Freewill

Atheists vs Christians Debate Central 101

David Knowles

status

If God took away our free will to sin, we would be more like God because God can't sin. So evil isn't necessary for good to exist.

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

God can't sin and a stone can't sin.

God taking away our free will would make us more like a stone.

If we freely collaborate with God, the moment He perfects our freedom to no longer be able to sin is at death. If we don't, that's when we lose the freedom to repent.

I a

David Knowles

Hans-Georg Lundahl God has free will and he is not like a stone so why would humans be that way? You logic is faulty.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

God has free will and cannot sin.

I b

David Knowles

Hans-Georg Lundahl God never gave anybody free will. God gave obey or die. That's coercion. Free will is not even a biblical concept. It's a Roman Orthodox Church invention so they could prove inheritable sin. If you had actual free will you could just choose not to sin but you can't because god cursed humanity with inherited sin, not free will.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

David Knowles "obey or die" isn't a lack of free will, it's an incentive to use it.

God also gave us opportunities enough to ignore the incentive, so it doesn't constitute coercion.

I c

Greg Tyler

Hans-Georg Lundahl That's like saying God takes away freewill because we can't breath underwater.

If your God is so helpless he can't keep freewill and make us incapable of sinning, that bodes poorly for Heaven.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Greg Tyler It's not a question for God being helpless, it's a question for God being consistent.

If God takes away the freedom to sin in advance, that takes away the free will.

If God takes away the freedom to sin as a reward for chosing not to sin, that takes away a distraction and weakness.

Greg Tyler

Hans-Georg Lundahl Would you focus on the issue?

One can have freewill and not sin.

This is true.

So why not give people freewill without sin?

The answer is not because you don't understand the paradigm.

If you indicate you can not understand this, it is clear your opinion and your reason for religion, is erroneous.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Greg Tyler "One can have freewill and not sin."

Under condition of having a perfect will.

Now, the perfect will comes in "two flavours" ... God's will is the definition of perfect and always was. A created will has to progress by choices to *become* perfect.

Greg Tyler

Hans-Georg Lundahl No, it does not, and you have no authority to say so.

A God of your description could have given us freewill without the capacity to sin, in the same way he could give us the freewill and be unable to breath water.

The reason this is otherwise, is because God is a fiction.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Greg Tyler The reason this is otherwise is, because a creature cannot have freewill without some at least initial independence of the creator.

Not sinning = perfected dependence on God.

Now, Mary did have that from the beginning, but that was a privilege.

Greg Tyler

Hans-Georg Lundahl Since there is no creator, this is wrong.

[meme referring to First Law of Thermodynamics]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Greg Tyler The denial of creation from a law that would describe a common experience, but cannot deny its universality either in time or space is not a reason against good points about creation.

Greg Tyler

Hans-Georg Lundahl You can talk sideways all you want, but all your ideas have been shown false.

Your God is false, proven decisively.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Greg Tyler I'm so sorry that you take a mis-stated observation about nature as a "proof" against her Author.

Greg Tyler

Hans-Georg Lundahl You have demonstrated an inability to follow a conversation, much less the complexities of this subject.

Your opinions, unsubstantiated opinions, are dismissed for these reasons.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Greg Tyler "inability to follow a conversation,"

More like you have.

"Your opinions ... are dismissed"

My Latin teacher told class one day, the passive has a first hand use in avoiding to talking about the doer ... who's doing the dismissing? You, Greg Tyler?

Greg Tyler

Hans-Georg Lundahl You have not been able to follow the conversation, made things up, and submitted opinion as fact.

What can I do but consider you unworthy of conversation?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Greg Tyler Oh, *you* are doing so, thanks for the clarification.

I'm not answering the rest of your comment.

Greg Tyler

Hans-Georg Lundahl Correct, you have shown you do not have the capacity.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Greg Tyler To your taste, not the best.

Excursus

The Byzantine Forum: The Roman Catholic Doctrine of Mary's Impeccability
https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/400295/the-roman-catholic-doctrine-of-marys-impeccability

II

Jay Reb

How did you verify that free will even exists

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If I lie, I know I could have been silent or I could have spoken otherwise and said the truth.

II a

Jay Reb

Hans-Georg Lundahl how do you know that? How do you know you could have done anything differently?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jay Reb How do you know anything about yourself?

Jay Reb

Hans-Georg Lundahl I can only trust what my brain tells me. So I ask again, how did you verify that free will exists? I personally don’t think it does.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jay Reb I need to repeat the question: how do you know *anything* about yourself?

Is introspection valid evidence that I think?

Jay Reb

Hans-Georg Lundahl I am forced to trust what my brain says about me.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jay Reb Freewill doesn't mean freedom on all levels.

I'm also forced to believe the grass is green, as per my eye-sight.

Jay Reb

Hans-Georg Lundahl that’s not what I mean. I mean everything is based on cause and effect and the laws of physics. If you restarted the big bang, I maintain everything would happen exactly the same way. Every single time.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jay Reb The laws of physics make no statements about exclusivity in causation.

They only make statements of exclusively one outcome other things being equal (which often enough, they aren't). They make no statements whatsoever about the other thing needing to be also phsyical and also subject to the laws of physics.

Jay Reb

Hans-Georg Lundahl that’s why cause and effect is the other thing I mentioned. Please explain how you could do anything different if given the exact same situation with the exact same knowledge and emotional state. You would make the same choice over and over and over for eternity.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jay Reb You are presuming all causes are, like the physical ones, such as can have only one particular effect.

Wrongly so.

Jay Reb

Hans-Georg Lundahl how can the exact same action have a different effect?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jay Reb You are forgetting that the will is not just a passive resultant of inner and outer circumstances, but actively engaged in forming what we receive, certainly from the outside to some degree even from the inside.

Jay Reb

Hans-Georg Lundahl that makes no sense.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jay Reb Oh, your will just floats along with whatever stimulates it, without any attempt of curbing it?

Too bad for you, if that's the case.

Jay Reb

Hans-Georg Lundahl you’re missing the point. How do you verify that you have a choice over what decision you make?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jay Reb I've already answered: like I verify that I think, like I verify that I see green when looking at grass.

Immediate experience.

Jay Reb

Hans-Georg Lundahl you’re missing the point. How do you verify that you have a choice over what decision you make?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jay Reb Again, what *verification* do you ask of *immediate experience*?

Leaving out

a foulworded reply from Jay Reb, but he claimed he was asking me to prove my claim.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jay Reb No, you weren't.

You were asking me how I verified, presumably to myself in the first place.

That's different from proving to you.

Now, if you have no immediate experience of actually chosing, I can't help you. That's just too bad for you, if so.

Jay Reb

Hans-Georg Lundahl no, if you can verify it to yourself, you can verify it to anyone.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jay Reb Not the least.

I can verify to myself I ate cherry yoghurt this morning, not to you.

II b

Jamison Peterson

Hans-Georg Lundahl Even if you repeat a lie believing it to be true, you're still lying!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jamison Peterson No, that's not lying, that's repeating a lie.

Jamison Peterson

Hans-Georg Lundahl Does repeating a lie somehow make it true? A lie, is a lie, is a lie!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jamison Peterson No, repeating a lie believing it to be true (and not just possible) is a different action from saying what you know to be a lie and from being callous about the possibility.

Jamison Peterson

Hans-Georg Lundahl A lie is a lie. It can't be excused by igorance.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jamison Peterson If I'm ignorant, the lie may still be someone's lie, but not mine. It's in that case just my mistake.

Mike Winger; What is a Child?

Mike Winger
This little girl... Islam did this
https://www.facebook.com/reel/968812972680235

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mr. Winger.

As the picture was shown, so also your statement indicated *she was pregnant.*

A person with a uterus is not a male. A person with another person in the uterus is not a child.

Book Review (Geocentric Book, Geocentric Review)

Book by Levi J. Pingleton, available through Kolbe Center:

Keep Me as the Apple of Thine Eye: A Theological Reflection on the Absolute Primacy of Christ
$25.00
https://kolbecenter.org/product/keep-me-as-the-apple-of-thine-eye-a-theological-reflection-on-the-absolute-primacy-of-christ/

Review by our friend Johnny Proctor:

Levi Pingleton penetrates the essential center of creation theology in Keep Me as the Apple of Thine Eye that challenges conventional orthodoxy and lifts the soul to God in unanticipated and spiritually edifying ways.

Coining a useful idiom to capture the main thesis, “Christocentric exemplarism” encompasses the mystery of the incarnation as both source and ultimate fructification of creation. Pingleton traces the mystical reflections of Saint Basil the Great, Saint Augustine, Maximus the Confessor, and Saint Hildegard of Bingen with a deftly woven thread of their common affirmations regarding the divine purposes of creation, the incarnation, and the teleological summation of the ages. These he brings to a crescendo with an in-depth analysis of Christian anthropology as the hermeneutical key to unlock creation’s proclamation of the divine essences which ubiquitously appeal to men through the natural order.

