher Neill:

Father is there a problem with the idea that ideas can be received in the mind without them passing through the eyes and ears? I thought the fathers were talking about rather than thought being done for you. If you can be aware of God that way I do not see a troblems with other ideas coming in the same manner.

It is what you do with the ideas that matters.

Fr Timothy Curtis (adressing himself to the deacon, but answering me too):

‎@Fr Christopher, I have no problem about the means by which the idea is received- either directly to the mind or via the senses. Nor do I have a problem about the freedom we have to acceptor reject the thought, baring in mind our state of sin which makes that very difficult!! But the question comes from the interplay between psychology and theology, in the former the thought coms from one's deepest inner self, whereas in the latter it seems that th thought is external in origin. If it is external in origin, we have the option of 'blaming' external conditions for thoughts that occur to us, whereas if we have internally originating thoughts we can't make that claim. It does touch on the intersubjective nature of 'self' versus 'other'.

Since I am a Christian I believe there are angels and devils. And that I have the option of blaming external conditions. Including for thoughts occurring to me.

Especially I do so, when one seems to be very much what person X or movement Y or Church Z has more materially said or implied to me, but where I have equal materially verified knowledge that it is false.

Which is why I was indulging in "polemics" (was that your word? no, diatribe) a few weeks ago.

Which is also why I took care to say today "one of these half heterodox neohimerites with which I FORMERLY used to be in communion".

It is also why I back when communicating with them asked one priest more than once what he was praying aboutwhen praying for me. I got no answer.

"But the question comes from the interplay between psychology and theology, in the former the thought coms from one's deepest inner self, whereas in the latter it seems that the thought is external in origin."

The "psychological" idea is atheism in the study of the human psyche.

No one has ever claimed - except perhaps Calvin - that man is incapable of originating thoughts from himself. That is indeed a lack of freedom, but does not follow from existence f angels or devils or their power to originate thoughts in each other and in us (from greater to lesser, according to St Thomas Aquinas).

Oh, there are others who do claim incapability of generating thought, those who claim it does not exist. Like materialist atheists.

Even if a good and true thought originates in self, it also originates from God, and it behoves a Christian to give thanks for it, as long as he regards it as such.

*Knowing two and two are four implies either - which none has except God - an exhaustive induction, or, which is much simpler and accessible to us too, a valid deduction, like this one:

more than is said so that if a thing is more than another and that other than a third, it is also more than that third, ipso facto and one can define by how much or - as here - by how many something is more than something else

two · is · one more than one (definition)
three · is · one than two (definition)

so: one more than three · is · one more than one more than two

four · is · one more than three (definition)
one more than three · is · one more than one more than two

so: four · is · one more than one more than two

one more than one more than two · is · two more than two (from definition)
four one more than one more than two

so: four · is · two more than two

Believing it includes believing it because of an incomplete induction and a math teacher who tells it always holds true, but even here one can talk about knowledge as soon as one has a true intuition why even an incomplete induction should be "as on all other occasions".

If this is FBI, they are stupid ...

2010-12-08T04:37:00.000-08:00

by Hans G. Lundahl on Wednesday, 08 December 2010 at 13:19

But stupidity like that has seemingly happened to me when I have tried to:

a) get my texts printed and sold, get my compositions played (I have heard a lot of yes, yes, we will - and then no getting back to me)
b) simply get either teeth fixed without social insurance or get a social insurance open for people who are paupers not looking for work and giving me access to toth care.

As a result, my teeth ache day after day, my smile is ugly, and I am loads of money behind debt payments to the Swedish study loan system.

One reason could be sheer lack of talent. Let us test it: these statistics (click link) come from the blogger sites own system, as every one having a blogspot blog can verify. A sheer non-talent would not have been read over Russia, US, France, Netherlands, Germany to name the five big countries. A French-man would possibly be nit-picking if I was wrong in translating "response" (my try="response") as anything else than "answer" (="réponse") in title. As an English, German or Swedish speaker would (answer=Antwort=svar; response=Widerhall/Antwort=gensvar/response). But that does not account for non-printing and non-playing of my texts and music in non-French countries. Indeed does not account for non-playing of my music even in France.

Another reason could be people having tried to send me money for my work but failing due to police interference due to stupid (at least among Christians) misgivings about me.

Like this, which I got in my mail, but which is too stupid to be genuine:

FBI Headquarters in Washington, D.C.
J. Edgar Hoover Building
935 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW Washington, D..C. 20535-0001

Payment Release Instruction From The Federal Bureau Of Investigation Attention Funds Beneficiary, This is to inform you that it has come to the notice of the federal bureau of investigation (FBI) that the sum of $10.5 million united states dollars was transferred from the central bank of Nigeria to the bank of America here in the united states, bearing your name as the beneficiary. We did not believe this at first time until we saw the transfer for confirmation, then we had no other option than to place the funds on hold until you are able to prove to us that you are not a terrorist or a money launderer, by obtaining what is called a diplomatic immunity seal of transfer certificate from the funds originated country. Note that we have done a proper investigation on this transaction and from our investigation, this funds truly belongs to you and it is not a scam, but we have instructed the bank of America not to release the $10.5 million to you until you prove the legitimacy of the funds you are about to receive. As a matter of fact, you will be charge for money laundering and terrorism, if you fail to provide to us the above mentioned certificate from the funds originated country,and if you are found guilty as charged, you will go to jail.

You have just only 72 hours to prove to us you are not a terrorist, failure to comply with our instruction, you will be arrested and detained until this matter is settled. Meanwhile we have your full contact address which makes it easier for us to arrest you when ever we want to. We are going to direct you on how to obtain the required document from the funds originated country in our next email to you, and your funds valued $10.5 million will be released to you as soon as the required document is obtained. Therefore you have been advised to get back to us immediately you receive this email or you will be arrested by the FBI, You have been warned.

For more informations and quick response, reply back to us immediately.
YOURS FAITFULLY, ROBERT MUELLER, FBI DIRECTOR

And if the guys who are deciding not only against me, but against others deciding for me think they are doing me a favour, they are about twice as stupid as the pseudo-letter from the FBI.

sender=campstone1@aol.com on the face of it & sending IP:
http://www.db.ripe.net/whois?form_type=simple&full_query_string&searchtext=205.188.105.143&do_search=Search

L'auteur vous dit merci ...

2010-12-06T12:30:00.001-08:00

by Hans-Georg Lundahl on Monday, 06 December 2010 at 21:29

Dans une rue de Versailles que je connaîs
J'y vais de temps-en-temps pas trop souvent
J'avais ce matin un bon café
En me réveillant, le sac pliant, oui en partant.

Bon, ma voix et rouillé, mais bonne fête de St Nicolas!

Concerns of our rulers ...

2010-12-05T09:52:00.000-08:00

by Hans G. Lundahl on Saturday, December 4, 2010 at 5:02pm

Back in the Tenth Century a King of the Franks and his Queen stemming from Saxony would ask a monk "How will we be able to know when Antichrist arrives"? Adso of Melk (just kidding!) I mean Adso Dervensis to the answer. Accepted criteria include having a very huge megalomania and getting away with it. It also includes getting mainly away with it with - poor folks, God keep them pure from that at least this Hanukkah of theirs - the Jews.

Eleven centuries later (or a few decades less than that actually) concerns include getting out of Afghanistan and getting - therefore - to negotiate with a Talib, with one of the Taliban. Acceptable criteria for being their herald include coming dressed like one. Or - if the "dirt" part of this link is no exaggeration - less clean than a real one. If the story is true it is no good preparation for a real talk with the Taliban.

I mean, Louis IV and Gerberga mainly required eating and drinking swell on courtly occasions, when in private they ate less than usually, and were scrupulous about Friday fasts. And Adso was paid the ink and paper and rather simpler food than even the royal couple. I think tax payers had less reason to grumble back then. So had Christians for whom First Amendment does not amount to replacing Ten Commandments with Georgia Guidestones.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Adso Dervensis: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/adso.html

Dialog om hemskolning ...

2010-12-04T10:46:00.000-08:00

Började kring en väns video om systembolaget (deras egen reklamfilm för monopolet)med att i lagom takt en person var för fri försälgning af alcohol, som i butiker i Frankrike. Han heter JA. En annan var glad öfver dennes "liberala värderingar" och han heter herr My (tils de sagt till att de vilja ha sina hela namn här).

‎"nanny state gone mad" - nå det står äfven soc. för:
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2010/12/news-from-sweden-my-country.html
(nyh 1 och comm 1)

Herr My: Det är lite skillnad mellan att tvinga ett barn att sitta hemma där de inte kommer i kontakt med andra barn och kan få vänner samt en någorlunda normal uppväxt, och att inte låta människor göra så som de själva vill så länge de inte skadar någon annan, som att köpa alkohol och tobak m.m.

Föräldrarnas själviska beslut att isolera ett barn är därför något som borde vara förbjudet därför att det skadar barnets framtida sociala förmågor att handskas med omvärlden som föräldrar ofta är oförmögna till att lära ut på egen hand.

Det är inte rätt att ta barn från dess familj (mot barnets vilja), men föräldrarna borde förbjudas att hemskola ett barn, punkt.

Men det var inget sjelfviskt beslut att isolera sin grabb. Hans mor är från Indien och racism var att frukta. Samt evt mobbing p g a religiösa och kulturella saker grabben fått af modern som ju intet är svenska eller serdeles sekulariserad i vestligt snitt. Uppskjutna vaccinationer och olagade hål tyder på en respect för barnets egen tvekan - ngt öfverdrifven men knappast sjelfvisk.

Och hemskolning är normalt, det borde snarare vara förbjudet att flockskola barnen i klasser på 20 30 pers, men lär knappast bli.

Herr My är atheist, trodde jag det när jag såg communist-commentaren ofvan ....

JA: Jag har lärt känna flera personer som blev hemundervisade som barn, deras förmåga att handskas med omvärlden är inte sämre än andras.

Herr My: Hans-Georg Lundahl: Om det är kommunistiskt att vilja att varje barn ska ha rätten att gå i skola där de undervisas i olika livssyner och teorier under mer kontrollerade omständigheter där föräldrars livssyn och religion inte undanhåller viss information så accepterar jag att jag har en del värderingar som kommer från den sidan av den politiska skalan. Till exempel så är det inte sunt eller rätt under några omständigheter att ett barn med kreationistriska föräldrar ska undervisas i biologi av dessa eller vetenskap över huvud taget. Det går inte att se till att barnet får den undervisning denne borde få när det sker i hemmet och jag stödjer det inte för allt i världen. Information manipuleras lätt, en förälder som inte tror att förintelsen ägt rum ska inte heller lära ut historia och så vidare.

Och att använda rädsla för rasism som argument att hålla ett barn hemma är inte annat än fel då denna rädsla förs över till barnet. Om du säger till ett barn att "du är inte säker där ute, där ute hatar folk dig för att du ser ut som du gör" är.... nä, fy fan, det måste väl även vara en "ond" handling i kristet mått också? Det gör inget annat än skadar barnets självkänsla och förtroende i omvärlden.

Och att skjuta upp vaccinationer och låta barnet ha olagade hål är ju att plåga denne, att gå till tandläkaren är sällan något som tycks om, men att låta det vara är att dra ut på lidande. Nej, usch och fy för att hålla språket på en någorlunda civiliserad nivå.

Nu blev inlägget längre än tänkt, men hemskolning är en produkt av kontrollfreaks till föräldrar som är för rädda att låta sina barn gå ut i den stora stygga världen.

@JA: Medan de andra barnen lekte på skolgården med kamrater, vad gjorde de hemskolade barnen?

@ ‎"Till exempel så är det inte sunt eller rätt under några omständigheter att ett barn med kreationistriska föräldrar ska undervisas i biologi av dessa eller vetenskap över huvud taget."

Illa valt exempel. Min mor var - och är creationist. Och var - liksom min far vid tiden de möttes - medicinstuderande. Hon sparade fysikböckerna från sin flickskola och sitt gymnasium, jag läste dem vid 10 års ålder. Skolans vetenskapliga undervisning var mindre noggrann än den jag fick som hemundervisad af mor.

@ ‎"Om det är kommunistiskt att vilja att varje barn ska ha rätten att gå i skola där de undervisas i olika livssyner och teorier under mer kontrollerade omständigheter där föräldrars livssyn och religion inte undanhåller viss information så accepterar jag att jag har en del värderingar som kommer från den sidan av den politiska skalan."

Ursäkten och åsigten är densamma under Jules Ferry, Lenin-och-Stalin, Azaña, samt Hitler.

@ ‎"Det går inte att se till att barnet får den undervisning denne borde få när det sker i hemmet och jag stödjer det inte för allt i världen. Information manipuleras lätt, en förälder som inte tror att förintelsen ägt rum ska inte heller lära ut historia och så vidare."

Nähä, och hvad tycker du att skolan skall göra med barn till sådana föräldrar om de argumenterar med Leuchter i klassen? Svin.

Jag menade gifvetvis dig, och intet sådana föräldrar!

@ "Nu blev inlägget längre än tänkt, men hemskolning är en produkt av kontrollfreaks till föräldrar som är för rädda att låta sina barn gå ut i den stora stygga världen."

Och Jules Ferry, Lenin, Azaña (författaren som blef politiker för att få NÅGRA läsare) samt Hitler och du sjelf vore dermed icke contrôle-freaks?

Herr My: Kreationister är mänsklighetens strutsar, så jag tar inte tillbaka något som sagts. Att en del föräldrar är bra på att hemskola på så vis att barnen lär sig snabbare och mer noggrant (eftersom föräldrar för gott och för ont är mer involverade i barnet än en lärare) är väl bra på så vis att undervisningen kan bli mer effektiv, och att de arbetar med medicin gör inte att deras ovilja att acceptera världen så som den ser ut, alltså inte ca. 6000 år gammal gör dem oförmögna till att lära ut i detta ämnet.

Haha! Du vet att grekiska filosofer inte hade accepterat personangrepp? Men nu talar vi ju religion, så jag förstår att det är lite mer intensivt på en emotionellt plan. - jag ser att det dyker upp nya meddelanden hela tiden, jag kan inte svara ordentligt om du gör så.

Vi strutsar? Är du "ostrutsig" nog att taga del af fölgande argumenter på mina bloggar? http://o-x.fr/hspi och http://o-x.fr/53yh var det.

Men nu var detta om skola och hemskola. Och som du nämner är ämnet ngt hetare än cromosomtalen jag bloggat om. Grekiska rhetorer hade inget emot personangrepp, tro mig, jag har läst Lysias.

@ "Att en del föräldrar är bra på att hemskola på så vis att barnen lär sig snabbare och mer noggrant (eftersom föräldrar för gott och för ont är mer involverade i barnet än en lärare) är väl bra på så vis att undervisningen kan bli mer effektiv, ..."

Det skulle icke möjligen kunna vara just dessa som valde att hemskola sina barn?

För öfrigt var undervisningen intet hvad man vanligen kallar "effektiv", den var gedigen.

@ "och att de arbetar med medicin gör inte att deras ovilja att acceptera världen så som den ser ut, alltså inte ca. 6000 år gammal gör dem oförmögna till att lära ut i detta ämnet."

Att hon arbetade med medicin innebär att jag kan Mendels lagar rätt hyfsadt. Plus en del om trisomie-fel. Spontan-aborter och hjertfel verkar rätt läge att concurrera ut artfränder om parningsmöjligheter?