These themes culminate in a compelling case for restoring the traditional cosmology of the Catholic Church to its rightful place in Christian pedagogy; Christocentric exemplarismappeals for a verdict from the sincere disciple.

The Church’s perennial and dogmatically asserted cosmology is geocentric, which is to say, as the Fathers all taught with one voice, the earth is at rest in the center of the cosmos. Pingleton argues gently and with understatedurgency for the traditional coherence between the metaphysical and the theological sciences as something most Christians know is missing implicitly but which evades them as a practical diagnosis. This wonderful coherence – which this book masterfully lays out for the reader –is in fact missing from modern understanding yet is constantly appealing to our consciences and intellects through the ‘speech and words’ of the created order (cf. Psalm 18).

The treatment of the Galileo affair of the 17th century is explained with meticulous footnoting and concise accounting of the major milestones leading to the modern misconception of the Church’s actual position. This section presents a defense of dogmatic development of the geocentric aspect of Patristic and medieval cosmology and its enduring value as the appropriate hermeneutical approach to both Scripture and metaphysics.

I personally appreciate how this book promotes cosmological coherence, encouraging a union of sacred and profane sciences within the Creator's intended order. Levi Pingleton elegantly presents this coherence as a spiritual necessity, as a mystical blueprint, and the proper exegesis of the intelligible universe. This brief study is desperately needed today in a theological milieu too often characterized by incoherence, ruptures between the natural and supernatural orders, and irreconcilable approaches to metaphysics, philosophy, and the science of divinity.Keep Me as the Apple of Thine Eye offers an authentically Catholic vision of creation gracefully traversing these disciplines in a brief and elegant structure that economizes argumentation without sacrificing substance.

What Does Faith Mean? Same as in St. Thomas' Day!

Tyrone

status

why do you apply logic and evidence to literally everything in life—health, money, decisions—but abandon it when it comes to the bible?

you don’t run your life on faith when it comes to doctors, mechanics, or finances. you demand evidence. so why lower the standard here?

what’s the justification for using a completely different set of rules for one belief?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

When I stopped drinking a pint of beer every evening on the day of St. Lucy, I was exercising FAITH on three items:

• that I did not have a fractured bone in the left toe
• that I did have very probably gout
• and that alcohol is one factor that makes gout occur.

Now, it's only one, and some have been pushing other risk factors, but these three things were NOT things I could have checked for myself, I had to have FAITH in what the doctors said, because of their expertise.

Faith isn't absence of logic, it's confidence in someone who knows better trumping what the own logic would have one believe (I had gone to the hospital believing I had a fracture).

Tyrone

Hans-Georg Lundahl You dont know what the word 'faith' means. You're trying to redefine it to make your religious beliefs sound as reasonable as trusting a doctor, and it's a pathetic and dishonest comparison.

You didn't have 'faith' in your doctor. You had trust based on EVIDENCE. You trusted them because doctors have years of medical training, they use diagnostic tools like x-rays, they understand biochemistry, and there is a massive, publicly verifiable track record of them successfully diagnosing and treating things like gout. Their expertise is built on a mountain of EVIDENCE. If your doctor told you to treat your gout by sacrificing a goat, you'd get a new doctor.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Yes, I do know.

"You're trying to redefine it to make your religious beliefs sound as reasonable as trusting a doctor"

Well, that's the meaning.

I answer that, Sacred doctrine is a science. We must bear in mind that there are two kinds of sciences. There are some which proceed from a principle known by the natural light of intelligence, such as arithmetic and geometry and the like. There are some which proceed from principles known by the light of a higher science: thus the science of perspective proceeds from principles established by geometry, and music from principles established by arithmetic. So it is that sacred doctrine is a science because it proceeds from principles established by the light of a higher science, namely, the science of God and the blessed. Hence, just as the musician accepts on authority the principles taught him by the mathematician, so sacred science is established on principles revealed by God.

Summa Theologiae, I Pars, Q 1, A 2, Corpus of the article.

Tyrone

Hans-Georg Lundahl You think quoting a 13th-century monk proves what 'faith' means today? You're just hiding behind Thomas Aquinas because you got caught dishonestly comparing religious faith to trusting a doctor.

You can call your 'sacred doctrine' a 'science' all you want, but it's not. Real science is based on testable evidence. Yours is based on 'principles revealed by God', which is just a fancy way of saying you have to believe it with no evidence.

Your analogy of a musician and a mathematician is stupid. A musician can test the principles of harmony for themselves. You cannot test your 'revealed' principles. You just have to believe.

You didnt answer the point. You just tried to hide behind a quote from a guy who lived before the scientific method was even invented. You're trying to redefine faith to make it sound reasonable, and when you got called out, you ran away to a medieval philosopher.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"what 'faith' means today?"

Faith is about the Catholic religion, which is the exact same one today and in his day.

"A musician can test the principles of harmony for themselves."

Yes, but a beginner can't.

"before the scientific method was even invented"

What the H...l do you mean by "the scientific method"? Denial of God as explanation?

Because, if it means anything else, St. Thomas as well as his more natural sciences oriented mentor St. Albert were great exponents of "scientific method" if it means doing science with a rational method.

And by the way, as there are different sciences and different questions in each science, there is no "one" scientific method.

Challenge not met

HGL's F.B. writings: Challenge not met · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl: Spinoff Debate with Justin Roe

Creation vs Evolution Debate Group

Hans-Georg Lundahl

status / question challenge

23.III.2026, 18:07

If man evolved from apes ("from non-human apes" according to a certain modern terminology), what intermediate is there between:

a) ape:
1 sound = 1 message

b) human:
1 or usually more sounds = 1 meaning unit,
1 or usually more meaning units = 1 message.

All Human Languages are Human, None are "Primitive"
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2026/03/all-human-languages-are-human-none-are.html

A

Joe Dennehy

Here you go, you could place them in chronological order

[Image of "human ancestors"]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sorry, I wasn't speaking of skeleta.

I was speaking of two clearly different ways of communicating. Check my question once again.

Bill Vanyo

Hans-Georg Lundahl Your question isn't clear.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I think it is very clear, since after ape, I gave a characterisation of what exactly in the ape I was talking of: what intermediate is there between:

a) ape:
1 sound = 1 message

And again, after human (note, adjective, not noun), I have a characterisation of what in human communication I was talking of:

b) human:
1 or usually more sounds = 1 meaning unit,
1 or usually more meaning units = 1 message.

I also gave a link dealing with the human side of the pretended equation.

If you replace "sound" with "phoneme" and "meaning unit" with, not word but "morpheme" and then "message" with "phrase, you get the exact terminology used by linguists. I was trying to be popular and roughly comprehensible even to non-linguists.

Joe Dennehy

Hans-Georg Lundahl you failed

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Not as far as I can see.

Joe Dennehy You DO admit as a fact that human language involves double patterning?

Take your words "you failed", they involve three morphemes. "You" = telling the one you're talking to you're talking about him.
"Fail ..." = stating what you state if a failure
"... ed" = stating what you state is sth that already happened.

"You" involves two phonemes "y" and "oo". Neither of which states anything by itself.
"Fail..." involves three phonemes, "f" and "ey" and "l" none of which states anything by itself.
"... ed" involves one or two morphemes, here only one, "d" which doesn't state anything by itself except when used in this ending.

B

Dudley Chapman

Here are all the intermediates you asked for:

Natural History Museum: The origin of our species
By Jenny Wong and Lisa Hendry
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/the-origin-of-our-species.html

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Dudley Chapman I think I already gave Joe Dennehy the response that I wasn't asking about anatomy, but stages of transition between two very different systems of communication.

Dudley Chapman

Hans-Georg Lundahl what do you know about languages used by the species that are ancestors to humans?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If you think Ramapithecus was ancestral, one can reasonably presume that "ancestor" communicated like apes do.

The point is a VERY basic distinction between ape communication and human communication.

So basic you should be able to do a kind of theoretic modelling of how the transition happened ... if it was even possible for it to happen.

My point is, it wasn't possible, and therefore didn't happen.

C

Corey Taylor

Wild Apes make tons of sounds and body language cues with hundreds of messages .. where do you get this 1 sound from ?

α

Dudley Chapman

Corey Taylor he is making stuff up as he goes along. It bothers me how little effort some people put into their Christian testimony. As if it is more faithful to remain totally ignorant of a subject so you can say ridiculous things.

St. Augustine warned us about this in his treatise on reading Genesis literally.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Dudley Chapman Can you stop being a damned calumniator?

For your soul's sake, if you don't care about mine!

"in his treatise on reading Genesis literally."

In his treatise on the Literal Reading of Genesis. And you are quotemining a certain passage which is a very short passage of book I, in a total of XII books.

Dudley Chapman

Hans-Georg Lundahl yes, thanks,

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.” (1 Tim. 1:7)

-St. Augustine of Hippo (The Literal Meaning of Genesis Book 1 Chapter 19 Paragraph 39)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thank you!

You found the quote mined quote!

If this is one of at least 39 paragraphs of one of at least 19 chapters of in fact one out of twelve books, do you think this is all St. Augustine had to say?

It. Quite. Frankly. Isn't.

And thanks for giving the title correct this time. On the Literal Meaning of Genesis, not On Reading Genesis Literally, meaning, he is, book after book, chapter after chapter, paragraph after paragraph discussing what Genesis actually says. This passage is in the contect of his defending fix stars being in a sphere rather than on a flat disc. Some people actually did read exactly one passage to that latter effect, and that's what he polemising against.

Not against Geocentrism (he was Geocentric, which you would know if you had read book 1), not against Young Earth Creationism (which you would know if you had read City of God), and especially not against Adam being created directly from soil, rather than through living intermediaries.

β

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Corey Taylor READ AGAIN.

I did not say apes makes just one sound. I DID say with apes making one specific sound equals making one whole message.

They lack what in human language is called "double articulation" or "dual patterning" which is a very basic concept in linguistics.

I don't know if apes have 50 or 500 different sounds, but it should be in that area. That's a total of 50 to 500 different messages they can convey. Because, with apes, each sound has a meaning. That meaning is a message.

Corey Taylor

Hans-Georg Lundahl again… you’re only looking at half the picture because primates utilize body language just as much if not more than actual vocalizations to convey messages. Same with the most mammals.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Body langugage ALSO has one gesture = one complete message.

Body language also HASN'T double articulation or dual patterning.

D

Ire NE

Humans are humans and Animals are animals. That's it!

E

Justin Roe

This is basic sets and subsets. Literal 6-month-old babies get this.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

But 6 month old apes don't.

So, how do you explain the transition?

Justin Roe

Hans-Georg Lundahl uh, 6 month old humans ARE 6 month old apes.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Look, I didn't ask whether men were apes, I'm aware of the terminology you are using.

That's the exact reason why I added a parenthesis:

If man evolved from apes ("from non-human apes" according to a certain modern terminology), ...

How about getting to the question which is why man communicates so differently from apes, or on your terminology "non-human apes" ... do you have a clue are are you trying to avoid the question by heckling my terminology?

Justin Roe

Hans-Georg Lundahl there are a variety of hypotheses for the evolution of human language. It's a frontier of study at the moment, are you proposing that such a thing "can't evolve"? We know some of the genes responsible for our speech capacity.

Additionally, molecular analysis conclusively demonstrates that if "apes" is a real clade, we nest within it, as panins (chimps and bonobos) are more closely related to us than they are to gorillas, all African great apes (including us) are more closely related to one another than any is to the orangutans, and all hominids (great apes) are more closely related to each other than any is to the hylobatids (gibbons and siamangs, or "lesser apes").

If placing the origin of language as a supernatural intervention by whatever deity or deities you believe in helps you sleep better at night, go ahead until further discoveries are made.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"there are a variety of hypotheses for the evolution of human language."

Yeah ... care to take up and defend one? Not least on how it deals with the proposed problem?

"It's a frontier of study at the moment"

Been so for decades, like Abiogenesis. Since early optimism got some sane input from people knowing what language is, I suppose.

"are you proposing that such a thing "can't evolve"?"

Yes.

"We know some of the genes responsible for our speech capacity."

Feral children have them too. Human language can only be learned by people with a certain FOXP2 Gene, with Broca's and Wernicke's areas in the brain (plus adequate apparatus for sound production and hearing), but it has to be actually learned, you aren't born with actual knowledge of human language.

I can in principle explain the transition from Latin to French, in a very big resolution of detail. But Latin, like French, already has the human three tier system. Ape communication hasn't.

"molecular analysis"

I'm not betting on apes being one real clade. But molecules are not responsible for the input in language learning, only for the receptivity.

F

Barry Peterson

You can see many of the homonid fossils with your own eyes at the Smithsonian…..

[image]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Barry Peterson You are the third person so far who just skims through my question and presumes I was asking for the intermediates between apes and men. I asked for the possible intermediates between ape communication and human communication.

Barry Peterson

Hans-Georg Lundahl I suggest you research the homonids ath the Smithsonian. Some of them utilized advanced communication….Beyond Homo sapiens, Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis) are the strongest candidates for having spoken, as evidence suggests they possessed the hyoid bone, ear structure, and FOXP2 gene necessary for complex speech. *Homo erectus* and other archaic humans also likely had some form of vocal communication.

Australian Museum: How do we know if they could speak?
Author(s), Fran Dorey | Updated, 21/10/20
https://australian.museum/learn/science/human-evolution/how-do-we-know-if-they-could-speak/

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You are still misconstruing my question.

It wasn't "which extinct presumed species were also human and could speak" but given some ancestry on your view actually COULDN'T speak, how do you explain the transition, in principle?

Some FB Admins Hate Chesterton

I regularly share Chesterton quotes on FB.

Both my accounts have now been de facto blocked from access.

At least the Georges Pompidou library right now.

The one which has a composition of mine as profile picture was blocked in another library too and has been that for some days.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
https://www.facebook.com/hansgeorglundahl/

But the same is also the case with the other account:

Hans-Georg Lundahl
https://www.facebook.com/hglundahl/

From Rivarol I know that Islamist leaning Muslims are doing the Admins on FB France. I also know an Englishman or US American FB Friend, who is not among my most intimate, got a birthday present, a link to a post of mine, which he may not have appreciated. But even if he "sounded the alarm bell" he could not do anothing himself, it would have to go through Admins of FB or of the internet connections (and that's less economic, it would be two libraries and one cyber)./HGL

PS, I find a QR code as a means of connecting myself:

Scannez le code QR et confirmez que les codes correspondent pour vous connecter.
KAG-ICR-HUFI

I do not have a cell phone, so I can't. I always use computers only for connection./HGL

PPS, fixed for one of them, right now [hglundahl]/HGL

PPPS, in case you wonder, less than two hours after I published this./HGL

PPPPS, still not fixed for the other [hansgeorglundahl]/HGL

Shared

One of the biggest changes for me post retirement (which I hope doesnt mean I am turning into an alkie)🤣 is the desire and ability to enjoy a Guinness on any day. At work in the University I didn't drink during the day - contact with students and complex meetings precluded that). Now I do it when I choose, if I have walked the calories off beforehand and eat with it.

Responding to Culture Wars on Tolkien

Tolkien got the main symbols in The Hobbit from Richard Wagner’s Ring cycle,*

Like?

Obviously, omitting things that Wagner had in common with Norse sources that Tolkien could read directly without Wagner (and the actual Wagner fan CSL in addition to Wagner).

Dragon, hoard, dwarf, talking bird, do not count. These are all in the Norse sources as well.

---

* From "The West Has Failed: Tolkien, Traditionalism and Islamophobia" January 06, 2026/ E. Michael Jones, in Culture Wars

Geocentric Assault on Atheism

HGL's F.B. writings: Geocentric Assault on Atheism · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Refutation of Le Maître's main point · Parallax and Tycho

DB

status

god only appears in your mind and in books, but not in real life.

prove me wrong .

HGL

Take a look up the sky. Note where the sun is. Look back same spot same direction an hour later or two.

Wait until night. Note where the Moon is. Look back same direction an hour later or two.

Also at night, look for a constellation you can recognise. Look back same direction an hour later or two.

If all these things turn around us, at around the same rate, who is moving them?

I

KR

Hans-Georg Lundahl gravity and the continuous expansion of the universe. That question was answered by science in the 1500’s when gravity was first conceived of.

HGL

I'm sorry, but those factors do not answer the exact question I put:

If all these things turn around us, at around the same rate, who is moving them?

Instead, it requires to assume that they are NOT turning around us each day, and that it's Earth that's turning.

Those are extra assumptions, clearly not necessary if God is moving the universe.

II

GH

A

Why say who? Why not say what is moving them? You question is silly 😜

GH

B

Heavenly Body... okay😜 Indoctrination is a powerful thing...

HGL

GH The movement of the universe around us every day involves a displacement of planetary movements so intricate (heliocentric orbits around a Sun with a double geocentric one, daily and yearly) that they would be swept away by the daily motion if there was no delicacy to the sheer force of turning the universe around us.

Besides, each heavenly body that's luminous to us, whether a reflector or a self-luminous one, seems to have an independent movement, so they are not just all one single inside of a ball that the luminaries are glued to. So, the taking of all these bodies together around us requires some intelligence.

Your answers that involve a "what" also typically involve reinterpreting the observed geocentric movement each day into a spin of the earth itself.

GH

= A

HGL

I think I already answered your "new one" and you switched the prior one to another topic. Heavenly body is a term. In France "corps céleste" and in Germany "Himmelskörper" are even mainstream terms.

Has nothing to do with "indoctrination" ...

As I blocked GH for his duplicitous dealing, I got no answer from him. But, also, not from DB or KR.