Herr My: Haha! Att jag får hamna i samma mening som Hitler och Lenin är lite smickrande då jag inte har gjort speciellt mycket för att förtjäna det, men jo, de var kontrollfreaks, hur vida jag är det eller ej lämnar jag åt någon kunnig inom psykologin att reda ut. Jag skulle inte kunna påstå det dock, det vore baserat på extremt lösa grunder.

I alla fall, jag tycker att barn med sådana föräldrar ska gå i skolan och få redig information som visar båda sidorna (man får faktiskt lära sig om teorin om att den aldrig ägt rum i skolan också) och sen få bestämma sig själv för vad som verkar mest troligt, att miljontals människor bara försvann i tomma intet i dessa icke existerande dödslägren, eller att de blev dödade i industriell anda. Att världen är 6000år gammal och att vi är resultatet av incest (Eva och Adam-historien), eller evolution.

@ "Jag skulle inte kunna påstå det dock, det vore baserat på extremt lösa grunder." - "rätten att gå i skola där de undervisas i olika livssyner och teorier under mer kontrollerade omständigheter"

"redig information som visar båda sidorna"

Skolan lär ut creationism och förintelseförnekelse på mycket förnedrande sätt för de berörda, d v s dem som ha uppfattningarne i fråga. Din sammanfattning af förintelseförnekelse är knappast Leuchters eller Faurissons. Din sammanfattning af creationism är intet min. Eller andra creationisters.

JA: [förnamn]: Eftersom jag inte blev hemundervisad utan gick i skola som de flesta vet jag inte vad de hemundervisade barnen gjorde. Jag kan bara säga att jag genom min studietid i Rom mötte flera personer som blev hemundervisade som barn, och de är inte mindre kapabla än andra att klara sig i världen.

Herr My: En kreationist tror att världen är skapad enligt bibeln på 6 dagar, en kreationist är benägen att försöka bevisa bibeln som vetenskap. Eva och Adam är ur bibeln och man kan med hjälp av bibeln räkna ut att världen enligt den skapades för ca. 6000 år sen. Sen hur pass kreationister från USA och Europa skiljer sig vet jag inte, men det borde vara ungefär detsamma.

Men det är ju en förolämpning till mänskligt intellekt (nu finns det inga kända psalmer som handlar om mänskligt intellekt heller, en slump?) att tro att satan placerat ut dinosaurieben för att testa våran tro.

Och orsaken till att de beskrivs på förnedrande sätt är för att de är en förnedring till allt vad vetenskap innebär. En kreationist gör vad denne kan för att bevisa att den har rätt och tänker inte kritiskt angående sina egna teorier, vetenskap fungerar inte så, man måste kolla om det funkar, evolution kan man bevisa och det fungerar både i teorin och har bevisats i praktiken i virus och dylikt.

Hur vi kom in på abort vet jag inte, men det är också ett intressant ämne att diskutera, men det gör jag gärna någon annan gång då det får vara i fokus tillsammans med kvinnliga rättigheter och så vidare.

@"En kreationist tror att världen är skapad enligt bibeln på 6 dagar,"

Vissa af oss, deribland jag.

@"en kreationist är benägen att försöka bevisa bibeln som vetenskap."

Icke just de sex dagarne. En creationistisk hufvudpoäng är att naturvetenskapen till skilnad från historian icke kan bevisa en tidsutsträckning i det aflägsna förflutna.

@"Men det är ju en förolämpning till mänskligt intellekt att tro att satan placerat ut dinosaurieben för att testa våran tro."

Vore det? Det vore snarare en förolämpning mot menskligt intellect att utesluta det utan grund. En kristen (creationist exvis) kanske utesluter det p g a Guds allmagt och godhet. En atheist kanske utesluter det p g a satans förmenta icke-existens. En satanist utesluter det kanske intet als. Men sedan ha vi det der med "timeline" ... Huru pass mycket om creationistisk dateringscritik fick du lära dig i skolan? Du verkar intet så ifrig att taga upp det? T Rex dateras till 60 miljoner år af forskare, bevisar det att de förstenade benen* äro äldre än 7200 år?

*förstenade ben - det är altså inga ben längre. En avancerad sculptur i hyper-modern konst hos en civilisation före syndafloden, ngn?

@"man måste kolla om det funkar"

Tack du. Det har äfven cromosomtalena ngt att säga till om, icke bara enstaka mutationer på bakteriers ena eller virusars inga cromosomer.

Än en gång: http://o-x.fr/hspi och http://o-x.fr/53yh

Jag kan svara på hvad jag gjorde som hemundervisad: jag läste. Jag mobbades intet och mobbade intet.

Syskonskaror med flera syskon samlade ha i öfrigt en viss tendens att leka på gården. Med hvarandra d v s barn i olika åldrar.

Abort som i framkallad kommo vi ej in på. Trisomier - d v s tre cromosomer i st f två - ha vissa typiska resultat. STORA cromosomers trisomier äro spontanabort, d v s missfall (på tidgt stadium). XXY (Kleinfeldt) eller 21-21-21 (Downs) äro mindre cromosomer. Downs är intet als den enda der detta medför hjertfel. Kleinfeldt gör det intet, men det är fråga om könscromosomer. I gengäld är en man med Kleinfeldt ofta ofruktbar. Kampen för tillvaron? Huru fick man fram däggdjur (spontanabort p g a afstötning f¨rekommer bara hos däggdjur) med fler cromosomer än 48?

http://o-x.fr/hspi och http://o-x.fr/53yh

Herr My: Alltså nu får du ge dig, man använder kol14 metoden för att ta reda på hur gamla saker och ting är, det är inte så konstigt, och vetenskapen uppdateras ständigt och hål fylls i med nya fynd hela tiden, det är bara att uppdatera sig lite.
Satanister tror inte på satan mer än som en symbol för styrka, en satanist anser sig själv vara gud, resten om satanister är mestadels masshysteri efter falska rykten (jag är ingen satanist, men tog mig tid att läsa lite om det).

Och om nu bibeln är fakta så har gud dödat flertalet miljoner medan djävulen endast dödat 10, alla var jobs barn som satan fick tillstånd att döda av gud.

Nu skickar du flera separata meddelanden igen så inte jag kan svara på allt i ett inlägg.

Dessutom, kom att tänka på personangreppet. Är det inte väldigt okristligt? Jesus förespråkade väl inget sånt, även om jag är en icke troende så är det väl guds jobb att straffa mig för det (som den "älskande" fader han verkar vara i bibeln)? Men det är ganska irrelevant egentligen, tycker bara att det är lite dåligt att inte leva som man lär.

Och att anse att dinosaurieben är hypermodern konst... så mycket ben överallt man har hittat kräver en massa konstverk av samma material, dessutom, när man hittade de första benen lyckades man inte ens placera benen rätt. Jag antar att det var så att konstnärerna inte var nöjda med sina dinosaurier och flyttade om dem så att de blev ett nytt konstverk?

Så eran låtsaskompis som dödat miljontals människor, men fortfarande är snäll, tillåter barn ärva sina barns synder (antar att du är för att barn ska ärva sina föräldrars skulder till banker och dylikt också då detta tydligen är den kärleksbaserade vägen att gå).

Jag kan läsa din blogg, men jag ska hjälpa min flickvän först. Jag återkommer och tar hand om de andra inläggen när jag kommer tillbaka.
Ha en trevlig fortsatt dag sålänge.

detsamma detsamma

News from Sweden (my country)

2010-12-02T05:10:00.000-08:00

by Hans-Georg Lundahl on Thursday, 02 December 2010 at 14:02

1) Dominic Johansson has been taken away from his parents. This link describes why. And that is my quarrel, not with all the people, but with the authorities in place in the country - my country - that I left in March 2004.

2) It is a Swedish judge who has asked the founder of WikiLeaks to be extradicted. Nature of his crime? Probable guess or at least a possible one:¹ If in Sweden a woman consents to sex with "that hateful object outside the pharmacies", if during intercourse it bursts and if the man does not immediately withdraw, the woman can charge him with rape since she had not consented to "unprotected sex". Lessons to be learned?

a) In Sweden it is current for certain women (not practising Christians, obviously) to want to avoid pregnancies while "having fun" (or even worse chosing partners whose health they are not acquainted with), so much that they call out about rape when risking a visit (maybe murderous) to the gynecologist. Guess why a man who wanted a Duggar style family first got no family at all and then got accused of being a closet case making deliberately impossible any realistic ("realistic" for Sweden) contact with opposite sex;

b) even a paid homosexual male prostitutes should not rely over much on that rubber thing to keep away from AIDS. They do burst once in a while, and withdrawing in such a moment poses mental difficulties, so abstinence is safer.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bibliothecâ Pompidolianâ
On 2/XII/2010, or
Day of St Viviana, Church Year 2011

¹Quote from NYT:

The Swedish prosecutor’s office said almost two weeks ago that a court in Stockholm had approved its request for the arrest of Mr. Assange to face questioning on suspicion of “rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion” — charges that he has strongly denied and that WikiLeaks has dismissed as “dirty tricks” meant to punish him for his organization’s work. Appeals by Mr. Assange to suspend the warrant have been unsuccessful.

The accusations were first made against Mr. Assange after he traveled to Sweden in mid-August and had brief relationships with two Swedish women.

According to accounts they gave to the police and friends, each had consensual sexual encounters with Mr. Assange that became nonconsensual. Mr. Assange has portrayed the relationships as consensual and questioned the veracity of the women’s accounts.

From: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/world/europe/02assange.html?_r=1&ref=world

alternatively: http://www.webcitation.org/5ufyLndRf

The doctor I have the link from supplied the guess (or possibly inside information), I will not otherwise divulge his identity.

Defending Commons and feudalism against Locke on FB, and legal kingship against supposedly powerless one

2010-11-26T06:35:00.001-08:00

I am here commenting on a note on someone else's profile: More on Locke and Catholicism: by Joe Hargrave

Well, give me Hooker, then!

"What fewer people may know is that Pope Clement VIII said of Hooker's book, the very same one that influenced Locke, The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity: 'It has in it such seeds of eternity that it will abide until the last fire shall consume all learning.' This, of course, in spite of Hooker's status as a heretic."

Locke in Second Treatise Chapter V agrees with Pope Leo on ONE instance of elementary gain of property rights, but would have disagreed about the rights of dispossessed Connaught Papists to return to Ulster.

Some Anglicans - notably the Anglo-Catholics avant le mot - were less objected to by Catholics than other Prots.

Joe Hargrave:

The one instance means a whole lot.

Since both have it from Cicero, less than a Catholic credential for Locke.

But if your pragmatic or realistic purpose is simply defending the US Constitution, and your seeing attacks on Locke as indirect attacks on it, since Founding Fathers had read Locke more than say Rousseau or what's his name again [Hobbes, he is even, along with Calvin, honoured by comic strips nowadays] "Leviathan", the thing to do might just be, not to say that Locke has a complete Catholic philosophy of property, but to say that nothing really objectionable from Locke got via FF to the Constitution they wrote.

Joe Hargrave:

My purpose is to defend private property and free markets for Catholics against the prevailing social democratic agenda.

But Locke is more Social Democratic than Leo or St Thomas!

Rousseau is of course sufficiently Social Democrat to be Communist, but apart from that ...

Joe Hargrave:

Locke is not social democratic at all. I reject the attempts some make to wring a welfare-state out of his work.

He has one revolutionary principle though: that the property is meant for those who work on it and not those who quarrel about it - if you remember that quote from Treatise II Chapter V. It was of course meant against the Catholic inheritors in Connaught of properties in Ulster worked the last generation before him by either Protestants or their remaining poor Catholic tenants.

You see the same thing in "Responsible rich" who dissuaded Bush from abolishing inheritance duty by appealing to "it is not good to be born with a silver spoon in your mouth". Locke attacks non-laborious means of acquiring property, not because of fraudulence as with ususry, but because of non-laboriousness, as with inherited titles, as with gifts, as with immemorial custom, and so on.

He also has one capitalist thought that amounts to a capitalist fallacy - not in disfavour of wellfare state, that might not be a fallacy but - in favour of usury and unsound over-investment.

He claims that as soon as there is an exchange goods that does not rot for being kept - gold - hoarding ceases to be wasteful.

Now, there are cases of late when attempts at hoarding gold have become wasteful and very much so.

Lyndon LaRouche, if you know about that guy, claims that real physical production (except of condoms and pills and toys including sex toys) is being hampered by Wall Street speculation bubbles.

In the conflict between Fr. Tryphon and Starbucks (a company which fortunately bucked back) Locke might have been adduced to favour Starbucks approriating the label "Christmas Blend" - and suing Fr. Tryphon for having in his monastery another blend that the monastery called "Christmas Blend". Locke does not really allow for the Commons, where a strip of wood or a general description of merchandise such as "Christmas Blend" may stay even against people wanting to appropriate it. Swedish legislation of immemorial times has a legislation favouring the Commons.

You may own a piece of wood in the sense that you may have a right to cut down the trees there or build a house there. But even so you do NOT own the wild berries that grow there or the mushrooms that grow there. They are still anyone's property who deigns to pick them.

Hence you have no right to fence in all of your wood. You can fence in only such places where you want your cows to stay and not to stray (and owning the land means no other man may graze his cows there without your permission, as of everywhere). Did Locke sufficiently allow for difference between staking a piece of land and picking a res nullius to accept that the berries and mushrooms and tenting space (as long s not intruding in owners privacy) of my land may still be res nullius, anyone's for the picking?

By contrast, St Thomas does give a theory of private property meaning it does not absolutely have to be private property in the full juridical sense at all. But he was thinking of feudal property. In practise a feudal lord does about as he pleases on his land - but he cannot sell it, or else he must "sell" his title along with it. Since in feudal theory the real owner is the King or Emperor. Since you "own" its usufruct and tenures only insofar as the King or Emperor "owns" you for a purpose of military or judicial kind. Did Locke allow for such half-ownership - or was he not a bit anti-feudal?

Was Tolkien misrepresented here?

First Things; David B. Hart: Anarcho-Monarchism

My objection when discussing this link led to this:

when interpreting Tolkien, why this:

"But a king—***a king without any real power, that is***—is such an ennoblingly arbitrary, such a tender and organically human institution."

Or maybe he was not at all interpreting Tolkien?

JDB:Perhaps he is making a distinction between power and authority?
CWK: Or the distinction between compulsion and love.

While it is true that Kings had more authority than power in Middle Ages, they did have some real power too.

Magnus Ladulås ("barn's lock") has this surname because he initiated a legislation barring the peasants' barns from getting gate-broken by nobles roaming around. He also changed the hereditary custom of no female inheritors at all (they enjoyed whatever heritage their husbands had) to each sister inheriting the hald part of what each of her brothers inherited (it took yet a while before we had iheritance equality in Sweden).

Magnus Eriksson, who lived a bit later, made away with Westrogothian, Ostrogothian, Sweonic, et c laws and after him Sweden had only the Town Law and the Country Law up to when we got a unified law in the XVIII-th C.

Both were kings before the union with Denmark and Norway (Finland was our own colony).

It seems the legislation process was in equal shares between king and representation, as was again the case between 1809 and 1917.

In the Letter, Tolkien did advocate a King being able to fire his prime minister for disliking the colour of his neck-tie. Not really a question of advocating powerless royalty

CWK:The old Kings ruled by custom as much if not more so than by force of law.

I have heard that too, but I am not sure if it is quite true for the Mediaeval period.

I have heard about Roman Law. I have heard about Visigoth law in Spain and Westrogoth law in Sweden. And of course these newer Swedish legislations. And King Ina's law, that seems to be a simplification of Justinian's CIC, for England, and Salic Law that seems to be an overriding exception (mainly in the inheritance department) overriding relevant parts but nothing else of Justinian.

Of course these written codes incorporated from start as much custom as they did legislation. And in jurisprudence there was and is a thing called "prejudicate" - where law is imprecise a court may look back to court decision so and so, which amounts in a way to a kind of custom.

For later periods, Medieval real law has sometimes survived as custom where not kept up as written law.

Non a rege lex, sed a lege rex - was a Mediaeval saying.

A Deo Rex, a Rege Lex - was a Jacobite one - disputed, I think by St Robert Bellarmine.

A FB friend OF A FB friend (thus not my own) admired Guenon and Evola: I do not

2010-11-24T03:23:00.000-08:00

Guenon a great thinker? R U serious?

If so much as Seraphim Rose followed Guenon, for a while, does it make Guenon holy? St Augustine followed Manicheans for a while, does that make Manicheans holy?

Seriously: I have NOTHING against Pagan mythology except the passages where it most clearly implies a Pagan "theology", like Theogony (which also is not tradition, but private revelation), but I do find still-pagan philosophies a bug. Platonists and Aristotelians had the good sense to convert to Christianity en masse, followers of the poor mortals Krisna and Siddharta Gautama so far have not.

Even followers of that other poor deluded or deliberately deluding dead man Odin/Wotan, have had the sense to get Christian. In the Yorkshire mission it was after all the Odinist priest who destroyed his own temple after hearing a Christian missionary.

And the first Norwegian dynasty includes the posterity of Odin. Some say the brother in law of Burgundian king Gunthari, variously known as Sigurd and Sigfrid, descended from that man. It does not mean some incubus raped someone and got credit for it under the name of Odin, like with Hercules and Zeus, or Romulus and Mars: in Northern tales the Gods who had posterity walked around. And since one of the "divine" titles of Odin was the "god of segd"=runic magic, I find it a pretty safe guess he was a magician.

As for Evola, I hold him co-responsible for the evil movement around Georgia Guidestones. God curse his memory.

Scripsi die vigesimo quarto mensis novembris
Anno Domini MMX in Bibliotheca Pompidoliana,
Hans-Georg Lundahl

note about hell + A note about Hilarion Alfeev

2010-11-21T11:28:00.000-08:00

note about hell
by Hans G. Lundahl on Sunday, 21 November 2010 at 15:45

link and answers:

Fr Timothy Curtis posted this link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-simpson/understanding-hell-as-the_b_705988.html

"The same fire, the love of God, that ignites in the hearts of the faithful transmutes in the experience of those who reject it into the fire of hell; it purifies the former, but burns the latter."

OK: God is a natural force without will or direction. He does not inflict punishment but is automatically punishment. Hmmm ... no, I do not think this makes God more mercyful than the view of St Augustine and St THomas Aquinas.

Or than that of Dante, obviously.

And it is not what St Isaac the Syrian says, either.

St Augustine says as much as St Isaac: God has so much love for the hardened sinners, he refuses to destroy them - and so much hatred for their unjustice, he refuses to make them happy.

AR:

If tormenting someone eternally is "love" give me hate.

Ch A G:

It's more to do with the fact that your decisions/actions in this life (if they are, for want of a better term "bad") mean that God's fire burns you instead of nourishing you, as is God's intention.

GC:

Since God has not made us automata, and we are free to think and feel as we wish, he does not force us, even in eternity, to accept His love. A crude analogy might be music: a classical music lover might find sitting through a pop concert a really unpleasnant experience, and vice versa. People who have spent murderous lives might find a Kingdom of Love very painful

[@ Ch:] Well, that is Eric Simpson's view, I think it wrong.

St Augustine says: God loves everything he has created, but the spiritual creation (angelic and human creatures) more than the irrational one, the blessed and elect more than the damned and foreknown, and most of all the Humanity of Christ whose members the elect are.

Fr Timothy Curtis:

Therein lies an important difference between Orthodox and western forms of Christianity

Not between St Augustine and St Isaac, as far as I can see.

Eric Simpson takes a summing up of two patristic quotes that do not add up to his conclusion. Even if St Isaac the Syrian is a saint and a Church Father.

To take this a bit further (risking to be thought of as a lover of diatribe), there is a certain connexion to hypercorrectness and to V ec. Council.

The emperor asked that council to condemn 15 Origenist theses. All bishops except the Pope did so.

Hypercorrectness: over-emphasising a difference. When learning Latin syntax, I once was told I was too much avoiding the Latin constructions that correspond exactly to Swedish ones. A risk I think Orthos are running in the West, when relearning their own confession after getting used to Western thought sometimes as if they were learning it for the first time, as I was learning Latin.

There is also a real diatribe against Christianity, some people talk about a vengeful God. Some Christians try to please them, as some try to please Evolutionists and Heliocentrics.

But that is brought out not only by eternal damnation, but also by Flood and destruction of Sodom, and by Egyptian army sunk in the Red Sea. And one early Church Father says that in the era of NT this is stricter, since punishment is no longer death but precisely damnation.

We are not automata - it is now that I am answering Gillian Crow, yesterday at 10:30 was @ Ch. - but neither is God. Someone who has lead a murderous or harrassing life might be considered bad company in Heaven by the ones God wants to have there. Such a one not getting to Heaven might in one way be his own free decision, but in another way God's decision according to His justice.

Thinking of God's love as an automaton, as a natural force without intention, as something that hurts without ever intending to hurt anyone, because the hurt ones are those that are not agile enough to get the right angle of contact, is debasing the divine majesty. That is why I am against Eric Simpson's "alternative Orthodox view". And will have no communion with people calling it Orthodox.

...

A note about Hilarion Alfeev
by Hans-Georg Lundahl on Friday, 19 November 2010 at 18:09

which I posted on blog Eirenikon:

My dear diane, I was very pro-Hilarion until I read his polemics against the Catholic view of marriage as the sensuality of sex being primarily compensated by the good of offspring. He argues (in the Catechism in his website) that if so one would only have sex once a year or so. Which is wrong.

The attitude “primarily for offspring” requires us not to use any means of preventing conception while a couple is enjoying sex. Not to limit sex to “the only coitus in which a child is conceived” since it cannot be foreseen in each case if a child will be conceived or not, not even if a child has been conceived until menstruation does not come as usual.

St Robert Bellarmine was sure no Pope would legislate for what was in itself wrong. Contraception clearly belongs as much to that as usury or even more, and it is notorious that Orthodox used to be more lax on usury and are more lax on contraception than Roman Catholics.

MY problem with orthodox Church is not whether their sacraments have grace or not, but whether I need and will get these graces from their Sacraments. If ecumenic faction requires me to accept contraception and anti-ecumenic faction requires me to regard any Papism, including counterreformation and St Robert Bellarmine, as vile heresy, even requiring me to misconstrue like what St Robert Bellarmine says and loathe his theology for what they think is and I know is not in it, obviously I am no-where near getting any Orthodox Sacraments.

Especially if both factions require me to regret as heavily sinful what I think was righteous in my past and is righteous in my present.*

This sunday I celebrated the Feast of Christ the King, last sunday before All Hallows day, instituted by Pope Pius XI in St Nicolas de Chardonnet. I have not been to an “Orthodox” liturgy since Pentecost, in the sermon of which it was probably Benedict XVI who was maligned as scandalously uncharitable, without the mention of a name, but with clear reference to recent media hubbub.

I know that being in communion with maligners will not get me to heaven.

Here.

*Since then I have had reasons to wonder whether that is not also the case with Romans.

liberty and ecology vs malthusianism

2010-11-21T11:19:00.000-08:00

by Hans G. Lundahl on Sunday, 21 November 2010 at 16:04
Joe Hargrave is a friend of mine, but his terminology sometimes puts me off.

Joe Hargrave:

Eco-fascism = genocide. Just like the old fascism.

http://www.insidecatholic.com/feature/littering-love.html

[I did not read this comment or even the article at first, but answered only Joe's first presenting comment] The article deals with a degenerate academic scumbag who compared having children to littering. These people must be opposed and stopped. And you traditionalists reading this had better understand the value of liberty in opposing these people. These are the people who are in charge of the state. They won't be replaced with Christians.

My dear: growing less wheat over all or making less bread would equal genocide. Making less transports, letting bread eaters be in higher proportion wheat growers would not equal genocide. Making less electricty, i e making bread eaters be in less proportion TV watchers, radio listeners, cinema goers would not equal genocide.

As for saying the old fascism was genocide, I take exception at such a BIG slur against Mussolini. Or against smaller fascisms: Franco, Salazar, Dollfuss + Schuschnigg. If you mean that NAZISM was genocide, say so.

[Then I read above comment but still not article]

"The article deals with a degenerate academic scumbag who compared having children to littering. These people must be opposed and stopped."

I would not call that ecofascism, but malthusianism. It is an insult both to ecologists and to fascists to compare Georgia Guidestones cultists to either.

"And you traditionalists reading this had better understand the value of liberty in opposing these people."

I do.

"These are the people who are in charge of the state."

Too true.

"They won't be replaced with Christians."

If so it is about time for Our Lord to come back.

I also understand the use of liberty in getting more ecological. I mean: in France, parents are required by law - or so I was told in 2005 - to have electricity in their houses. If they have not, they are given the choice of installing electricity (if need be on public expenses) or losing their children.

Reading the article I am reminded why I hate the people who have so far succeeded in stopping me from marriage and from rearing children.

It goes to the heart to see what one is missing.

And yes, both Trad Cath anti-liberals and people like you have been collaborating with the Helen Fisher types of my Swedish background.

Both kinds have pretended what the Helen Fishers have pretended: to wit I were unfit to be a family man. Both types have pretended I am unfit to earn my living as a writer:

a) because as ecologically conscious, and against electric over-consumption, I have been made out as being an "ecofascist" not very far from Helen Fisher;

b) the antiliberals have thought me too libertarian about living off begging (while keeping writing without pay);

c) libertarians like you have bundled me along with the people who attack liberty. Because I attack some sorely abused and not so necessary economic liberties. Such as taking interest. Or merging companies.

I am not part of, at least I do not want to be part of a future unchristian anti-liberal government - but opposing it is to my moral consciousness not identical with attacking all and sundry anti-liberal politicians in human and historic memory.

I am not part of and at least do not want to be part of a libertarian-on-all-accounts establishement that erodes the state to nothing and puts all power in private big corporations. Or informal networks.

Dollfuss and Schuschnigg - worst thing that happened to Jews was getting into fistfights. Franco and Salazar - helped Jews escape from Hitlerian persecution, though Franco limited the offer to Shepharads.

Mussolini: start - 38, no anti-Jewish racism; 38 - 43, racial segregation in marriage laws; 43 to the end: Mussolini was captive of the Germans except a few days as captive of partisans.

The mayor of Assisi was a fascist, and helped saving Jews.

CC: "Sir, Mussolini never invaded Ethiopia? Never sided with Hitler?"

Ethiopia was genocidal? About as much as Afghanistan in my opinion.

The goal was not to eradicate Ethiopians but to teach them courtesy with women, more recently known as women's rights. The excuse was customs like a show of bride capture "forced marriages" - as well as, possibly, "female circumcision". I have somewhere heard the Muslims who do that learned it from Ethiopian Christians.

Sided with Hitler? Yes, but not about killing (or even making captives among) Jews.

No Jews were deported from Italy before a date in 1943 known as founding of the Saló Republic. And in that, Mussolini was no longer an ally but a captive puppet of Hitler's.

It may be added that in 1943 Pius XII dealt with Ethiopian cases of "forced marriage" and found evidence of force insufficient for annulment. (Acta Apostolicae Sedis)

Transmit a spirit? Which one of them, there are mainly two?

2010-11-10T01:30:00.000-08:00

.by Hans-Georg Lundahl on Sunday, 07 November 2010 at 21:41.

Mgr Fellay, to celebrate the fortieth anniversary of FSSPX (founded on diocesan level in perfect communion with a conservative bishop faithful to Pope Paul VI) and thirtieth of Institut Universaitaire St Pie X celebrated todays pontifical Mass.

One thing he said me struck me: Mgr Lefèbvre, in the Cathedral of Dakar, was dreaming about apostasy and realised there was only ONE solution: transmitting the Sacraments and the Doctrine was not enough, one had to transmit a spirit as well.

OK.

A Christian spirit.

OK.

Because there were just so m ...

No, I must have got this one wrong. I seemed to remember something vaguely synonymous to: just so many who received the sacraments and believed the doctrine but carried so little fruit because they did so in the wrong spirit.

Or, wait again. Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is where we make our sacrifice. We must unite ourselves to Christ. If we do not do so while assisting mass - and this he said - we make God a liar.

Is that so? Is lack of devotion, of whole heartedness, of unreserved offering of self not just irreverent in Holy Mass, but actually a worse offense than not assisting mass at all? If so, why did Church exact of us assistance at Holy Mass each Sunday and each Holiday of obligation?

As far as I can see, his preaching today is very akin to the liturgy in Novus Ordo I try to avoid by going there.

When certain N[ovus]O[rdo] priests say we should confess [in abridged confiteor or remade kyrie] that we have not always lived up to the graces we have been given, I feel bypassed, what about those of us who have actully sinned, like punch someone in the face, who when rejecting red coins was maybe offering to save me the thirty cents I had no yellow coins for? Or who, even if it was not anything we could help - at least it felt so to me - acvtually wanted to punch a priest in the face, because he was praying for a conversion that is impossible, since conversion from sins I had not committed. Not meaning I had committed no sins at all, but meaning I had committed quite other ones.

Such a liturgy says what today's sermon says, or feels like saying, to a man like me: even if you believe all the dogmas, you do not belong here, since you are not as devout as we.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Beaubourg/Paris
7/XI/2010

Added comment: Re title: Holy Spirit is transmitted by sacraments, and that is a dogma. Not first and foremost by natural efforts to "transmit a spirit".

But I think Dom Gérard did just fine transmitting a spirit in that sense too - only in his case the ones receiving were close disciples, like monks et c.

Sunday at 21:43

Critiques of Testimonium Flavianum

2010-11-02T03:45:00.000-07:00

For a possible hint of Jesus's historicity, Christian authorities relied heavily on a single brief paragraph in the works of the respected Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who was born in 37 AD/CE, served as governor of Galilee and traveled extensively in the very same area where Jesus allegedly lived and taught. If anyone was in a position to report the wonder-workings of a local holy man in his own parents' generation, it was Josephus, a dedicated reporter of minute details. Yet in all his voluminous works, the single paragraph (Ant. 18.3.3)-called the "Testimonium Flavianum" or "TF"-says only that Jesus was

When we see it, it is not very only. It is a very succinct but not misleading testimony. I wish hippies were as correct and only correct about Jesus as this testimonium:

"a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

- teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure - a Socrates then?

- He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. - So, unusually cosmopolitan for a Jewish Socrates since Elishah, Daniel or Jonah? A prophet?

- He was [the] Christ - now that is even a bit more than a prophet.

- and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross - oops, a cross is a less confortable death than a cup of hemlock! And Socrates was only condemned on popular prejudice, Jesus on instigation of the aristocracy taking trouble to collaborate with a detested occupant to do the job. Did that discourage the movement?