PS, If anyone would like to argue, "no, the actual argument is, kalaam, and 20th C. science has proven the universe is not eternal" ... while it has, fine, but St. Paul in Romans 1 wasn't referring to the act of creation 5000 + years earlier, nor to 20th C. science, he was referring to sth which has been visible since the beginning (but not as since that or any beginning) so in a sense it would work as well if the universe were in fact eternal. It isn't, as we know from faith, but even if it were, the daily motion of it around earth involves too intricate and compared to the whole delicate motions to come from a blind force of nature./HGL

Fascism (Why Nordic Social Democracy is Worse)

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Sharing on Eugenics · On Vikings and Sapmi · LARP-ing Isn't Evil Nor (to Catholic Sensibilities) Awkward · HGL's F.B. writings: Fascism (Why Nordic Social Democracy is Worse) · New blog on the kid: Swedish Social Democrats Were Criminal in a Way that Franco Wasn't

Kenneth Johansson

4.X.2025

A brilliant essay about Fascism, by Wayne Allensworth:

What is “Fascism”? (Fascism, Real and Imagined)
By Wayne Allensworth | October 1, 2025
https://www.american-remnant.com/what-is-fascism-fascism-real-and-imagined/

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Not brilliant:

"Fascism, especially its Nazi form, rejected Christian morality as weakening the folk, preventing the fascists from purifying the nation."

Change this to "Nazism rejected ..." and put it out of an essay on Fascism and into an essay on Nazism, where it belongs.

Not accurate:

"Fascism is not a reactionary, much less a conservative, ideology. The fascists of the 1920s and 30s saw themselves as revolutionaries displacing a stagnant bourgeois order."

No Fascism saw itself as simply Conservative (neither did Chesterton, and I mean the Catholic, not the Mosleyist), but some (and so did Chesterton) saw themselves as Reactionary. Bourgeoisie is a product of English Reformation over Whig Revolters to Glorious Revolution, and in France of the French Revolution as much as of the Bourbons.

José Antonio Primo de Rivera polemised against Rousseau, and against the Revolutions. René de La Tour du Pin and Charles Maurras, granddad and dad of French Fascism, were Monarchists and against the French Revolution.

Kenneth Johansson

Hans-Georg Lundahl; I agree that the first quotation should be about Nazism, as Mussolini was skeptical of Hitler's ideas about race. (But I still think that, on the whole, the essay is brilliant.)

When it comes to Fascism being reactionary or conservative, I agree with Allensworth.

Fascism wasn't a significant movement outside of Italy (counting Nazism as a separate entity here). It was almost all about Italy and Mussolini, and he wasn't much of a reactionary. You could probably find many followers who were; but Mussolini ruled, and Fascism basically began and ended with him.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Fascism wasn't a significant movement outside of Italy"

Spain, like Falange and first years after 1939?

Brazil, like Integralismo (the youth affiliation of Dom Helder)

Portugal is a bit more complicated, since Estado Novo by Salazar was modelled on Estado Novo by a Brazilian guy who wasn't best friends with Integralists.

France, like Action Française and Pétain (obviously, my support for him wavers with 1942 and the Laval government).

Kenneth Johansson

Hans-Georg Lundahl; the Falange had very limited support, and Franco was very much in charge after the Spanish Civil War.

Was Salazar a Fascist? I see him more as a traditional authoritarian leader, like Franco.

What made Mussolini unusual was his enthusiasm for war. He attacked Ethiopia in 1935, Albania in 1939, declared war on France and the United Kingdom -- and invaded Greece -- in 1940, and joined Germany in invading the Soviet Union in 1941. Most right-wing leaders were more careful.

There were large movements in Brazil and France, which were somewhat significant in those countries, but they didn't matter much on the global stage. France was broken after the defeat, and Pétain didn't have much to say. Hitler rarely respected his allies, and kept them in a short leash. I suspect that he had respect for Mannerheim, but he had real power, and was never a puppet.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Was Salazar a Fascist? I see him more as a traditional authoritarian leader, like Franco."

Insofar as they had some degree of Corporativism, they have been counted as Fascists.

1939 to 1975 Franco was in charge, but the first years were more Fascist, the time from 1960 is called "tecncracía" ... more focussed on getting riches for Spain than on equal distribution. That said, Franco's Spain was a wellfare state, he did invest in making cheap flats available.

"What made Mussolini unusual was his enthusiasm for war."

Thanks for unusual. Dollfuss and Schuschnigg didn't share it (also Schuschnigg commented later that "Austro-Fascist" was more of a nickname than a good description, but it did involve a Unitary Worker's Syndicate, so Corporatism).

Mannerheim was unfortunately into Eugenics, like Wendell Holmes, like Lenin, like Hitler, like the Social Democrats of Sweden, Norway and Denmark.

Pétain had more to say 1940 to 42 than afterwards, like Mussolini between 1922 and 1943 (42?). I'm not judging them on Laval II or Salò Republic.

Kenneth Johansson

Hans-Georg Lundahl; yes, it's always difficult to draw the lines regarding Fascism, as it has become a slur for the Left. The Communists used to call Social Democrats "social fascists"! 🙂

I like to treat Nazism and Fascism as two different movements -- even if the connections can't be ignored. Furthermore, I see a clear difference between Mussolini and the other leaders you mentioned. So I prefer to keep "Fascism" as a designation for the Italian movement. I see on Wikipedia that the Catholic Church favored bottom-up corporatism, while Mussolini preferred a top-down model; do you agree with this?

Eugenics was, unfortunately, popular all over Northern Europe and the United States. Protestant churches were, usually, much weaker than the Catholics regarding this, and didn't offer much resistance. But I don't know anything about Mannerheim's views -- your information is new to me.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"The Communists used to call Social Democrats "social fascists"!"

In Sweden, not totally untrue. "Saltsjöbadsandan" was introduced by one member of both Social Democrats and Nysvenskarne, as Per Engdahl, the founder of Nysvenskarne, i e Swedish Fascism, says in Fribytare i Folkhemmet.

His models were Carta del Lavoro and Perón's politics.

"I see on Wikipedia that the Catholic Church favored bottom-up corporatism, while Mussolini preferred a top-down model; do you agree with this?"

The real difference is, while Catholicism favours both bottom-up and top-down corporativism, Catholicism doesn't think membership in a Corporation should be mandatary as prerequisite of doing your work (either as employee or employer). Mussolini made it mandatory, Pius XI didn't totally condemn him, but remarked "there are more than one way to Corporatism" (meaning Mussolini's wasn't totally to his taste).

"Eugenics was, unfortunately, popular all over Northern Europe and the United States."

Not all the states, but too many. UK was also exempt from actually practising it, probably due to a bigger minority of Catholics at the time.

When Albanus Schachleiter OSB, who was a personal friend of Hitler and got in trouble with the bishop of Munich for it, remarked that National Socialism risked getting too Protestant, I think this (as well as compulsory camps for loafers) was what he was talking about.

I'm not sure how much it has to do with Mannerheim's personal views, it so happens it started in Finland while he was President. He didn't stop it. However, I think the victims were fewer in Finland.

Kenneth Johansson

Hans-Georg Lundahl; I think the idea about Social Democracy being a variant of fascism came from Moscow in the 1920s. Stalin said this, in 1924: "Fascism is not only a military-technical category. Fascism is the bourgeoisie’s fighting organisation that relies on the active support of Social-Democracy. Social-Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism."*

On the other hand, I believe that the Social Democratic Party of Germany viewed Stalinists as fascists! 🙂

* Source: J. V. Stalin
Concerning the International Situation
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/09/20.htm

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, in 1924, SD and Fascists were both pretty pro-property and pro-syndicates.

Mussolini and (while he lived) Matteotti clashed over electoral technicalities, not over economics.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Eugenics was, unfortunately, popular all over Northern Europe and the United States."

I forgot to mention, Catholic Fascisms (except possibly Pétain) were an honourable exception.

Even Mussolini wasn't for Eugenics back when Chesterton asked!

_________________

In the following, I have shortened the name of HGr, since I don't know him or how willing he is to appear in person on my blog, and in the interest of symmetry, Kenneth Johansson to KJ, myself to HGL.

HGr

I think this was a rather lazy take on the subject, blaming "ungodliness" as the main issue.

KJ

HGr; I agree that the loss of religion was a complicated matter, leading to all sorts of knock-on effects -- and I would also argue that culture is strongly connected to biology.

Nordic history is another complicated issue. Absence of war was important, IMO, but also absence of colonies (with a few exceptions). France and the United Kingdom struggled to cope with losing their empires, while we focused on improving our economies without such baggage.

Japan became peaceful after WWII, but they didn't have much choice after getting thoroughly destroyed. It was the same thing in Germany. People didn't have much faith in the old religions, but were sick of the new ones as well, so they put their energy into producing cars, et cetera.

Regarding Hitler: I don't see how things could have ended much differently. His ambitions were so extreme, and he was so delusional, that I think America and the Russians would have defeated him sooner or later. Had he been more successful with Operation Barbarossa, the Russians could have retreated further east, behind the Ural Mountains.

HGL

HGr "Ungodly western societies like here in the Nordics remained civilized on pretty much all points long after God left the picture."

Eugenics?

HGr

HGL Are you inferring that we in the Nordics practiced eugenics? We didn't. For a few decades in the mid 20th century Sweden had a set of very basic laws on parents that had kids and were deemed anti-social, meaning they were not capable of caring for their kids and they were sterilized after the second child. Doesn't strike me as a crime against humanity or even any kind of Nazism. Minorites and Swedes faced the same consideration.

HGL

"and they were sterilized"

Exactly. Eugenics.

And that is exactly what Nazis did from basically "day one" or more precisely February 1934.

It's also what Pope Pius XI condemned in Casti Connubii, in 1931. As this was before 1933, he wasn't looking primarily at Nazis, but at for instance Nordics or some US and Canadian states.

As to "deemed anti-social" the definitions weren't directly race based (neither was the one used in 1934 by NS Germany), but criteria for anti-social targetted Gipsies, Tatters and Lapps disproportionately often (or Greenlanders in Denmark).

"Doesn't strike me as a crime against humanity"

It certainly doesn't strike me as civilised to give doctors or social workers arbitrary and very oppressive powers over citizens. With abortion, Nordics have at least by now passed the line to crime against humanity. But already back then, when aborting trisomic babies was recommended.

Jael and Mary

Hans-Georg Lundahl

9.X.2025

Totus Catholica doesn't go far enough:

Mary in Judges? This Verse Makes Protestant Scholars SWEAT
Totus Catholica | 9 Oct. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coSHNPkUwWg

---

[My original comments under the video are also copied to under above FB status, and when a debate or start of it says "youtube" it means the debate took place on youtube, under the video. If comments turn up under mine, I'll mark that "FB"]

---

2:19 The angel had already called Mary Blessed among women before She was pregnant.

The parallel between Mary and Jael is even closer. We must ask, "who is Mary's Sisera" and if we also see a parallel in Judith to this wording "who is Mary's Holophernes" ... this must be exactly what She wondered "what kind of greeting this might be" ...

Given Luke 1:42 adding "and blessed is the fruit of thy womb" we have another echo clearing it up. Genesis 3:15. It wasn't a human person, but a serpent ... or fallen angel ... that She had "killed with a tent peg" ...

There is only one way for a human being to have basically killed Satan. Reversing the way in which Satan killed Adam and Eve. And that means, being without sin.

Youtube

arcadio jr. navarro

@arcadiojr.navarro8303

@hglundahl

In Genesis 3 God metes out various judgments against those who brought sin into His perfect world. Adam, Eve, and the serpent all hear of the consequences of their rebellion. To the serpent God says, in part, “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel” (Genesis 3:15, KJV).

@hglundahl

Even in this judgment, there is mercy. God’s curse on the serpent, in particular, was laced with words of hope. The woman mentioned in Genesis 3:15 is Eve. The serpent, addressed directly, is the animal that Satan used to deceive the woman. Some of the curse was directed at the animal (verse 14); at the same time, the curse of God falls upon Satan, who had taken the serpent’s form or body in Eden (cf. the dragon in Revelation 12:9).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@arcadiojr.navarro8303 "The woman mentioned in Genesis 3:15 is Eve."

No.

First, since all of the OT is about Christ, but not all of the OT has its Christological meaning stated in NT writings, we need the tradition of the Church to access what Jesus told the disciples of Emmaus in Luke 24. And the Church says Mary.

Second, "blessed among women" is in all of the Jewish-Protestant OT only said about Jael, and in the Catholic-Orthodox OT also about Judith. So, since the angel greeted Mary with these words, she wondered who Her Sisera and Holophernes was supposed to be. But when Elisabeth repeated and added "and blessed is the fruit of thy womb" She saw the parallel to Genesis 3:15 and knew Her "Sisera and Holophernes" was Satan and She therefore had to be without sin, since that was the only move by which a man could defeat the fallen angel.

arcadio jr. navarro

@hglundahl

In Genesis 3 God metes out various judgments against those who brought sin into His perfect world. Adam, Eve, and the serpent all hear of the consequences of their rebellion. To the serpent God says, in part, “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel” (Genesis 3:15, KJV).

@hglundahl

The woman mentioned in Genesis 3:15 is Eve. The serpent, addressed directly, is the animal that Satan used to deceive the woman. Some of the curse was directed at the animal (verse 14); at the same time, the curse of God falls upon Satan, who had taken the serpent’s form or body in Eden (cf. the dragon in Revelation 12:9).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@arcadiojr.navarro8303 It seems the Hebrew has "complete enmity" which is more appropriate about a sinless person against Satan than about Eve and her far of children against snakes.

Also, the Blessed Virgin Mary recognised the allusion, once St. Elizabeth greeted Her.

@arcadiojr.navarro8303 Btw, KJV is not a Bible.

Use Douay Rheims instead. Just a tip.

arcadio jr. navarro

@hglundahl

The gifts of the apostles and prophets were foundational and necessary in the early days of the church, but their purpose has been completed. There are no apostles or prophets today. Once the Holy Spirit had fulfilled His ministry of guiding the disciples into all the truth (John 16:13) and inspiring prophecy (2 Peter 1:20–21), He began using evangelists and pastors and teachers to accomplish the next stage of the building.

@hglundahl

Douay-Rheims Version - Translation method

The Douay-Rheims Bible is a translation into English of the Latin Vulgate Bible which St. Jerome (342-420) translated into Latin from the original languages. The Vulgate quickly became the Bible universally used in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. In their preface, the translators of the 1582 DRV New Testament gave 10 reasons for using the Vulgate as their primary text, rather than the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, stating that the Latin Vulgate "is not only better than all other Latin translations, but than the Greek text itself, in those places where they disagree."

@hglundahl

King James Version - Translation method

The King James translation was done by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England. In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from the Textus Receptus (Received Text) series of the Greek texts. The Old Testament was translated from the Masoretic Hebrew text, while the Apocrypha was translated from the Greek Septuagint (LXX), except for 2 Esdras, which was translated from the Latin Vulgate. In 1769, the Oxford edition, which excluded the Apocrypha, became the standard text and is the text which is reproduced almost unchanged in most current printings.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@arcadiojr.navarro8303 I'm sorry, but that's not how the NT portrays things.

Apostles insofar as having seen Jesus, and Prophets insofar as adding prophecy to Acts or Revelation (St. Paul being both), adding to the Deposit of faith, that no longer exists.

But they were also bishops, as you can see from Peter being able to lay hands on Simon Magus (and refusing) and Paul having been consecrated in this manner (Acts 13), consecrating St. Tim in this manner and telling him whom not to ordain priests and whom to ordain priests ... possibly even whom to consecrate bishop or not consecrate bishop (depending on whether 1st C terminology covers our own or not), shows there was a foreseen mechanism or strategy or plan to give successors to the Apostles in their capacity of bishops.

Matthew 28:16 to 20 shows the Eleven were meant to have successors to the end of time. You totally misrepresent the ecclesiology of the NT, you fail to account for typological questions existing as per Luke 24 and you pretend those following immediately after the Apostles for some reason got it wrong, but you or whoever more than a millennium and a half afterwards got it right. This is not even remotely credible.

The Holy Spirit certainly led the Apostles into all truth, meaning perhaps even things they had never understood while disciples, and this has ended, but they also got Him to remind them of all He had said, which the Holy Ghost is doing to this day and will continue doing to Doomsday.

@arcadiojr.navarro8303 As to Vulgate vs Manuscripts, unfortunately, KJV betrayed even manuscripts in Matthew 6:7 to fit Calvin's Geneva Bible and the Protestant disgust for Rosaries. Which is a very evil thing.

---

2:22 Not just the Church teaches that, but St. Luke in chapter 24.

And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the scriptures, the things that were concerning him
[Luke 24:27]

Did you note "all the prophets" and again "all the scriptures" ... exactly. Precisely all of the OT. Excellent proof text for tradition, since it's the Church that has the recollection of this typological teaching, only small bits of it are mentioned in the NT actual texts.

Youtube

arcadio jr. navarro

@hglundahl

Jesus shows up often in the Old Testament—not by that name, and not in the same form as we see Him in the New Testament, but He is there nonetheless. The theme of the entire Bible is Christ.

@hglundahl

Jesus Himself confirmed the fact that He is in the Old Testament. In John 5:46 He explained to some religious leaders who had challenged Him that the Old Testament was talking about Him: “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.” According to Jesus, God’s work with man since time began all pointed to Him. Another time when Jesus showed that He is in the Old Testament was on the day of His resurrection. Jesus was walking with two of His disciples, and “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (Luke 24:27). Earlier, before His crucifixion, Jesus had pointed to Isaiah 53:12 and said, “It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’ and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment” (Luke 22:37).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@arcadiojr.navarro8303 Indeed.

I had missed John 5:46 and Luke 22:37, but it's Luke 24:27 where it clearly says all the scriptures and prophets as well as Moses, i e all of the OT.

---

3:49 She had crushed the serpent even before the fiat mihi.