- those that loved him at the first did not forsake him - Judas Ischariot is indeed not among the four first called disciples.

- for he appeared to them alive again the third day - resurrection.

- as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him - resurrexit, sicut scripsit then. [sic, vide comment]

- and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day - not unimportant as concerned with the prophecy of Gamaliel, as recorded in Acts: if it is from God, it will remain, if it is from man it will be destroyed.

This means - if the passage is genuine - that Josephus was either Christian or benevolent doubter, or wrote against his grain. As an open Christian, it is not probable he would have ruled Galilea - is it now? A "closet case Christian" a k a Nicodemus type (a phenomenon gay movement has more problems with than Christians) might have vented his conscience just once briefly. So could a doubter, one who had, up till that moment, decided to wait before deciding and who then did not decide. A man admitting inconvenient truth he hated might have used that tactique too.

The problems with this famous passage are many.

To the anti-Christian writer, there is ONE big problem, if he accepts the passage as genuine, he is forced to admit what he tries to deny, that Jesus was historic.

First of all, it is noticeably out of context with the surrounding material.

Which the writer conveniently enough does not quote.

Second, it evidently did not appear in the early copies of Josephus's works, nor in the second-century version quoted by Church father Origen, who would certainly have mentioned it if it had been there.

Absence from handwritten copies is an overrated argument. They neither had copy-paste send and print-out nor even printing press back then.

The TF does not appear in any known works until the beginning of the fourth century

As quoted, that is. In itself it is, if genuine, from Josephus' lifetime.

and is first quoted by Bishop Eusebius, the enthusiastic advocate of what he apparently called "holy lying" for the greater glory of the Church, known to have been responsible for many interpolations, revisions and blatant forgeries.

And therefore all later quotes are quoting Eusebius? Well, that takes the wind out of the sail of people using "reliable" Eusebius' silence about St Helen's discovery of Holy Cross, against that story. It is after all more convenient to be silent about truth than to lie against it.

Moreover, Josephus was a Jew and would hardly have referred to Jesus's ministry as "the truth" or "wonderful things"; nor would he have called Jesus "the Christ."

What kind of Jew? Not a Talmudic one as later known, of whom that description is true.

Neither could he have mentioned "the tribe of Christians," for there were no Christians in his day. Christianity did not get off the ground until the second century.

What the anti-Christian writer is trying to prove. Before proving it he cannot use this as a critique of Testimonium Flavianum.

Philo Judaeus (20 BCE-50 AD/CE) was born before the beginning of the Christian era and lived until long after Jesus's time. Philo knew Jerusalem well, and would have known of Herod's massacre of children, plus Jesus's miracles, well-attended preachings, triumphal entry parade and crucifixion, with its attendant earthquake, reanimated corpses and many other wonders. He would have heard about the resurrection before many witnesses.

Probably yes. But considering his role, would he have talked about it? First of all, he was an apologist for Old Testament Jewish religion - I will not say Judaism, since that religion began as known now after him, at Jamnia, after destruction of Jerusalem - and part of his arguments was playing down the bloody parts of Old Testament by claiming it was allegorical (after all the destruction of Pharao's army was a delicate subject in Alexandria, where last diadochian ruler, Cleopatra, had ruled Pharaonic style) and Herod's massacre did not quite fit into that programme. Furthermore such a thing is the kind of work authorities tend to hush up, Philo might have heard a rumor, but an obfuscated one. As was so much the case about Katyn massacre until very recently (recommend the film by Wajda, by the way). As for Resurrection, if he heard of it it was very probably by the men who came to Alexandria as converts and missionaries, and who constituted another community than his own or the one he grew up in. He might have thought them right, but left it up to them to speak up on it.

Neither Flavius Josephus nor Philo Judaeus were Jews as we know them now. Jamnia had not yet condemned Christianity as "minim and goyim". Philo used and Flavius had heard of Septuagint, which the Jews of Jamnia condemned. After the destruction of Jerusalem, that took place in year 70, the Jewish rabbis assembled in Jamnia from years 80 to 90 and took a lot of decisions, anti-Roman and anti-Christian. Only from then on is the word "Jew" incompatible with "Christian", as is also seen in the fact that the enemies of Jesus, in Gospels written before Jamnia (Matthew, Mark, Luke) are enumerated as such and such a theologic clan or sacred profession, but in St John, written after Apocalypse, and that Apocalypse written after Jamnia, as "Jews" - a word which in that connexion is not put in Our Lord's own mouth, until he talks to Pilate. But Philo and Flavius were pre-Jamnia.

Philo celebrated Septuaginta day, the day in which God inspired 70 men to make one and same translation of Torah independently of each other, but from Jamnia on Septuaginta day is a "dies nefastus", a "black day" like the "ides of march" to Romans. Flavius, in the beginning of his Antiquitates Judaeorum gives a genealogy from Adam to Noah agreeing with Gospel of St Luke and Septuaginta, whereas extant Masoretic text and Vulgate agree on a shorter one, omitting Cainaan from the descendants of Seth. Still, Flavius is thought as having used the Septuagint in places, but he claims to be translating himself from Hebrew.

The oldest collection of what is now known as Talmud, Mishna, was unknown to both Philo and Flavius, that is indeed from second century, published on order of "Judah the Prince".

Hans-Georg Lundahl
All Souls' Day 2010
Mairie du III Arr.,
Paris

I once tried to write a novel about "Jack Denys" ...

2010-11-01T08:39:00.000-07:00

by Hans-Georg Lundahl on Monday, 01 November at 16:34

... "Jack Denys" as in Iakkos Dionysius, and "tried to" as in one chapter or so with levitation inspired by Mary Poppins, adding some topsy-turvydom thought appropriate for someone personifying wine. By the way, why are so many Christians attacking Harry Potter but not Mary Poppins? P L Travers was a known adept of Gurdjieff:

She had studied the Gurdjieff System under Jane Heap and in March, with the help of Jessie Orage, she met the mystic Gurdjieff who would have a great effect on her, as well as on several other literary figures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P._L._Travers

Now, after such a "literary carreer" in childhood, I maybe should make up for a bit of a Pagan slant in it by countering real Pagan slander on that theme:

The sacrificed god Dionysus, another son of the Heavenly Father, first performed Jesus's miracle of turning water into wine at temples in Sidon and other places, representing the rain of heaven fructifying the vine. In Alexandria, the Dionysian/Christian miracle was demonstrated literally by means of an ingenious system of siphons invented by an engineer named Heron, to enhance the awe of the faithful....

http://stellarhousepublishing.com/jesusmyth.html

Without even looking it up, how do the siphons of the Alexandria, Heron version, add up to the sealed wine skins of the Cana, Jesus Christ version? Obviously they do not. If perfectly unknown servants seal off perfectly beforehand unseen wine skins, you are in no position to add an ingenious system of siphons even if it was invented by Heron. Probably Our Lord in Egypt heard about that Svengali trick and had an urge one day to make it better ... by a real miracle, which only he could have done. Or Dionysius, if ever he did create such an entity.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Beaubourg/G. Pompidou
1/XI/2010, All Saints &
Sts Cosmas and Damien

Anno Domini 1000 the Church Christ founded was present ...

2010-11-01T07:05:00.000-07:00

... in Old and in New Rome. I hope dearly it did not ceasse to be the case 1054, as it was present in Rome and Écône 1970, and i hope it did not cease to be the case 1988, and that Sts Theresa and Petka are rejoicing together on this day of all saints, as on the byznatine one. WHO holds me as a heretic for this hope?

Debate with mainly a Christian who is a scientist, but not a Christian Scientist

2010-10-25T10:42:00.001-07:00

me: "5.) Because I prefer the idea that a (insert god of choice) went ALLA-KADABRA-ALLAKAZAM!!!"

I do. If I can insert the one true god in Three Persons and replace alla-kadabra ... with "fiat lux" and stuff that is in the Bible. I definitely do.

JA: >>I definitely do.<<

Christianity does not conflict with evolution. Creationism conflicts with evolution.

me: Meaning you do not consider Creationism included in or implied by Christianity.

I do.

JA: Creationism is a philosophy. It has no scientific merit. It has no religious merit.

Creationism is not implied by Christianity.

Christians believe that God created the universe.

Christians who have an appreciation of science accept that the evidence the natural world is the evidence of Creation - and if the evidence of the natural world appears to conflict with the Creation account in the Bible then it is the interpretation of Genesis which is at fault - and needs to be reinterpreted in the light of the evidence of Creation itself (the natural world).

me: "if the evidence of the natural world appears to conflict with the Creation account in the Bible"

key word: appears

to whom and according to what hermeneutic principles?

JA: Scientific methodology has proved to be exceptionally robust - and is increasingly so.

The application of science is demonstration of the resilience of scientific research.
One cannot say that evolution is false and that other branches of science (the application of which our technology fundamentally depends on) are true because the investigative and deductive processes are essentially the same.

Creationists always ask for evidence in scripture that the Creation account in Genesis is not a scientific or literal history - they refuse to see that that is an irrelevance: the evidence of the non-scientific and non-literal nature of the Creation account in Genesis is in nature, not in scripture - and the reason is that Genesis is not a science book.

me: "Scientific methodology has proved to be exceptionally robust - and is increasingly so."

Not about evolutionism.

"The application of science is demonstration of the resilience of scientific research."

The applications that give evidence for "science" do not touch evolutionism, nor heliocentrism/geokinetism. No one has proven that geocentrics or creationists would be logically obliged to disbelieve in television, internet, bacteriology or gynaecology.

"One cannot say that evolution is false and that other branches of science (the application of which our technology fundamentally depends on) are true because the investigative and deductive processes are essentially the same."

1838 is discovered that very many stars do have a movement that circles in a year, same direction as sun, the biggest one angle being 0.76 seconds, and all others smaller, most stars still not having one recognisable angle (at least that was the case back in 1980, when the measurable angle parallaxes were for "tens of thousands of stars" among the hundreds of thousand known).

The methodology by which interpretation "stars stand still, mostly, and earth moves, and different observed movements are due to different distance" is preferred over "stars are moved by heavenly dancers" is not any technological one, except such as are applicable to dead matter alone, i e a denial of angelic hypothesis (the old scholastic one) in the principle of research rather than in application. Similarily for C14 datings exceeding Biblical chronology preference of interpretation "C14 was same proportion in athmosphere and present very much lower proportion is entirely due to old age" over interpretation "C14 was back close to creation lower proportion in atmosphere, which accounts for lower proportion now, even without exceeding Biblical chronology".

"Creationists always..."

Do not tell me what creationists always do, deal with what I do - in proving, asking, explaining, challenging.

"...ask for evidence in scripture that the Creation account in Genesis is not a scientific or literal history - they refuse to see that that is an irrelevance: the evidence of the non-scientific and non-literal nature of the Creation account in Genesis is in nature, not in scripture - and the reason is that Genesis is not a science book."

Genesis neither is nor purports to be a science book, however it was for most of its existence accepted by considerable communities as literal history. Which indirectly makes it scientifically relevant.

What you are saying is that Jews from Moses to Jesus and Christians from Jesus to Darwin and Spencer got it wrong. I say that is not compatible with Christianity.

@ CD saying "Hey if you got proof that evolution is false give me some ideas.I already have some maybe we can share some ideas"

Check this out: - a general checkout on chromosome numbers was suggested by Kent Hovind, but I use it in a different way. (Yes, it is my post, a composite of smaller posts on another of my blogs)

JA: >>Do not tell me what creationists always do, deal with what I do - in proving, asking, explaining, challenging.<<

If was you who brought up hermeneutic principals - as do many Creationists I have discussed these issues with.

I know about parallax - I have studied astronomy for over 40 years.
Carbon dating is only used for comparatively recent geology - other radiometric dating techniques are used, and used reliably, for older dating.

>>Which indirectly makes it scientifically relevant.<<

Wrong. SCripture has nothing to do with science.

Scripture is about interpersonal relationships - and the sole purpose of Genesis is to set the context for scripture.

In common with most (all?) Creationists you are clearly a "Genesis Christian" rather than a Gospel Christian.

>>What you are saying is that Jews from Moses to Jesus and Christians from Jesus to Darwin and Spencer got it wrong. I say that is not compatible with Christianity.<<

No. What I am saying is that the Bible is not about science. Genesis is not a history. Genesis sets the context for *your* personal relationship with God, and with your neighbour.

me: A Gospel Christian IS a Genesis Christian, since Gospels tell us Christ was a Genesis Hebrew.

Gospel is not limited to my personal relationship with God or man, though it includes that, it is reliable history as in Resurrection of Christ AND sayings of what He really said. And that includes historicity of Adam and Eve. He very specifically referred to Genesis History when talking about marriage.

Your Biblical hermeneutics are very clearly not those of the Catholic Church Fathers.
You avoided questions brought up about parallax (though you studied Astronomy for fourty years) and C14.

1) Can the movement currently interpreted as a parallax be interpreted as something other, like the dance of angels to honour God?

2) Are the older radiometric age datings you used to corroborate C14 as implying earth was too old for the doubt I brought up maybe subject to similar doubts as C14 itself?

I also go back to your previous answer, where you claimed there were no methodological difference between the science used in technology - as electronics, medicine - and the one used in heliocentrism and evolutionism. There is ONE clear difference:

Medicine students study bacteria that are there here before them and now while they are being studied, electricians study currents that are similarily circumscribed in time and space BUT evolution is about billions of years ago and heliocentrism is about 4 to 4 billion light years away. Except the kind of stuff that has also geocentric and creationist interpretations.

JA: Jesus's reference to the Old Testament was in respect of its teaching. Not its historicity. A teaching need not be historically accurate in order to convey the truth.

And the truth is that when Genesis talks about Adam, it is talking about you. When it talks about the serpent it is talking about sin acting on you.

The whole point of the Bible - and in particular of the Gospel, are the relationships. The whole point of the death and Resurrection of Jesus was God's desire for that relationship between God and man (specifically you, the reader) which man (specifically you, the reader) broke through his own fault be fixed. It is not Adam's sin, but yours for which Christ died. It does not matter that Adam never existed historically, but it is vitally important that you exist historically, and that Christ exists historically, to repair the relationship with God, which you broke.

me: "Jesus's reference to the Old Testament was in respect of its teaching. Not its historicity"

That is clearly NOT a limitation the Gospel brings out. Btw, I have updated the post you answered.

"The _whole_ point of the Bible - and in particular of the Gospel, are the relationships."

As excluding historicity? NO.

There are four senses*, not just one, and the fact that your favourite one is not the literal does not make your exegesis less lopsided.

*literal/historic
prophetic as in OT pointing to Christ
moral - your fav
AND anagogic as in NT pointing to Heaven

"Is there anyone in this group from the UK who believes in creationism??"

2010-10-24T10:12:00.000-07:00

Is there anyone in this group from the UK who believes in creationism??

Thread owner of this one claimed to be just curious.

First reply: Young Earth, doubtful. We have an education system that works, here.
I've met a few theistic evolutionists though.

Second reply: I'm afraid we do have creationists, they're just less arrogant

Third reply, by the one I opposed after: Creationism is a very American phenomenon unfortunately for us Americans. It's embarrassing. I hear Australia is infested as well. But the rest of the world, they are a huge minority.

Me: Sweden.