And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women
[Luke 1:28]

That's verse 28. In verse 31, Mary's pregnancy is said to be a future event. In verse 38, only, Mary answers:

And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her
[Luke 1:38]

So, while she arguably RE-crushed the serpent by that yes, or rather that yes resumed every crushing of the serpent she had ever done, she had been crushing the serpent for a long time. And that means sinlessness.

Youtube

arcadio jr. navarro

[4 comments which I'm not sharing.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@arcadiojr.navarro8303 Thank you, I think I'll leave it here.

You are just trying to promote the standard Protestant arguments against Catholic Mariology, without lifting one finger to deal with my arguments for Catholic Mariology.

I'm blocking you after this.

Shared: Against Abortion

Live Action News

Instead of the dead baby she expected to remove from the woman’s bed, she found a living 1 ½ pound child.

The story:

Nurse horrified as doctor orders abortion survivor to be taken to lab: ‘It won’t be breathing long’ | Live Action
https://www.liveaction.org/news/nurse-horrified-doctor-abortion-survivor-breathing

Attempts on my FB access

This is the third time I get this kind of extra verification:

The first two times I filled in, I got returned to a normal FB login, and each time, as after the first login, I was thrust onto an extra verification.

It may be mentioned that FB France is managed by moderators who are Qataris, and that I've lately showed myself critical against Islam.*

The government continued to censor or ban print and social media religious material it considered objectionable. In June the government deported an Arabic-speaking evangelical Christian pastor after interrogating him for three days on charges of leading a place of worship without authorization and inviting non-Christians to his church. Conversion to another religion from Islam is defined by the law as apostasy and illegal, although there have been no recorded punishments for apostasy since the country’s independence in 1971

Source:

2019 Report on International Religious Freedom: Qatar
US Department of State
https://www.state.gov/reports/2019-report-on-international-religious-freedom/qatar

It may also be mentioned, I contacted the son of Katarina Taikon, whose mother's autobiography i enjoyed, explaining why I, while supporting Gypsy Rights, am a Fascist and why that doesn't equal Nazi. It's possible that a certain campaign to stamp me as a Nazi or my Fascist alignment as a racist (including anti-gypsy) one is not very amused by this initiative on my part./HGL

PS, Fixed, but the guy didn't answer. I'm still a fan of his mother, though./HGL

PPS, if you didn't get it, it's the access that's fixed./HGL

* A certain Muslim attitude about polemics from non-Muslims, specifically against Islam is calling it "maligning" ... now the true religion is certainly in one sense maligned by any polemics against it, but this is not always due to an intent of misrepresenting. I think some Protestants have also pretended I maligned the Deformation, on their view "Reformation" ... by showing it is opposed to an implication of Matthew 28:20. Oh, I misrepresent the intention of the Reformers, Luther never intended to create a new church ... the problem is, they agree that the Church that eventually came out of Luther, namely Lutherans, and a few more, that came out of him indirectly, are new. And Matthew 28:20 requires for there to be a true Church that's from "AD 33" (exact year somewhat disputed), that's not a pure abstraction and that's still there. A Conclavist doesn't agree that the papacy of Vatican in Exile is a new papacy, we say it's the old papacy that got a fresh start after a 32 year long pause (a record long sedevacancy). We say that it's the popes currently in the Vatican who are very recent transformers comparable to the Deformers (one proposed year of limit being 1958). Again, a Vatican-II-ist may tactically pretend I'm "maligning" the Vatican because of my convictions about it ... but would be less eager to openly consider my intent as that of maligning./HGL

Distant Starlight Problem, Hugh Ross and Me

Hugh Ross

July 31 (2025) at 6:47 PM

Question of the Week: What do you say to people who assert only God was there to observe the past state of the universe and, therefore, we can only trust what God says about the past and not astronomers?

My Answer: God has not granted us access to the future. He is our only source of information about what will happen in the future. He has, however, granted us access to the past thanks to the finite and constant velocity of light. While astronomers have no access to the present when they observe stars and galaxies, they have direct access to the past. For example, when they observe the Sun, they do not see the Sun as it is now but as it was about 8 minutes ago when light departed from the Sun on its way to Earth. Likewise, when astronomers observed the Andromeda Galaxy, they do not see it as it is now, but as it was 2.5 million years ago.

Astronomers can prove that the velocity of light has not changed, The degree of splitting in hyperfine spectral lines of stars and galaxies reveals the velocity of light when that light left the star and galaxy. The velocity measures the same for all stars and galaxies astronomers observe.

Astronomers can also prove that the light came from the stars and galaxies they observe and not from a location near to Earth. As light travels through interstellalr space, the gas in insterstellar space broadens the spectral lines in proportion to the light travel distance. The dust in interstellar space reddens the continuum radiation between spectral lines in proportion to the light travel distance.

Thus, astronomers do possess direct, trustworthy access to the past state of the universe. Astronomers can confirm that what the Bible says about the past state of the universe is true. It is no accident that the most powerful, unambiguous scientific evidence for the God of the Bible is observational astrophysics.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Likewise, when astronomers observed the Andromeda Galaxy, they do not see it as it is now, but as it was 2.5 million years ago.

Supposing there is a verification of the 2.5 million lightyears.

New blog on the kid: Have you heard the expression "von Neumann chain"?
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2022/08/have-you-heard-expression-von-neumann.html

Hugh Ross

Hans-Georg Lundahl Astronomers have achieved an assumption-free verification. They have made trigonometric distance measurements to galaxies as far away as 470 million light years.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The trigonometry depends on the assumption earth is moving two astronomic units per year, right?

How's that "assumption free"?

Next Day

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Hugh Ross With Earth moving two astronomic units between January and July, there is trigonometry by 1 known distance and 3 known angles (with a very narrow angle, we assume the other two angles are very close to 90°, obviously).

With the Earth staying still and the star moving between January and July, as we cannot know it moves 2 astronomic units, we only have three angles (pointing the other way). 3 known angles and 0 known distance = no calculated distance either.

Prove alpha Centauri and Andromeda are not both in a shell of fix stars 1 light day up, please!

14.VIII.2025, on the Vigil of Our Lady's Assumption, this was pubished and I notified him./HGL

It Seems I Lost a Friend on FB

New blog on the kid: Did I Mention Trump Had Commie Tendencies? · HGL's F.B. writings: It Seems I Lost a Friend on FB

I'm not revealing Return to Tradition is called Anthony Stine, he says so on the patreon. I do however take care not to reveal his middle name initial and his face, which are not revealed on the youtube. Well, the face is revealed on some youtubes, but he may remove them or reboot them, so, I prefer discretion.

There the face of Belloc takes the place, and this I inserted instead of his photo on FB, so here is a photoshopped version of the dialogue, not changing the words, only the profile info of Anthony Stine:

Indeed, he removed me from his friends. He can however not remove Chesterton from my friends:

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE WORLD
by G.K. Chesterton
https://catholiclibrary.org/library/view?docId=/Contemporary-EN/XCT.152.html

I'll cite the first paragraph of the first chapter:

A book of modern social inquiry has a shape that is somewhat sharply defined. It begins as a rule with an analysis, with statistics, tables of population, decrease of crime among Congregationalists, growth of hysteria among policemen, and similar ascertained facts; it ends with a chapter that is generally called "The Remedy." It is almost wholly due to this careful, solid, and scientific method that "The Remedy" is never found. For this scheme of medical question and answer is a blunder; the first great blunder of sociology. It is always called stating the disease before we find the cure. But it is the whole definition and dignity of man that in social matters we must actually find the cure before we find the disease .

I think you can see how the bill of Trump truly fits this description. So do actual Marxist policies in the countries where Marxism had a monopoly. Or a predominant place, like the French President Vincent Auriol, in whose time homeless were made as invisible, because as unfree, and therefore as "sheltered" from the public, as Trump is initiating.

To some, Marxism simply means solidarity with the poor. In that case, Franco was Marxist. He subsidised living accomodations with tax money and made it pretty hard for a landlord to get rid of a poor tenant. Now, another kind of solidarity with the poor, preached by Chesterton, is not to persecute a poor who no longer is a tenant and also does not own his home, but instead lives without one. The exact fault Mr. Trump is committing. There, as well as with taking interest, Marxism is one with Capitalistic bourgeoisie. Note the tone where Chesterton says "growth of hysteria among policemen" ... the kind of hysteria in which every quarrel between a homeless man and someone passing him by becomes a proof the homeless man is a menace, not that some of those passing him are a nuisance to him. Which even in France they are, as said some of them, and the United States, in many states, is much more Puritan./HGL

PS, the screenshot doesn't show (on your computer or some time in the future)? I'll copy the dialogue, here:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The Marxist is about Trump's new Soviet policy about the homeless, right?

Anthony P Stine

Hans-Georg Lundahl no, I'm not retarded enough to believe something like that

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I thought you were a fan of Belloc and Chesterton.

Trump's policy remind me of 1910's England, what Chesterton fought against, Prussia, and their fulfilment, the Soviet Union.

His tax policy also mirrors Marxist Sweden.