I know that "education system that works". I also knows that it works among other things by:

- teacher letting young earth creationists have part of his say once
- teacher then misunderstanding
- young earth creationist correcting teacher about misnuderstanding
- teacher saying the reply does not prove creationism true
- young earth creationist then trying to say that was not the purpose of his second say and trying to get beack but getting interrupted by teacher who declares there is no time for debates with creationism

Was that pupil. Am still creationist.

IIId replier: Well, Hans, there is only so much time for teaching. Might as well use that time discussing reality. BTW, was this a science class? If so then creationism is very inappropriate. Science is science. And creationism is not science. If it is a philosophy class, then it is all a huge waste of time anyway. And I am sure most kids in the room were more than a little uncomfortable with your display of schizophrenia. You are still schizophrenic.

A teacher misunderstanding creationism? I'm sure they understood completely in the definition but not in the reasoning.

me: "Might as well use that time discussing reality."

Precisely my point.

"BTW, was this a science class?"

Yes.

"If so then creationism is very inappropriate. Science is science. And creationism is not science."

Neither is evolutionism.

"And I am sure most kids in the room were more than a little uncomfortable with your display of schizophrenia. You are still schizophrenic."

No. You are a big fat bully, but on internet it does not quite work that way. Even if there are big fat bullies in psychiatric wards who will bully patients about creationism.

"A teacher misunderstanding creationism? I'm sure they understood completely in the definition but not in the reasoning."

It was not they, it was one. My reasoning was not complex. Only not what "they" - as in he - had been taught to expect from a creationist.

IIId replier: Wow, christianity in purity, right here. He will delete this in embarrassment within 24 hours. I hope he doesn't. For all to see.

Me: I just played with the thought of deleting it and writing something you might get an ever greater choke from.

Meanwhile, your hate speech - doubly, against me [or friend] and against a religious group [creationists in previous posts, christians in this one of yours] - has been reported in both of your posts. So long as it is not deleted, it is however for display.

Quand on fait de la polémique, on risque d'irriter les gens.

2010-10-20T05:21:00.000-07:00

Surtout quand ils ne peuvent pas légalement se plaindre.

le blog deretour:
19 oct. 2010 14:00 - 20 oct. 2010 13:00

Réponses à "aimerjesus" http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.com/p/reponses-aimerjesus.html
19 juin 2010
1 Page vue
Irrite quelques musulmans?

Ordo Missae of Paul VI per se valid, probably http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.com/p/ordo-missae-of-paul-vi-per-se-valid.html
9 oct. 2010
1 Page vue
Irrite tradis ou au contraire ceux qui vuelent garder la communion en main?
De toute façon ceux qui ne croient pas l'eucharistie et la présence réelle.

Sir George Darwin corrected Galileo Galilei on tides http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.com/p/sir-george-darwin-corrected-galileo.html
29 avr. 2010
1 Page vue
Irrite quelques maçons, qui aiment Galilée précisement à cause de sa rôle dans le procès et l'héliocentrisme?

Terre et Soleil - laquelle est stabile? http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.com/p/terre-et-soleil-laquelle-est-stabile.html
22 mars 2010
1 Page vue

Irrite quelques héliocentriques?

De retour + conditions d'utilisations ultérieures ... http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/de-retour.html
27 mars 2008, 1 commentaire
3 Pages vues
Irritent quelques-uns qui voudraient que mes affaires soient négligées par ma faute?

Nativitas Beatæ Mariæ Virginis - Bonum Festum lect... http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/nativitas-beat-mari-virginis-bonum.html
8 sept. 2010, 7 commentaires
3 Pages vues
Irrite quelques-uns qui ne respectent pas la Sainte Vierge?

Yesterday I missed a close on martyr's day (no, no... http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/yesterday-i-missed-close-on-martyrs-day.html
17 oct. 2010
1 Page vue
Irrite quelques-uns qui n'aiment pas la critique de la Révolution?

Ste Brigitte de Vadstena - gratulerar på namnsdage... http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/ste-brigitte-de-vadstena-gratulerar-pa.html
8 oct. 2010
Irrite personne, on espère?

Il y a un anniversaire que j'aurais voulu célébrer... http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/il-y-un-anniversaire-que-jaurais-voulu.html
7 oct. 2010
1 Page vue
Irrite personne, ou alors la concernée, mais dans ce cas elle me néglige pas comme elle le prétend.

Par gratitude envers quelqu'un de très hospitable ... http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/par-gratitude-envers-quelquun-de-tres.html
11 oct. 2010, 3 commentaires
1 Page vue
Irrite personne, on espère? Qui serait irrité par gratitude?
Ou ça irriterait peut-être quelques fanatiques de l'évolutionnisme?

"Un chapelet de nucléotides" http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.com/2010/04/un-chapelet-de-nucleotides.html
16 avr. 2010
1 Page vue
Encore, irrite personne, on espère? Ou des gens qui ne respectent pas la Sainte Vierge?

Où se trouvent encore ces lecteurs:
19 oct. 2010 15:00 – 20 oct. 2010 14:00
(notez une heure de décalage entre les statistiques)
Pays-Bas - 28

France - 4

États-Unis - 2

Canada - 1

Inde - 1 !

Russie - 1 !

le blog creation vs evolution:
France - 1

Pays-Bas - 1

19 oct. 2010 15:00 – 20 oct. 2010 14:00
Pas de statistique pour les messages concernés. !

le blog HGL's FB Writings:
St Luke concludes five more days of debate with sa... http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/p/st-luke-concludes-fiver-more-days-of.html
18 oct. 2010
5 Pages vues
Irrite biensûr les héliocentriques.

Situation of Yaqui children recently deteriorated http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/p/situation-of-yaqui-children-recently.html
4 mai 2010
1 Page vue
Irrite les tenants de l'école obligatoire laïque ou l'école obligatoire anglo-saxonne plus laïque que pour les traditions des Yaquis?

Blogs/bloggar/bloggi ... http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/p/blogsbloggarbloggi.html
19 mai 2010
1 Page vue
Irrite personne, j'espère?

Our Lady of the Rosary to today, debate between a ... http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/p/our-lady-of-rosary-to-today-debate.html
12 oct. 2010
1 Page vue
Pourrait aussi irriter des héliocentriques.

Was John Wesley charitable to Catholics? http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/p/was-john-wesley-charitable-to-catholics.html
30 avr. 2010
1 Page vue
Pourrait irriter protestants et anglophiles. Et biensûr cathophobes.

D'où "lou / la scoumouno"? De FSSPX, de ma paroiss... http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2010/10/dou-lou-la-scoumouno-de-fsspx-de-ma.html
6 oct. 2010
1 Page vue
Devrait irriter personne. Je suis dans une autre paroisse maintenant.

From Journalistic ethics of James O'Keefe to Psych... http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2010/10/from-journalistic-ethics-of-james.html
6 oct. 2010
1 Page vue
Pourrait irriter les amis de la psychiatrie.

Someone posted a link to Fr. Corapi today http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2010/05/someone-posted-link-to-fr-corapi-today.html
6 mai 2010, 2 commentaires
1 Page vue
Pourrait irriter les capitalistes.

Debate on communism (posted on day before and day ... http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2010/06/debate-on-communism-posted-on-day.html
2 juin 2010
1 Page vue
Pourrait irriter les communistes. Et les radins.

Dante's De Monarchia is wrong http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2010/05/dantes-de-monarchia-is-wrong.html
26 mai 2010, 3 commentaires
1 Page vue
Irrite laïcistes et d'autres gens totalitaires?

I have posted quotes on FB (sometimes with comment... http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2010/05/i-have-posted-quotes-on-fb.html
3 mai 2010
1 Page vue
Irritant pour les amis du malthusianisme?

svar om religionsfrihet, friskolor, tvångsomhänder... (c'est du suédois, ça!)

http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2010/05/svar-om-religionsfrihet-friskolor.html
3 mai 2010
1 Page vue
Irrite l'élite actuelle de la Suède.

Freedom of Education (three FB groups) http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2010/05/freedom-of-education-three-fb-groups.html
3 mai 2010
1 Page vue
Devrait irriter les amis de l'école obligatoire, laïque, darwiniste et héliocentrique.
Et, autant, rejouir les amis de scolarisation à maison.

More quotes from FB notes http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2010/05/more-quotes-from-fb-notes.html
4 mai 2010, 1 commentaire
1 Page vue

Verse drama today (quotes from debate) http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2010/05/verse-drama-today-quotes-from-debate.html
3 mai 2010
1 Page vue

horaires: 19 oct. 2010 15:00 – 20 oct. 2010 14:00
Participants, même horaire:

Pays-Bas - 31

États-Unis - 2

Espagne - 1

France - 1

Suède - 1

Et a-t-on été irrité? Quelques mois plus tard cette question peut se repondre. Il me semble que oui: la semaine dernière il y avait un blocage de blogger sur les bibliothèques municiaples de Paris, voir ma lettre ouverte: Quand les bibliothèques censorisent ...

Hans-Georg Lundahl
23-V-2011
Bibliothèque publique d'Information du
Centre Georges Pompidou
Paris

Même pas pour la beauté la plus parfaite sur terre on n'est pas obligé d'entendre des mensonges sans réagir

2010-10-16T02:24:00.000-07:00

Chez les monastiques de Jérusalem la liturgie et la musique étaient encore plus belles qu'à St Nicolas du Chardonnet. Et j'étais assis auprès d'une femme ou demoiselle - j'aurais voulu savoir quel était le cas. Blonde, petite, en vêtements bleus, avec quelque chose rassemblant à une bague sur la droite, je ne savais vraiment pas si c'était une alliance entre fiancés ou autre chose. Quand même j'ai mis mes pieds dehors après avoir entendu le début de la prêche ce jour de Ste Thérèse d'Avila.

"La certitude que Dieu nous donne ..." serait pas du même ordre que celui qui aurait "inspiré d'actes d'intolérence voire même fanatisme". QUÉ PASAAAAAAA!!!! Les actes fanatiques seraient inspirés par la certitude religieuse chrétienne?

Non, ce n'avait pas été un doute qui aurait sauvé les innocents massacrés à Jérusalem les premiers jours après la prise de la ville par la première croisade. Ça aurait plutôt été une certitude plus forte que Dieu rémunère les souffrances subis par les croisés. Car le massacre là était une vendette, un acte de frustration profonde, ils avaient subi des épreuves terribles - traversé du désert en armure fait pour Europe y compte par exemple. Et il y en a quand même - les imbéciles de la loge ou de Miviludes par exemple - qui imaginent sauver le monde ou le pays ou la ville par le fait d'imposer aux croyants chrétiens comme aux "croyants" des faux religions des doutes intellectuels et des frustrations sur le chemin considéré comme vertueux, qu'il le soit ou pas.

Chez moi, quitter un sermon est un geste assez fort. Une fois ou deux j'ai quitté la messe à St Nicolas du Chardonnet par un sentiment de ne pas du tout être uni dans la charité aux autres paroissiens. mais pas pendant le sermon. Ou, possiblement pendant un seul sermon, celui où un vieux prêtre - mais pas le doyen, ni le curé - avait dit que les fruits de l'Esprit Saint ne soient pas des fruits qui poussent juste comme sur un arbre, qu'ils auraient besoin d'être cultivés par efforts humains. Accueillis, préparés, et c, oui, mais ça c'est autre chose, ça c'est ne pas attrister l'Esprit. Il y en a un qui peut cultiver la joie, il ne dépend nullement de nos efforts. Mais quand même, il n'ont pas dit des conneries tellement ouverts que ça, comme ce soir ci!

La certitude que Dieu donne resterait "soumise à l'erreur" ... s'il avait dit "parfois mélangée de l'erreur" il aurait dit vrai, mais il avait dit "soumise à l'erreur". Irrecevable. Une erreur intellectuelle peut en effet co-exister avec la certitude donné par Dieu, mais celui ou celle qui reçoit la certitude de Dieu ne sera aucunement vaincu ou dominé par ou soumis à l'erreur, ni en tant qu'individu, ni en tant qu'Église.

J'étais venu à une paroisse "normale" par le fait d'avoir accepté que le rite de Messe de Paul VI est valide. Moins d'une semaine après, je me trouve avec un rappel très fort que la diocèse de Paris a d'autres problèmes que ce qu'on avait pu douter sur la validité et sur la justesse et justice dans l'application de ce rite.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
dans un cyber
Ste Thérèse d'Avila
née au ciel la nuit vers le
15/5 octobre - limite pour le nouveau
calendrier de son temps - 1582 ou 1583

"Dieu est glorifié dans ses anges et dans ses saints."

Lutte internationale contre esclavage en prostitution pédo- ou hébé- ou autrement -phile, oui

2010-10-06T12:42:00.001-07:00

Hans-Georg Lundahl · A few seconds ago

Mais pas contre "pédophilie" pèlemèle, comme on considère la question aujourd'hui y comprenant aussi jeunes mariages et autres choses hébéphiles entre consentants pubères de sexe différente.

UPDATE:

Mon premier amour était comme les autres filles de quatorze obligée d'aller à une école mixte. Elle était bourgeoise, elle y rencontrait mon rival qui ne l'était pas.

Lui, il l'a séduit et il s'en est vanté devant moi. Quand on allait vers l'inscription militaire il m'a dit qu'il l'avait larguée, parce qu'il la trouvait stupide.

Si elle avait pu ne pas aller à l'école, ou si elle avait pu épouser et s'il avait du épouser l'autre partie dans une séduction

...V'la, je déteste l'obligation scolaire ET les interdits pour adolescents de se marier. Si ça vous décourage d'être mes amis ...?

"J'irais jamais à l'école"/Plan France - Droits des Filles/Lien

- Mariés à 15 ans, divorcé à 18 ans !

Moi: Qui ça?

- ceux qui se marient adolescents !

Moi: ... ah bon? J'ai lu un article en Suède sur un couple marié à 12 et encore en couple à l'age de 24, le temps où l'article a été fait.

- des musulmans ?

Moi: Non, des suédois. Quand aux musulmans, ils ne considèrent pas le mariage comme indissoluble. C'est pas tout à fait comparable.

- oui c'est vrai / - ha oui ? hé bien tant mieux, mais en réalité trop jeune pour se marier à 12 ans (je coordonne deux réponses pour séparer les séries)

Moi: N'insulte pas la législation Romaine, Catholique, encore aussi française jusqu'à la révolution s t p

- hoo, non non !

Moi: Oh oui. Vérifier chez Jérôme Carcopino pour Rome et chez St Thomas d'Aquin pour l'église avant le XX siècle. Les trois: 14 pour le marié, 12 pour la mariée, ages minimum.

- S'ils sont aptes dans leur corps

Moi: Ce qui est normalement le cas. Ces dates (ou quelques mois mais pas un an entier ou même demi après) sont les ages moyennes pour la puberté. Les extrèmes sont 9 (voir législation islamique) et 18 (voir la législation laïque).

D'où "lou / la scoumouno"? De FSSPX, de ma paroisse, de St Nicolas du Chardonnet?

2010-10-06T11:22:00.000-07:00

Selon une croyance de Marseille, quand quelqu'un se voit persécuté par guigne, y compris peut-être malheur systématique dans l'exploitation des chances offerts, il y a quelque part une excommunication, en parler marseillais "scoumouno".

J'ai été à cette paroisse pendant un an. Durant cette période, tout ce que j'ai entrepris pour mon bien-être temporel, sauf l'immédait, a glissé quasiment d'entre mes doigts.

Psaume 126 Nisi Dominus ædificaverit domum a été la lumière de ma vie, et si Dieu refuse de me benir, est-ce à cause de l'Église? Comment, pourquoi?

Je n'ai jamais prétendu à être prophète et obligé à la gratuité totale pour mes paroles. Pour mes textes, pour mes partitions. J'ai reclamé le mélange de gratuité et d'expectation de revenu qu'a un hospitalero del Camino dans un gite marqué donativo ou qu'a un guitariste de la rue. Le même mélange à peu près que le chœur de St Nicolas a reclamé pendant son concert annuel, celui qui m'a inspiré d'un Uhrsatz le dépli en thèmes de Sonata Nemetodurica.

Maintes fois, j'ai remarqué que les choses n'ont pas donné la réussite expectable, humainement, selon les connaissances que j'avais de ma situation. Guigne? Scoumouno?

Maintes fois j'ai écrit au curé là-dessus, sans réponse directe. J'ai déjà épuisé ce qu'est prévu par le VII (ou VIII?) canon du Concile de Nicée, c'est à dire, quand - je vais utiliser une langue populaire - quand je me vois niqué dans mes affaires temporelles par mon évêque j'ai le droit seulement de me plaindre en privé, par écrit privé.

Ce lundi par contre, j'ai choisi d'être ouvert devant toute la paroisse, de réellement ôter toute présomption que je doive être considéré comme traitre à une obligation stricte de pauvreté évangélique. J'ai punaisé un écrit sur le panneau, une dame qui m'a vu et qui semblait choquée a eu ma réponse (à quelle que soit sa question sous-entendue) "vous pouvez notifier le curé."

Ce n'est pas pour avoir mes affaires traité avec une confidentialité qui est contraires à mes interêts comme moi je les entend que je me tourne à une paroisse, mais pour y vivre chétiennement, dignement, honorablement.

J'ai été trahi à la mauvaise fortune qui m'a guetté en Suède par la décision de père/M. l'abbé Grüen FSPX, de m'y laisser seul après mon baptême sous condition, en 1993. Et encore une fois par sa prétence en 1997 qu'il serait tenter Dieu de laisser la situation que j'avais à l'époque. Une situation beaucoup plus dangéreuse que l'actuelle, selon mes jugements respectifs. Une situation qui m'a conduit à une quasi ruine juridique.

On n'a pas juste besoin d'un prêtre pour supplémenter les déficits de jugements dont on souffre éventuellement, mais aussi pour vivre une vie sacrementelle. Si M. l'abbé a décidé que je me doive abstiner de quelque chose que je fais ou que je doive faire quelque chose qu'il trouve que j'eusse négligé, alors il pourrait me le dire ou écrire. S'il n'a aucune critique à me faire, pourquoi attend-il quasiment mon retour au confessionnel, comme celui d'un pécheur publique, avant de me parler? Mais s'il dit "si ses affaires ont été tellement dégradés par nous, vous mieux qu'il nous évite", c'est une hypocrisie. Ça fait fi du fait qu'on a besoin des prêtres, même si on n'a pas besoin de leur présomption de juger les choses mieux qu'un-même.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
dans la Pompidolienne
6/X/2010, St Bruno
et le jour anniversaire
de mon arrivée à
Santiago de Compostela

PS, la question linguistique est reglé, une ligne rap que je me rappelle (génuine ou en Arleston/Léo Loden?) contient les mots "finie la scoumoune". Merci.

From Journalistic ethics of James O'Keefe to Psychiatry (over Wallraff)

2010-10-06T09:24:00.000-07:00

"As for O'Keefe dressing up as a pimp, yes, it is outrageous, but far less outrageous than the fact that so many ACORN employees were so anxious to work with him to help him establish and under-age prostitution ring"

James O'Keefe had a way of infiltrating ACORN. What if ACORN had a way of infiltrating under age prostitution rings?

The evil DONE by ACORN is more in the line of collaboration with the culture of death.

That is why I liked ACORN getting it for agreeing "yes, far too many black children are born, do donate for contraception and abortion."

I hope O'Keefe's videos about that may still do some good for stopping that in a wider perspective. But I am not sure that is all there is.

Since he is my friend, I will notify him what I said here.

He did imitate someone whose Chestertonian claim is greater, Günther Wallraff, infiltrator of German mental hospitals.

J. P.: See here's the issue---people are getting a whole bunch of ideas conflated at once. Hans, aren't you confusing the PP prank calls with the ACORN videos? ACORN is ostensbily grounded in this:

"The members of ACORN take on issues of relevance to their communities, whether those issues are discrimination, affordable housing, a quality education, or better public services. ACORN believes that low- to moderate-income people are the best advocates for their communities, and so ACORN's low- to moderate-income members act as leaders, spokespeople, and decision-makers within the organization."

By itself, you'd even have to say that this mission statement is noble and admirable. The question is are they using that as a mask for illicit campaigning and influence. As I said--O'Keefe did nothing to elucidate that question. And now we'll likely never know for sure.

The right has imputed that the upper management of ACORN are pro-Choice, which fits the partisan profile, but it's a reach to compare the ACORN videos to Gunther Wallraff even in the most charitable light. (Besides Wallraff's work has also raised questions in ethics for some people. Remember, according to Catholic tradition, nothing can be measured by the ends alone.)

I've said elsewhere that the prank calls to Planned Parenthood were much more acceptable, though I think any information gained in pranks is going to be open to assault by the opposition. What would be more useful is internal documents that state that as a organizational policy.

You could just as easily take pedophile priests and say they are representative of Catholic moral teaching on sex with minors.

I'm not saying that Planned Parenthood isn't grounded in eugenics--of course those who know their history know that they are, but as far as educating the public on that, the PP prank calls are insufficient but amusing supporting evidence of that philosophical orientation.

I think a whole bunch of issues and facts are getting jumbled here--the planned parenthood stunt (and the lucky charms one which was hilarious) are completely separate from ACORN.

Answer:

OK, PP was not included in ACORN's agenda?

As for just war, it is true that not just killing but also some kinds of ruse are licit - but St Thomas actually states that lying is not one of them. Ambush is, if you get out of it before you start the killing.

Oops, it was even Lila Rose who did the PP prank?

J. M. : What's the difference between a ruse and a lie? I think the problem I'm having is that if you follow the logic of Aquinas on Just War regarding killing, how is it that killing is can be justified, but protecting a person's life through a lie cannot even be mitigated to a lesser sin? If I read the Catechism properly, circumstances DO matter in terms of removing culpability for a lie, even if they can never make a lie something "good".

Answer: Killing a bad man is an act of justice. Lying to him is not.

J.M. : But killing a bad man is not necessarily an act of justice, at least not according to the recent popes who seem to prefer that even very bad people not be executed if there is any other way possible to protect society from them. And isn't one of the rationales for accepting such killings that society has a right to defend itself? And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that lying can ever be made good, I'm simply saying that lying to protect a person from an evil aggressor does not seem as damaging as killing a person to protect someone from an evil aggressor. I mean, if you lied in such a situation you'd be operating under duress and with the intent of a) not killing the aggressor, and b) protecting the innocent party. Or are we saying it would actually be more moral to kill a person who was dragging away an innocent person than to tell them a lie to misdirect them?

Answer: "Recent Popes" may have been misled by psychiatrists about what is merciful and what is a reasonable hope of recovery. I think the then Bishop Ratzinger was, when he sheltered a priest having done what he knew to be sexual misconduct (he did maybe not know age of other party) and he also knew the traditional way was defrocking.

J. M. : Actually, I think then Cardinal Ratzinger intended on defrocking the priest in question, but the offending priest died before the process could be completed. As usual, the media completely misinterpreted the slowness of the wheels of justice at the Vatican as the Vatican "protecting" the offender rather than giving the accused due process.

Answer : No, you are talking about another story.

The one I talk about is when he was bishop [I think that was it, or maybe just priest]. He was not told what kind of offence it was and had nothing to do with the process.

He offered a room - shelter in the sense of couch-surfing - to a priest whose bishop was sending him to councelling rather than defrocking for a sexual misconduct the nature of which he did not know. What he DID know was the priest was getting to a psychologist or psychiatrist, to some kind of shrink.

Has he learned something from the mistake? (Even if not his own, mistakes in his knowledge are a matter he could licitly learn from).

a - he has not changed preference for long and painful rehabilitations over death penalty

b - he has on World Health Day 2006 pronounced one in five as suffering from a mental disorder or disease

c - he pardoned Susana Maiolo without making a process for what was objectively a sacrilege, though as against a celebrant only starting the procession very much less so than if she had done it during directly Eucharistic parts of Holy Mass: as if she was sure she was deluded.

What if she tried to make the Church make a process so she could make one against psychiatry? Then it was - to all appearances I know of - wasted on Benedict XVI. Or should one say Mr Ratzinger?

[Immediately added:]obviously - am I cursed by some priest or something? - "as if she was sure she was deluded" shall be "as if HE was sure she was deluded".

J. M. : From what I've read, BXVI, has evolved in his understanding of the nature of the sex abuse problem over the years. Like so many people in both the Church and the secular world, he followed the wisdom of secular experts about rehabilitating offenders, but over time he became convinced that was not working at all. Which just goes to show, sometimes the old ways really are the best ways. One in five seems rather high, but if you include mild depression, I guess you could get to that number. However, I seriously think if people availed themselves of the sacrament of reconciliation more often, even mild depression would be greatly reduced.

Is Susana Maiolo the one that jumped the rope and attacked him? I'm not quite sure I follow what you are saying about the Pope's pardon of her actions regarding "making a process".

Answer : My point is has he evolved WITH psychiatry in sex abuse problems or has he evolved ABOUT psychiatry?

She is the one who floored him. A thing that has certainly been done to her once in a while in those institutions.

If she had been put to trial according to Church law she could have explained that detail in her background. And asked his holiness - supposing him to be so, I have not lost hope yet - whether he was aware of that, and if he had found the sensation confortable, and if it was fair to her and other victims of psychiatry for him to tell priests they should continue telling her and others to bear their "mental suffering" as a cross instead of complaining about mental institutions as a crime.

But I fear, as long as he thinks it humane to oppose death penalty - despite Romans 13 - because he hopes psychiatry will do better, he is deaf to such appeals.

That is my great problem with him. That was my great problem with my Roumanian bishop. (Is he holding me excommunicate and is Rome giving back Orthodox ecclesiastic power so he can do it?) He preached about suffering in Easter 2008 and thought "mental illness" an item sufficiently important to mention, i e he too agrees with psychiatry.

J. M. : My understanding is that BXVI has lost his faith in the psychiatry's power to "cure" pedophilia. He now understands through experience with recidivism amongst offenders that this pathology is rarely cured through therapy. In fact, he was often at odds with JPII, because JPII had seen so many priests falsely accused of sexual abuse by Communists that he thought that most accusations were likely false. I think Pope Benedict came to terms with the reality of the situation before JPII.

I don't think speaking about mental illness as being a cross to bear necessarily is an endorsement of mental institutions, and I hope that not all mental institutions are criminal in their operation, although I do know that there are often abuses, and I'm sure BXVI would not approve of those.

I also don't think the reason he opposes the death penalty for killers is because he thinks these people can be cured, but rather to give them as much time as possible to repent and possibly be reconciled with God.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you Roumanian Orthodox by profession? And if you are, why do think that the Pope must give the Roumanian Church the authority to excommunicate you? Don't you believe the Roumanian Church has the authority to do that without the Pope's approval?

Answer: "My understanding is that BXVI has lost his faith in the psychiatry's power to "cure" pedophilia."

Yes. So has psychiatry. Does that prove him independent of psychiatry? No.

"I don't think speaking about mental illness as being a cross to bear necessarily is an endorsement of mental institutions, and I hope that not all mental institutions are criminal in their operation, although I do know that there are often abuses, and I'm sure BXVI would not approve of those."

By telling someone he or she is mentally ill, he is refusing to DISCOVER the abuses. So are you if you hope they are not all criminal. At least if you disapprove of Wallraff (who found out the German ones were a few decades ago, then he has done other stuff) - was that you?

In psychiatry among ten patients, it is not a question as many think of nine mentally ill and maybe the tenth one a mistake, it is a question of nine who are sane and maybe one who is mad. I am not saying the others are always morally all right - would you be after years of being treated with limitations of freedom and safety gadgets originally applied to madmen? I am saying they are NOT MAD.

See here: http://distributistreview.com/mag/2010/07/naive-experts-economists-and-the-real-world/

Psychiatrists tend to be the same, they miss both sanity and danger in persons.

J.M. : Hans, my aunt was bipolar for most of her adult life, and when she would have one of her bouts with either mania or depression, I often feared that she would either hurt herself or get hurt, because she wasn't thinking clearly. She was only hospitalized once or twice due to her mental illness, but I assure you she wasn't just a unique thinker, or sad, or weird, she was like a different person than the one she was when she wasn't having problems. And although her treatments weren't perfect, they usually were able to bring her back to her normal state through medication. However, I do see your point that a lot of people are diagnosed as mentally ill when they are really just dealing with difficult circumstances in their life. Being depressed when your life has been turned upside down is a normal response, not an abnormal one.

I don't know anything about Wallraff', so I don't think I'm the one you're thinking of that disapproved of his work. And I certainly wouldn't sanction abuses once they were uncovered. It makes me sick to think that people who are mentally fragile would be abused when they already have more than their share of problems.

Answer: bipolar? nothing worse?

a hot bath with roses or other things can be "done to" a depressive person (including bipolar during depressive period) - which is why people in depression are fearly easy to treat and fairly well treated in such places

quite sure it was her thoughts as opposed to emotions that were "not clear"?

I have seen a person have a very strange and ironic humor during a week of sleeplessness about once or twice a year - but never harming either herself or others, whether hospitalised or not. It also passed after a week (usually when she got her menstruation) whether she was hospitalised or not.

[adding about me and Roumanian Orthodox profession:] In answer to questions missed above: I am a convert to Catholic Church, sedisvacantist under last years of J.P.-II, exceited about election of Ratzinger, then disappointed - over this very point of psychiatry! - and went to Roumanian Church, whose bishop for Western Europe disappointed me too, to be precise with his Easter Pastoral of 2008. A year ago I went back to FSSPX (Mgr Lefèbvre's inheritors).

If traditional Western theology holds, Orthodox bishops lack jurisdiction and so lack power to excommunicate anyone, let alone a Catholic. St Ignatius of Loyola wrote the Copt Patriarch of Alexandria had neither jurisdiction nor grace to give Ethiopians. Be it noted, his quarrel was not over hesychasm - he prayed hesychastically himself and taught others to do so, though not with the Jesus prayer - but over their rejection of Rome's authority.

If they have jurisdiction now, does it mean they always had it and I exposed myself or does it mean they got it back when Paul VI kissed Athenagoras?

@J. P., I forgot this part: "You could just as easily take pedophile priests and say they are representative of Catholic moral teaching on sex with minors."

Sex as in marital relation or sex as fornication especially stuprum, seducing a virgin? Fornicating by seducing a virgin is worse than doing it with someone who already has whether that virgin is 14 or 20.

Marital relations are another matter and licit whether newly wed the bride be 12 or 20.

La politique des parties et des mouvances, j'ai essayé de l'éviter.

2010-09-27T08:27:00.000-07:00

Mais je me trouve en France, et en avance c'est pas gagné.