Anthony P Stine

-Georg Lundahl I am. I'm also not gay enough to call his policies Marxist. I'm not politically or economically illiterate

I'm sorry, his studies in political science may have made him precisely that. And if he just called me gay, he's either voicing a very heavy prejudice against all and any Trump critics ... or relying on calumny.

If he has from priests in Paris that I'm gay, they are committing calumny (and that calumny could be a reason why they avoid me). If they pretend I cross dress, they rely on the poorer judgement of Muslims or Jews less familiar with European historic and geographic variation of the male costume./HGL

---

I tried to notify Anthony Stine via FB mail, on one of my accounts (they are two). About a month ago, I was obliged to change the password on the account, I did so quickly, and then forgot the exact password. As you know computers depend on exact passwords. This means, I was not able to reuse it. I tried to change it again, then I got in a loop about what computer I'm habitually using. For those who speak French, the post LH110 shows screenshots. I'm right now again in a loop of screenshot 5 and 6. Meaning, if he answered, I cannot access his answer./HGL

Let's Recall Our Own Girls, Oppressed by Delayed Marriage If in Certain Situations (Pregnant, In Love, or Otherwise 1 Cor. 7:9)

International Christian Concern

Read more: https://www.persecution.org/2025/06/13/underage-marriage-outlawed-in-islamabad/

[Pray with us. Praise God that underage marriage has been outlawed in Islamabad.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The bill addresses the growing concern of female children getting pregnant in their early teens before they can mature or pursue education. It also highlights the widespread issues many girls face, of being kidnapped, forced into marriage, and forced by their captors to convert to Islam. At least 1,000 girls are subject to this annually.

There are two sides to it.

On the one hand, some Christians are better protected, at least if they are in Islamabad.

Also some young teen Muslimas who were not wanting the marriage.

On the other hand the law as such is at least if it were generalised unjust.

In France, every year (my stats are from before the Covid) 1000 girls under 15 get pregnant and 772 of the pregnancies end in abortion. I think that was lower back before 2006, meaning abortion and than 772, when the marital age of girls was raised from 15 to 18.

Traditionally among Christians, 18 has not been the limit.

From Agnes of Sagan*, who married Ludwik I of Brieg to 6 generations later, for instance two daughters of James II of Scotland (not to be confused with James II of England who was James VII of Scotland), there were 32 married women with known ages, or tolerably known, and depending on whether you go with the higher or lower age of a person, the median was either 17 (both n. 16 and 17 were married at 17) or between 17 and 18 (n. 16 was married at 17, n. 17 at 18). The lower quartile similarily varied as either 14 (both 8 and 19 were married at 14), or between 14 and 15 (8 was married at 14, 9 at 15).**

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: Seven Generations Women, Age at First Marriage
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2023/09/seven-generations-women-age-at-first.html

I am happy the law as such is not applicable outside Islamabad. I'd be even happier if they all converted from Islam, stopped forced marriages and the limit could be lowered to 16 for girls all over the country. Or even lower than 16.

The canonic minimum age for ladies was 12 and the youngest in the sample was 11 or 12 when married. In the Christian Middle Ages.

Notes:

* Henryk IV of Poland is also known as Henryk II of Żagań. Agnes or Agnieszka was his daughter.
** The oldest lady at her marriage was married at 33. 32 and 33 are two outliers, the oldest younger than that were married at 25. And it's questionable if they were two or just one, over 30.

If the Church is Very Reduced, the Pope Is at Some Risk of Being Bamboozled by Bigger Actors

HGL's F.B. writings: If the Church is Very Reduced, the Pope Is at Some Risk of Being Bamboozled by Bigger Actors · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Brian Holdsworth and Myself on Why Not Orthodox · Heschmeyer and Myself on Why Not Orthodox?

Vatican In Exile

7 h ago

The Filioque

The Visigoths, upon converting from Arianism to Nicene Christianity, adopted the Filioque clause in the Nicene Creed at the Third Council of Toledo in 589, called by King Reccared I (King of Spain and southern France) This addition, meaning "and from the Son," affirmed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, a point of theological contention that later contributed to the East-West Schism.

Elaboration:
Visigothic Conversion:

The Visigoths, initially adherents of Arianism (which viewed the Son as subordinate to the Father), converted to Nicene Christianity, which affirms the full divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit.

The Filioque Clause:

The Filioque ("and from the Son") clause was added to the Nicene Creed to clarify the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Specifically, it stated that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, not just the Father.

Third Council of Toledo (589):

This council, invoked and controlled by King Reccared I (King of Spain and southern France) held in Visigothic Spain in Toledo 45 miles south of Madrid, marked the official adoption of the Filioque clause into the Western Christian tradition.

Theological Significance:

The Filioque became a point of contention between the Western (Latin) and Eastern (Greek) branches of Christianity. The Eastern Orthodox Church generally rejected the Filioque, emphasizing the Holy Spirit's procession from the Father alone.

Traditional Triadology (Holy balance in the Trinity):

Nicene theology (325 ad) particularly in the East, emphasizes that each person of the Trinity has unique characteristics, but certain attributes (like Godhood and eternality) are shared by all. The filioque, by linking the Spirit's procession to the Son, is seen as introducing a shared characteristic that isn't universal to all three persons, thus upsetting the balance in the Trinity.

East-West Schism:

The Filioque controversy, among other factors, contributed to the Great Schism of 1054, which formally divided the Western (Catholic) and Eastern (Orthodox) churches.

Continued Debate:

While the Filioque is a standard part of the Nicene Creed in the Catholic Church, it remains a point of theological discussion and sometimes disagreement between the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

Painting of King Reccared I below

[painting omitted]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The Visigoths, upon converting from Arianism to Nicene Christianity, adopted the Filioque clause in the Nicene Creed at the Third Council of Toledo in 589, called by King Reccared I (King of Spain and southern France)

False History.

At the Third Council of Toledo, there was no discussion of the Filioque.

The council opened with a Latin text of the Nicene Creed, and the Filioque was already there.

If it didn't come from the original autograph at Constantinople (Nicaea ended at "and the Holy Ghost, Amen"), it was probably a contamination from the topical creed against Priscillianism, issued by FIRST Council of Toledo, in 400 AD, well before the Visigoths arrived.

I've treated this in the page here, most of which is a Latin text of that creed and my English parallel translation:

Trento - Philaret (Catechisms) : Filioque far older than III Council of Toledo
https://trentophilaret.blogspot.com/p/filioque-far-older-than-iii-council-of.html

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Correction to previous, I spoke as per memory of a text I perused in a book and probably missed parts of.

Filioque is reaffirmed in Toledo III, but was, as mentioned, already affirmed in Toledo I.

Pater ex quo sit filius, ipse vero ex nullo sit alio. Filius quia habeat patrem, sed sine initio et sine diminutione, in ea qua patri coęqualis et coaeternus est divinitate subsistat. Spiritusque sanctus confitendus a nobis, et praedicandus est a patre et filio procedere, et cum patre et filio unius esse substantiae.

Third Synod of Toledo / Synodus Toletana Tertia:
https://www.benedictus.mgh.de/quellen/chga/chga_045t.htm

Credimus [c] in unum verum deum patrem et filium et spiritum sanctum visibilium et invisibilium factorem, per quem creata sunt omnia in caelo et in terra, unum deum et unam esse divinae substantiae trinitatem. Patrem autem non esse filium ipsum, sed habere filium qui pater non sit. Filium non esse patrem, sed filium dei de patris esse natura. Spiritum quoque esse paraclitum, qui nec pater sit ipse, nec filius, sed a patre filioque procedens. Est ergo ingenitus pater, genitus filius, non genitus paraclitus, sed a patre filioque procedens.

First Council of Toledo / Concilium Toletanum primum:
https://www.benedictus.mgh.de/quellen/chga/chga_043t.htm

Tolkien: Neither Woke Nor "Based Conservative" ... More Like "Gentle Traditionalist"

I Have Seen Worse Things from the Late Bergoglio, Than Some of his Economic Advice ... · What an Occasion to Make Clarifications on Fascism · Tolkien: Neither Woke Nor "Based Conservative" ... More Like "Gentle Traditionalist"

The "Gentle Traditionalist" is obviously a reference to a character in Roger Buck's novel.

APSt

I

HGL

I'm sorry, but this gets Tolkien equally wrong, if not more.

1) Tolkien would not have called someone crazy bc of an intellectual error, and would not have exposed a relatively peaceful person, let alone an admirer, to the horrors of psychiatry for such a thing,

2) Tolkien certainly thought that European colonialism was tainted. His point about Numenor being blessed was basically a point about European Christendom being blessed for resisting brutal enemies of the faith ... but the point about Black Numenoreans setting up things in certain parts of Middle-Earth is a point about colonialism gone deeply wrong.

It would be a horrible thing to be for Sauron just to be against Numenor, but it is perhaps even more horrible and certainly possible to be for Sauron as a Numenorean.

I am presuming you know more than just the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings, perhaps Unfinished Tales, and at least Silmarillion.