J'ai parfois l'impression que les adhérents de Rénouveau Français, que je côtoie dans la paroisse St Nicolas du Chardonnet, ont essayé un manoeuvre un peu dévié: en me faisant une bonne mine, en me parlant et saluant de façon que je les ai resalué, il y a un certain risque qu"ils ont pu vouloir me décrédibiliser devant tout ce qui est de gauche d'eux mêmes, là où j'ai joui d'un certain respect et un certain accueil.

Peut-être ils se disent qu'ils ont comme but de me sauver de la gauche marxiste. Là ils seraient alors victimes de la même illusion qu'ils essaient de faire aux gauchistes, si j'ai bien compri et pas déconné sur leur manœuvre.

Je ne suis ni adhérent de Rénouveau Français, ni de Jeunesse Ouvrière Catholique. J'apprécie les deux plus qu par exemple Communistes ou Musulmans. Mes vues politiques ne changent pas en fonction de la compagnie que je fréquente. À la limite, je préfère en exprimer certains aspects en certaines compagnies, d'autres en d'autres. Mais jamais pendant le période de mes textes les plus proches des Verts, je n'ai accepté que la limitation de la croissance industrielle passe par limitation de l apopulation par avortments ou par contraception. Et jamais dans mes textes les plus monarchistes, je n'ai accepté que l'industrie avec gros capital soit une aristocracie qui comprenne les choses mieux que les petites gens. Ou que les forces d'ordre auraient le droit d'embêter les chomeurs volontaires par ça seulement, plutôt que pour des débordements.

En plein chemin de St Jacques, en 2004, j'ai chanté:

Os quiero, izquierdo y paquito
Rey Cristo es mi lealtad.

Je vous aime, M. Gaucho et M. Facho, c'est le Christ Roi qui est ma loyauté.

C'est pas en lisant davantage de Chesterton ou moins d'Éric Gill que je devrais devenir plus droitiste. J'ai jamais lu Éric Gill, je me suis toujours nourri de Chesterton. C'est pas en décriant le nucléaire ou en affectionnant les boutiques coopératives - tel MAS des alternatives - que je deviendrais plus gauchiste. L'Autriche est très droitiste et antinucléaire. Les coopératives de Agro-Union m'ont toujours à l'époque communiste semblé être le moins communiste et le plus respectueux de la liberté de propriété privé qu'on trouvait chez les communistes.

Franco, je peux bien me ranger derrière ses détracteurs comme derrière ses adulateurs - ça dépend du contexte. Il a sauvé la fortresse où se trouvait Mozcardó? Il a battu l'exécrable Azaña? Il a sauvé l'Église? Il a laissé ses volontaires se battre contre les Soviétiques à la fronte de l'Est? Alors je suis pour Franco.

Il a fait la guerre en Afrique sur les prémisses que le vieillard Musulman a décrié "quand on portera chaussures vous nous appelerez civilisés", je suis contre cette aventure là. Il a torturé après sa victorie? Je suis contre. Il a donné moyens de recherche et pouvoir sur des malheureux aux psychiatres? Je suis contre ça. Il a modernisé l'économie dans les années 1960, je suis contre ça, pourtant il était moins mal que de Gaulle ou les Socialdémocrates suédois dans le même contexte.

J'ai gagné une sympathie pour Franco dans le sens que ce n'était pas lui, mais l'Église d'Espagne qui avait rendu l'éducation à peu près et praticalement obligatoire. J'ai perdu une sympathie pour lui en apprenant qu'il soutenait la psychiatrie, dans l'espoir de rechercher sur le génôme des révolutionnaires.

Ce n'est pas parce que je suis pour Dollfuss, ami chrétien de Mussolini, que je serais pour Hitler, plus tard allié payen de Mussolini. Ce n'est pas non plus parce que je suis contre Hitler (je parle de sa politique, on peut espérer qu'il soit échappé et qu'il aura fait une meilleure vie avec Eva Braun quelque part où ses oeuvres politiques avant 1945 étaient peu visées par l'opinion) que je serais contre Dollfuss.

Il y a un monde entre les positions que j'ai et celles qu'on me propose ou reproche comme connexes dans une logique flou du discours politique. Pour moi, la logique a été pleinement exploré ou presque par Aristote. La politique un peu moins: il soutenait un discours raciste en parlant du "naturellement maître" et "naturellement esclave" où il doit être corrigé par St Augustin. Ce qu'est aussi la position de St Thomas d'Aquin.

Quand à ceux qui voudraient que je change mon discours dans un sens qu'il comprendront mieux, désolé. S'ils essaient de la droite, sur les droits du pouvoir publique, celui-là est contre les méchant et pas contre les "tête-dans-l'air" ou leurs libertés. S'ils essaient de la gauche, sur mon prétendu interêt de me développer, je suis pas évolutionniste. Surtout pas quand on parle de l'évolution dans le contexte humain. Il y a apostasies, il y a des conversions, mais il n'y a pas vraiment d'évolution.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
in Pompidoliana Bibl.
27/IX/2010

David Bawden/Pope Michael may be no Pope, but he is no fool either

2010-09-25T13:20:00.000-07:00

Link discussed: http://www.facebook.com/PopeMichael1?ref=ts

N: "He's insane"

===
I was his friend back when I was Palmarian, and a little later too.

He concluded FSSPX and episcopal sedisvacantists were disregarding Papacy as much as the Orthodox, then that an alternative conclave as needed to amend that. Then that since one conclave had so small a minority of bishops as to be "practically" a laymen's conclave, laymen's conclaves are permitted in absence of bishops. He got six people together, all laymen, including himself and his parents/mom. He lives a celibate home at mom's farm.

To my mind he is not slow, he is a bit thick. Not meaning dishonest. Nor confused over any proportion to situation.

===

SE: "How anyone can maintain such a personal delusion for 20 years is mystifying. But I'm no psychologist."

CK: "The internet aids in that."

===

It is not a matter of psychology, it as a matter of CANON LAW.

As an amateur canonist and sedisvacantist he arrived at a position which he has found no canonic reason to abandon.

@ C(K): being in any way cut off from the companies YOU consider as having common sense aids in maintaining the positions YOU consider as delusions. Mr Bawden lives on the country side.

Having any kind of access to companies YOU consider a...s lacking in common sense may aid there too.

But it is RUBBISH to claim he gets a great feedback on internet by fake followers.

He is getting the heat on internet. He had hopes for me, since I am geocentric, as is he, as is for that matter Robert Sungenis (who accpeted John Paul II). He got heat from me, on more than one canonic and Latin grammar account.

Papacy traditionally never claimed to be able to distinguish what person is "maintaining a delusion" (in psychological sense) and who is responsible for heresies. See here: http://o-x.fr/xet [St Robert Bellarmine]

"Dicimus PRIMVM, non posse errare Pontificem in iis praeceptis, quae toti Ecclesiae praescribuntur; quia, vt suprà diximus, in praeceptis, & iudiciis particularibus, non est absurdum Pontificem errare."

I translate:

FIRSTLY we say, that the Pontiff cannot err in precepts, which are prescribed for all the Church; since, as we said above, it is not absurd that a Pontiff err in precepts or judgements on particular matters.

"on particular matters" could as easily be translated "concerning particular persons" or "in individual cases".

Whether a person has claimed that a conclave may be entirely made from laymen and supported it by example of a mediaeval conclave where laymen by far, far outnumbered the bishops or even simple priests and deacons, that is a matter of objective testing. David Bawden, even before taking practical steps of applying his conclusion, came to it and published it in "Will the Catholic Church Survive the XXth Century?".

If John Paul II was Pope at the time, it is also a very sound question: did he condemn the book, and if not why?

If John Paul had condemned David Bawden for writing and publishing that book - look it up in the acts of the Holy See! - he would have been acting on an objectively testable principle, he would also have been deciding for the whole church (or whoever accepts papacy and him as Pope) whether such a thing as a lay conclave is even theoretically possible. In such a case, he would have been within the limits of Papal Infallibility.

If on the other hand, he decided David Bawden was a kook, he was deciding purely on a matter concerning an individual whom, on top of that, he did not know. In such a case he was no wiser than Argentine officials calling the Mothers of Plaza de Mayo fools and dismissing their claim to get their children back.

For believe me: David Bawden certainly did think it was his duty to inform Karol Wojtyla that he was a heretic before the 1978 conclave, and so was Paul VI.

Debate on credibility, as with tradition and revelation, of Genesis and Gospels

2010-09-25T09:53:00.001-07:00

MMcGr: Adam and Eve is a myth, a story, not actual history. Nothing we experience now as a part of life is the result of their actions.

BR: M. J. McGr., Adam and Eve are not only real, they're pivotal to understanding the nature of humanity.

MMcGr: B., they weren't real. A lot of ppl may believe they were, but that doesn't make it any more true. There's no evidence --zip, zilch, nada-- to support their existence and every reason in the world to understand them as the protagonists of a primitive, yet re-worked, creation myth.

S. W.: McGr.---there is no evidence that YOU would accept---which means absolutely nothing. We have the Word of God and His Church.

MMcGr: S., there's no evidence. Period. With all due respect, it's a preposterous idea, as is the Bible being the Word of God, that only an indoctrinated person would believe. [I came out of that background myself. And saying that I would "believe nothing" is both incorrect and a diversionary tactic to deflect attention away from an utterly unsupportable assertion.]

===
Wrong.

Genesis story is backed up by dozens if not hundreds of para...llels in pagan mythology. It is grosso modo credible, as history, even if it were not the word of God.

I was an evolutionist before being a Bible believer.

http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2008/11/what-kind-of-editing-i-did-and-what.html

After reading the message, read the others on same blog, they go into more detail.
===

MMcGr: Hans, I never said Genesis wasn't a ripoff of Pagan myths; it is. But, they're not actual history, either.

===
Ah: you have two testimonies, not as by two different eye-witnesses, but as by two different cultures.

They are divergent on some things but clearly convergent on others.

And that sort of *proves* to you one is a rip-off on the other?

And even when we go beyond Babylon and Israel and get to dozens other paleontologic tales, converging on same things and diverging even more in detail, it does not still strike you as even a remote possibility they could all be more or less mangled memories of real events?
===

B. R.: Mr. McGr., even a quick reading of the stories is enough to show that the authors not need worry about charges of derivative work. That the pagans have corrupted memories of the true beginning is not surprising, nor is it that they get all the key plot points wrong.

===
But they do not.
Creation - yes (though not quite ex nihilo in their versions)
Recent such - yes (well, Egyptian bragging made it less recent, like 40.000 ys ago)
Original bliss and immortality of man - yes.
A deceiver involved in the change for the worse - yes.
===

BR: Ex nihilo (from before anything God, the world of nothing key plot point)
Man sinned of own knowledge and choice. (Adam was not deceived! key plot point)
Most pagan creation myths don't have human immortals (key plot point)
How long ago, isn't a 'plot point'.

===
"Ex nihilo (from before anything God, the world of nothing key plot point)

Man sinned of own knowledge and choice. (Adam was not deceived! key plot point)"

Two plot points wrong, not all of them.

"...Most pagan creation myths don't have human immortals (key plot point)"

Some do.

"...How long ago, isn't a 'plot point'."

If it is within human memory or absolutely not is.
===

BR: Mr Lundahl, 'how long ago' may be important, but it is not a plot point.

"Most pagan creation myths don't have human immortals (key plot point)
Some do." - Duh, why do you think I said 'Most'?

The Pagan stories appear to be attempts to retell the 'fact' while avoiding the 'reasons'. Gilgemesh has a Flood, well enough, but it has no preacher urging repentance while building an ark for example.

===
Well, the thing is, if some DO have that plot point it is not true that all are wrong on EVERY plot point.

The exact time distance between us and creation may not be a plot point, but the possibility of a tradition surviving is.
===

BR: Mr Lundahl,
I didn't say that they all got 'every plot point wrong' - I said they got the key plot points wrong. Please, argue with what I say, not what you wish I said.

"The exact time distance between us and creation may not be a plot point, but the possibility of a tradition surviving is." I'm not sure what you mean by that. Moses writes a story that was revealed to him. Not one simply 'handed down' to him so there is a distance between the Genesis story and the other epics in 'source material' that is rather large. But yes, our knowledge of the stories (today) does depend on the survival of writing materials, so in that they are alike....

===
The six days, Moses writes what was revealed. From creation of Adam on, he writes what he knew by tradition, whether it was also revealed or not.

THE points means EVERY point, just as much as pointS means SOME of them. Grammar.
Of course, if you want to correct THE to SOME, you are more than welcome, and I admit having argued not against your position, only against a sloppy grammar.

===

Mr Lundahl, ALL scripture is given by inspiration. (St. Paul) Moses had no need to refer to 'tradition', he had God the Author for his source. We do not know what the tradition of the Jews/Hebrews was when Moses set down the account. It may have been as far wrong as those of the heathen.

Again you argue with what you wish I had written.

I did not write 'the points'. I wrote 'they KEY points', well, the key plot points.
Note, though if you will, that you've again ignored the little word 'key'. The is a particular determiner, key is the adjective modifying points, points is indeed in the plural. Syntax and grammar.

There are many places where the pagan misses the point (in the singular for the point that is missed is single, at most turns of the plot, even though by the time the story is done many points have been in error). The key points are those which mark the relationship between God and Man.

I've no need of an apology, refraining from further unmerited attack will be more than sufficient.

===
Nope.

Revelation and inspiration is not same thing.

And saying the plot points where pagans differ from Genesis are more key than those both differ from evolutionism is merda tauri.
===

BR: Who said they were? Nonetheless, the inspired scriptures reveal to us the true story of the origin.

Why do you insist on arguing against things not written?

I never said that the differences in plot between evolutionism and pagan myth were less key than between pagan myth and the Word of God. Both however do get their theology wrong

===
They [=sacred scriptures] do. THey also reveal to us the true story of King David. Obviously by human eyewitnesses being applied for Paralipomena and Kings. Not by writers knowing everything by revelations, but by inspiration guiding them from error in transmitting the witnesses.

Same applies to Gospels and - to Genesis from creation of Adam on. Which is why the possibility of transmission by tradition without error is one KEY point of the plot. And by erroneous, but not necessarily so traditions, pagans also got some KEY points of the plot right.
===

BR: The witnesses could not know the heart of the Kings, as is revealed in the text. Even when there are human witnessess, they've less information than the Author. The Scripture is not simply some 'eye witness account' it is far more than that, it is the more sure word of the prophets.

The 'possiblity' of the transmission of the story is not a key plot point in the story. In fact, one of the key points is that the story, as we have it in Scripture, actually IS the true story, written by the prophets and apostles and pen-men of Scripture under the inspiration of God.

===
Being an inspired writer sometimes meant being precisely a pen-man of God: Moses in taking down the law "and the LOrd spoke o Moses and said", dito for St John when writing the Gospel (according to tradition both hands wrote in automatic writing) or when seing the Apocalypse. But St Luke too was an inspired writer who wrote without error ACCORDING TO HUMAN TESTIMONY. As is said in prologue to his Gospel. I argue we know the story of Genesis mainly through Moses, who knew it mainly as St Luke knew what he wrote about. The Six days, the law, these are other matters, known by revelation only, obviously.

In both cases their are Pagan parallels. Flood is known by Pagan tradition, in a somewhat distorted way, pre-human events totally MIS-known by a false revelation given to Hesiod, known as Theogony.

"I never said that the differences in plot between evolutionism and pagan myth were less key than between pagan myth and the Word of God. Both however do get their theology wrong."

Ah, but there are plot elements that are other than theology. It makes sense the war of Troy happened, and the voyage of Odysseus, only the theology was gotten wrong by Homer.

Which implies that Pagans get some key points of plot right along with Genesis getting it right, but when Darwinism gets it wrong, because it is not tradition but reconstruction.
===

Mr. Lundahl, The beloved physician edited out that which was not true in the human witness (if any were error existed in that testamony). Genesis likewise had any errors corrected, (hence the differences in the key points of theological difference)

===
"if any were error existed in that testamony" - none did. St Mary and Christians before St Luke were not in any kind of error. He had nothing to correct in his material.

Genesis has no errors to correct either, since Hebrew tradition was not mangled after the tower of Babel.

Whether six days are:
- revelation to Moses
- tradition to Moses revealed already to Henoch
or
- tradition to Henoch and Moses revealed already to Adam
is not clear from the story.

It is clear they supplement information human witnesses had no direct access to.
===

BR: Mr. Lundahl,
You expect me to believe that the people who while Moses was on the mount had a golden calf to be their God had no errors in their creation story that needed correction?

===
Not in the family Moses came from.

Besides, Moses had already received the tradition when they apostasised to golden calf worship.

They did so being discouraged in the desert.

M.McGr. left the discussion between me and BR early with the words:
===

Guys, again, believe what you like. It has no basis in reality, but I'm all for freedom of religion, speech, etc.

http://truthbeknown.com/christconspiracy.html

===
I looked up the link. But before we get there:

G.Fr: Mr. McGr., absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

M.McGr.: G., in some instances it is.

But, the more salient question is, why would you believe in something completely outlandish given NO evidence?

===
If there were no witnesses to Christ rising, no Church speaking from fifty days later and getting persecuted and working miracles up to our own days, there would have been absence of evidence and evidence of absense as well. As it is there is neither. There is plenty of evidence, it is simply contested.

Similarily with the plot points I mentioned as common to Genesis and Pagans as opposed to evolutionism.

Diverging versions do not diverge all that much and the divergences there are point to tower of Babel.

Now to my appraisal of M.McGr:s link:

Dishonest misconstruing:

"The denial of "Christ come in the flesh" is an early "heresy" called "Docetism," whose proponents not only abounded during the first centuries of the Christian era but were the original "Christians," i.e., Gnostics...."

Not so. They did not deny people saw Christ, they said a spirit arranged a series of hallucinations over very long time in order to teach and that the people claiming he had a real body had simply not learned as much from that spirit as they.

Ludicrous anachronism:

"Longinus was the name of the Roman soldier who stuck Jesus in the side with a spear. Legend held that Longinus was blind and was subsequently cured by Jesus's blood. Again, this is not a historical event but part of the mythos and sacred king ritual, as Walker relates:

"The true prototype of the legend seems to have been the blind god Hod, who slew the Norse savior Balder with the thrust of a spear of mistletoe. March 15, the "Ides of March" when most pagan saviors died, was the day devoted to Hod by the heathens, and later Christianized as the feast day of the Blessed Longinus."

Ther was no cult of Hod or Balder until very much later, and the Vikings who did worship them (or at least Balder) knew nothing about Ides of March until they became Christians and used Julian calendar.

Abuse of generous admissions:

"Writings regarding Pilate and Jesus, such as the obviously fictitious "Acts of Pilate," are well-known forgeries, admitted by the Catholic Encyclopedia. The Jewish historian Philo wrote about Pilate, mentioning... his abuses, but not a single word about anyone remotely resembling Jesus Christ being crucified under his procuratorship.

These "letters" are KNOWN FORGERIES, which is why they are apocryphal."

They - the letters - were non-canonic all the time, because accepted and known only by part of Church. Not because they were in any sense "known" to be forgeries until very much later when renaissance men got an itch for proving this and that a forgery. If the Acts of Pilate are "well known" as forgeries, that only happened so much later. Catholic Encyclopedia is no Church Father.

On beer.

2010-08-15T06:58:00.001-07:00

With a FB friend named Genevieve I was discusing a bottle on a photo.

- Blonde or wheat?

- Barley.

- as in blonde

barley goes blonde, amber, dark

wheat is lighter than barley

in the bottle the colour could be very light blonde or very yellow wheat

- Ah, so barley=blonde?

- no, Genevieve:
blonde=barley
amber=barley
dark=barley
from white to close on blonde=wheat

the three colours of barley depend on how much you heat the malt when drying it.

blonde is a k a lager, though amber apart from malt colour may well be lager brewed too

dark is ale brewed, typically or universally

ale brew/lager brew mean different types of yeast that work on different temperatures

apart from ale and lager brewing, there is also Belgian geuse brewing, waiting for air to give a ferment, which makes for bitter bear (Lambik, Guese, I cannot remember which is mixed with ordinary lager, and Kriek mixed with cherries)

- How do you know so much? You and Stanford are like super brains ;)

- My gramp was a distiller, from childhood I have known how whiskey is made.
In 2005 I was guest of a brewer and saw some of these things.

Malting is a process in which barley (or, obviously wheat) grains are put on nets and soaked, turned over and around a few days on row until sweet, dried. If you dry them over smoky turf fire, you will get a beer to brew whisky from, if you add barley grains simply charred you will get the right hue and bitterness of Guiness.

When malted grains are dried, they are ground. After grinding, you add boiling water in proportions that will allow over all temperature to be like 70° C (whatever that is in F, but well over 100), so all microbes are eliminated. This is left over night without air (except as said above, for Lambik/Geuse).

Day after the liquid is drained from that porridge (it is called mash) and the cold nearly solid porridge that is left is typically fed to poultry. It works quite as well as maize.

THe pure liquid has yeast and some air added and is then sealed off for fermentation.

If you distill beer you get whisky or vodka. Whisky is from barley beer, vodka from wheat beer. If you do not distill beer it is a good thing to hav made the beer tasty, and that is typically done by adding hops - dried and ground and mixed with ground malt - before adding hot water to make the mash.

There are different races of hops, just as there are of roses or strawberries or cherries - apples are even more different, that is quite another league of genetic variation - and you have one hop for Pilzner (a blonde lager) and another (unless I misremember) for Guiness.

If you make Belgian beer, cherries (Kriek), air exposure ferment (Geuse, Lambik), or cloves and maybe other spices (Leffe abbey beer) may well replace hops.

After fermentation is over - a thing known for number of weeks by different yeast varieties, then tested day after day by taste - you bottle the beer and seal the bottles.

I have described the making of a strong beer. When draining the mash, you have much liquid, and adding hot water once again will give an after soak or two. If first drain is for 8%, second drain goes for 6% and third drain for 4% - if it was the mash I saw, with the proportions of malt and water that I saw. With more water to start with, first drain will be less strong. Obviously you can either mix the drains to get a 6% or keep them separate for different beers of different strength.

Added today to someone who claimed the Pope as "vicar of Christ" is an admitted "substitute for Christ"

2010-07-13T05:20:00.000-07:00

K., the link you gave as a "Roman Catechism" goes to an anti-Catholic propagandist.

"Exposing the Idolatry of Mary Worship: An Overview John MacArthur, Jr. - Explaining the Heresy of Catholicism (Part 1)"

is the first of the sublinks.

If you want to know, or presuming you already know, prove to others something about Catholic Doctrine, I suggest you go to Catholic sources.

Not necessarily exclusively the most modern ones, I (being Catholic myself) tend to prefer older material (yes, some of it is on the web), like St THomas Aquinas or Catechism of St Pius X.

A vicar is not a substitute.A vicar namely claims to obey the one he is vicar for.

George Washington was a substitute for George III (who was himself something of a substitute for James III or Charles III Edward or ...), and Wilhelmus van Oranje-Nassau was a substitute for the Spanish King Philip II. A substitute means substituting ones own points of view to those of the ruler.

If you want to see a real adoration of a substitute rather than a vicar look at Notre Dame during French Revolution, where "Goddess Reason" was adored. Since that goddess was personified or acted by a harlot, it gives you a bit "harlot in scarlet" as well.

And if you say "the harlot in scarlet is supposed to rule Rome" (as in Seven Hills) consider please the fact that the French Revolution definitely took over Rome just when those words about the Pope as Vicar were definied by Vatican Council (I as those say who acknowledge a II). The ruler of the Seven Hills now is Berlusconi, not Benedict XVI. But the mayor of Rome in 1870's and 1880's (just after taking it away from Papal administration) really was into the substituting business.

A Pagan temple had been made for the "all of the gods" - pantheon. One Pope removed Pagan statues, made an exorcism, dedicated it to the special intercession and protection of St Mary and All Saints (which is the reason we celebrate November 1st), but that mayor of Rome took it away from the Church and - renamed it Pantheon, making it a tomb for excommunicated freemasons of renown, like the robbers of Rome.

(Written under my FB Profile Hans-Georg Lundahl)

(Added after a comment in which K. says she did not believe the Pope was vicar of Christ in Catholicism when she was a Catholic, i e she had been adapting the beliefs that should have been Catholic to Protestant Bible interpretation:)

I did not say John MacArthur charges money, I say he is anti-Catholic.
I did not say the pope was not a vicar, I said a vicar is not a substitute. A rebel is a substitute. A vicar is not a rebel. It is another matter if a vicar is a real vicar or a sham one, but a vicar is in matters of state or other things easier than Bible to check in a dispassionate manner, something other than a rebel who substitutes his rule for that of the ruler.

So, even if what you discovered about the Catechism was right, it was the Bible study or comparison with Bible made by JMcA that was not right.
Besides you do not listen very well.

Eric told you Luther did not accept all of the Bible and you answered "surely, we must accept the Bible".

No Catholic here has attacked the Bible - a safe bet even before reading all of the comments - we have been saying Catholicism is Biblical and your Protestantism is not Biblical. Also: God gave us a Church to trust before entrusting it with the New Testament Books of the Bible.

Patriarchs came before Prophets, because there was a people before there were people speaking to it.

Apostles came before Evangelists, because St Peter on Pentecost had to save as many Jews from beginning Judaism into Christianity as possible before someone could sit down and write about it (St Luke, a convert from Pagan ignorance or maybe even worship).

(She had earlier said the Roman Church must be wrong because the killers of Christ were Romans, so I added:)

Besides you forget that the Roman Centurion who pushed a lance in Christ's side immediately converted.

THAT is in the Gospel. Catholic France and Orthodox Roumania have had some dispute about the honour of having later had the legion of that first Roman convert, the Centurion Longinus.

Whether Pilate later converted and died a martyr, as Copts say, or committed sacrilege and died by his own hand and had his corpse taken by demons to a lake in the Alps, as the neighbours of "Pilatus-See" say, is not universally accepted, but Longinus was for sure and certain a convert.

They shall look up to whom they have pierced through, I think the Gospeller quoted a Prophecy, and it was fulfilled then and there.

Persécutrice de la réputation de la wikipedia se trompe

2010-07-09T07:42:00.000-07:00

la comparaison

Elle prétend que le vert (version de gauche) soit censuré, tandis que c'est assez identiquement repris en bleu dans la version prochaine (montrée à droite).

(partie enlevée d'ici et ajouté en bas, dessous ma signature dans le PS)

Très loin d'être une chose totalitaire où "les rédacteurs" sont "censeurs", chaqu'un ("rédacteur" régistré ou simple lecteur, sauf pour articles "de qualité" qui sont protégés) peut défaire un rédaction en comparant avec la version d'avant et s'il détecte un vandalisme, il peut cliquer sur "défaire rédaction".

Cette prof de philo ne vient pas de prouver que wikipedia soit totalitaire, juste de découvrir l'opposé et son incapacité avec l'internet.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

PS: Ce qu'est pire pour une professeure de philosophie est qu'elle n'a pas découvert comment est bête l'informatique comme mécanique, elle risquereait de croire en "Intelligence Artificielle".

Il y a des parties blanches où les versions sont identiques, il y a des parties vertes de la version d'avant enlevés en tant que tels, mais si quelque chose aura été gardée, c'est en vert moins foncé, il y a des parties bleues qui sont ajoutées comme telles.

Après la partie blanche qui finit avec les mots "1860, sous l'impulsion de Napoléon III" vient la vraie différence: que la version d'avant avait comme titre unique:

"== Polémique : affaire dite « du Golf de Nice » =="

tandis que la version d'après avait (a peut-être encore) comme titre:

"== Polémiques =="

et comme sous-titre:

"=== Affaire dite « du Golf de Nice » ==="

Le titre a donc été élargi en deux titres, en deux niveaux. Et ce que suivait le titre unique déplacé un niveau en bas. Mais pour l'informatique le titre a été échangé en un titre plus bref, niveau 1 de la partie divergeante, niveau 2 le paragraphe a été remplacé par un soustitre qui contient en commun avec celui-ci les mot "Golf de Nice", niveau 4 la version d'avant manque le paragraphe qui s'y trouvait en niveau 2 mais la version d'après a ce paragraphe comme un ajout qui correspond a rien dans le version de gauche. Autre ajout: niveau 3, un espace vide.

Un peu plus bas il y a une autre partie divergente, les niveaux sont juste marqués en bleu se trouvent uniquement dans la version nouvelle. Il s'agit d'autres sous-titres et d'autres polémiques autour d'Estrosi.

L'ordinateur serveur qui fait fonctionner l'informatique de la wikipedia ne compare pas d'un façon intelligente, mais d'une façon bête et élémentaire précisement parce que c'est une machine.

Mais la prof Alithia dans son colère contre les utilisateurs honnêtes du système wiki prend le "constat" de la machine qu'une partie a été enlevée (sans vérifier si elle a été réajouté plus bas) comme preuve péremptoire que l'utilisateur qui a changé les versions était un "censeur" supprimant d'un esprit totalitaire de l'information.

La vraie raison pourquoi les profs de philo - ou des profs de philo - s'acharnent contre wikipedia est peut-être qu'a travers deux articles wikipedia - parallaxe et géocentrisme - j'ai depuis 2005 rouvert un débât malvenu pour eux. Un débât qu'ils résolvent en calomniant wikipedia et moi. Car j'ai impliqué qu'une preuve décisive pour l'héliocentrisme manque. Même si elle ne manquerait pas, j'en ai pas encore trouvé.

Voici ma réaction un jour quand je me sentais attaqué derrière mon dos par calomnies. C'est sur la deuxième calomnie présumé, celle que je fasse plagiarisme par copier coller, qu'en explicant le copier coller j'ai fait allusion - note en bas de l'article plus ensuite les premiers commentaires (j'utilise la fonction appelée "commentaire" pour ajouter des notes en forme de PS, l'informatique, étant machinale et pas intelligente "s'en fiche") à ces articles wikipedia.

Un prof de philo devant mon défie, le plus souvent il se déplie du jeu. Ce n'est pas juste Alithia, j'en ai eu affaire avec d'autres. Car d'une partie je fais ce que le prof de philo est d'une façon générale censé faire, remettre en question les bases épistémologiques des conceptions communs pas très bien prouvés communément, de l'autre partie les profs de philo préfèrent faire ce jeu contre le catholicisme intégriste ou le protestantisme fondamentaliste ou le Qoran plutôt que de la faire contre les conclusions généralement acceptés par les scientifiques.

HGL

8-9/VII/2010