AC

HGL The fall of the Numenoreans (and I mean that spiritually and physically) is a clear reference to how our society decays as turn away from God in favor of selfish pursuits. It had nothing to do with colonialism and everything to do with selfishness and materialistic idolatry. Though it is far worse today, the 1920's was a disgusting and perverse era and, for Tolkein who was a traditionalist Catholic, it was probably downright maddening.

HGL

"It had nothing to do with colonialism"

Sorry, but you are very explicitly contradicting a letter by Tolkien.

The Black Numenoreans are marked out for preferring to dominate the more primitive folks in Middle Earth over brotherly teaching them.

That very clearly has sth to do with colonialism.

Here is Tolkiengateway:

The Black Númenóreans emerged from the King's Men party;[2] they were cruel oppressors and overlords over the primitive Men of Middle-earth. Since they were colonising the continent, they survived the Downfall of Númenor but swiftly diminished.

Tolkien Gateway: Black Númenóreans
https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Black_N%C3%BAmen%C3%B3reans

HGL, added

Here is Girl Next Gondor giving three videos about the fall of Númenor, here are two of them, partly about the colonialism in Middle-Earth:

Before the Shadow: The Downfall of Númenor [Part One]
GirlNextGondor | 19 July 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDPL-NDvrqg

Glory and Decay: The Downfall of Númenor [Part Two]
GirlNextGondor | 24 Aug 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQuPWhZuYkw

II

HGL

I missed the last part of Miss Woke's second line, it's actually rather gross, but even then I think Tolkien would have refrained from the measure you portray.

What an Occasion to Make Clarifications on Fascism

I Have Seen Worse Things from the Late Bergoglio, Than Some of his Economic Advice ... · What an Occasion to Make Clarifications on Fascism · Tolkien: Neither Woke Nor "Based Conservative" ... More Like "Gentle Traditionalist"

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It is known I self describe as Fascist. Note, Fascist, not National Socialist.

Someone beside me in the cyber played a speech by you know who at a speech climax.

It's possibly unfair to a good painter.

It's also irrelevant for Fascism.

Here is a speech by Mussolini who thought they were safeguarding international peace:

Mussolini Close Ups And Speech In German (1927)
British Pathé | 13 April 2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jgZijUobnY

The notice "1927" is obviously a typo, possibly for 1937. Not sure what year Mussolini visited Germany.

And here is one by Engelbert Dollfuss:

EXCLUSIVE ANNOUNCEMENT BY DOLLFUSS OF AUSTRIA - SOUND
British Movietone | 21 July 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yEXGxWcLnM

Hans-Georg Lundahl

[update]

Just in case some guys PERSIST to confuse Nazi and Fascist, here is a video on acceptance of versus discriminations against people with Downs:

How Were People With Down Syndrome Treated In History?
Disturban History | 25 April 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szQw2T8avRc

The Reich after Hitler's Machtübernahme is mentioned, so were states in the US, first of which Indiana, and every time I reflect on this, I'm so sad a certain guy didn't remain a painter and so happy for one change that Patton brought about.

In the Soviet Union, the project was studied under Lenin, but very fortunately cancelled by Stalin, however the mentality is widespread. In Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark, there was no Patton. Eugenics ended in the 1970's there.

In Mussolini's Italy, there was no such thing, at least before 1938. I have not read the leggi raciali, I don't know if that changed.

In Dollfuss' Austria, there was no such thing.

In Franco's Spain, I think Valleja Najera tried to push for it, but didn't quite succeed, so he had to claim some version of Child Protective Services as "eugenics" ... (in a different context, namely considering revolutionary spirit as a hereditary disease), but even that was pushed back through the Catholic Church.

I am not sure how much of this got introduced by Alexis Carrell, a Protestant, when he became a minister in the Vichy régime. I used to say the régime of Pétain Darlan was OK, that of Pétain Laval wasn't ... but Alexis Carrell got hired before Laval, so, I am not positive about the entire time of Darlan as PM either.

This article explores a new dimension in fascist studies, eugenic studies, and the more mainstream history of Italy, Europe, and modernity. It asks scholars to reconsider the centrality of race and biology to the political programme of Italian fascism in power. Fascism’s ‘binomial theorem’ of optimum population change was characterized as a commitment both to increase the ‘quantity’ (number) and improve the ‘quality’ (biology) of the Italian ‘race’. These twin objectives came to fruition in the new scientific and political paradigm known to contemporaries as ‘biological politics’ and to scholars today as ‘biopolitics’. Fascism, this article contends, attempted to utilize the full force of the new ‘biopower’ of reproductive and biogenetic medicine and science in order to realize the aims of its biopolitical agenda for racial betterment through fertility increase. In Italy, fascism encouraged science to tamper with the processes of human reproduction and to extend genetic understanding of diseases which were seen as ‘conquerable’ without sterilization and euthanasia. It began a biotechnological ‘revolution’ that historians often attribute to twenty-first-century science. By exploring the technical innovations in assisted conception which Italian fascism promoted, this article challenges the assumption in much of the scholarship that there was a huge divide between the ‘old’ eugenics of the interwar period and the ‘new’ genetics of recent decades.

Racial ‘Sterility’ and ‘Hyperfecundity’ in Fascist Italy. Biological Politics of Sex and Reproduction
https://brill.com/view/journals/fasc/1/2/article-p92_3.xml

I Have Seen Worse Things from the Late Bergoglio, Than Some of his Economic Advice ...

I Have Seen Worse Things from the Late Bergoglio, Than Some of his Economic Advice ... · What an Occasion to Make Clarifications on Fascism · Tolkien: Neither Woke Nor "Based Conservative" ... More Like "Gentle Traditionalist"

But Leo XIII and Pius XI, Rerum Novarum and Quadragesimo Anno were clearer on not being Communist.

JOL

The Catholic Church (along with most Mainline Protestant Churches) have long challenged the morality of American style laizźe faire capitalism. But for those Catholics and other Christians who actively support the MAGA movement that kind of capitalism is a major plank of their worldview.

DC

Communism worked so well at feeding poor people. The only thing it does is guarantee everyone is equally compelled by gun point to starve to death.

HGL

DC Logic?

"I'm against unbridled Capitalism"
"Oh, you are for Communism?"

It's like the dialogue:

"I'm against Islam"
"Oh, you are an Atheist?"

Islam and Atheism aren't the sole two religious systems. Even if some Muslims like to think so. And Communism and Capitalism aren't the sole two Economic systems. Heard of Fascism? Peronism is a form of Fascism (at least in the opinion of the Swedish Fascist Per Engdahl), and Bergoglio was pretty obviously a Peronist, even his opponents in the Catholic Church have noted that. Peronism and Communism are not the same. Perón's Argentina supported Franco's Spain economically, at a certain point, when Spanish harvests were low after the Civil War, which Communism would never have done.

Somewhere between Islam and Atheism, you might also find a third option, like Christianity, ever heard of it?

DC

HGL, yes, I am orthodox. We suffered quite a few million martyrs from atheistic socialist communism's manifest blessings. We are also quite familiar with living under the benevolence of Islam. We suggest you do not get chummy with either. They love martyring Christians. You certainly will find out wether your Christianity is real or not. Christianity is a relationship of union and communion with Christ that transforms you. It is not an govt/ economic model of redistribution of wealth.

The thing about Islam and communism is your usually invited to join at gunpoint and that gunpoint is never very far away to help remind you their paradise doesn't like people leaving it. Christ on the other hand always honors your free will choice to leave Him. When Jihadi's have to fatwa your heinie and commies shoot you crossing their iron curtains ,your paradise on earth isn't working very well. Let's try to not assume that Christian's need to think remotely like yourself about your politics, economical and worldview to still be right with Christ.

HGL

"It is not an govt/ economic model of redistribution of wealth."

It is also not a a fitness régime but it still involves fasting which is a kind of fitness régime.

So, it could involve some limits on government and economy and therefore promote some things too.

First, Our Lord did not only tell His Apostles to convert souls, He told them to convert nations, and that typically means societies and governments.

Second, given that Christian government are, if not the main at least one purpose, anxillary but not totally beside the point, one can discuss what Christianity has to say to Christian governments.

Third, this should obviously involve banning abortions, it can however also involve banning class warfare, whether it be the proletarian agressor, as in BLM protests, or the Capitalist agressor, as in sweating and underpaying workers, and as in disloyal means of outcompeting the smaller and healthier competition.

A Christian may miss this and be in a state of grace, but this is usually the result of ignorance.

JCE

DC Jesus turned over the tables. He did not see the value of clinging to wealth. He called for love of neighbors… and no, not just your relatives or close friends. Helping the needy. And welcoming the stranger. (You know, like those from a different place… rather than sending them to jail…). If he stood in front of you today, dark skinned, challenging us all to share with each other, how long would it take you to put him on a cross? Not long, I imagine.

You might also remember that he challenged the men ready to kill a woman who made decisions they criticized… to throw the first stone… if they never made a mistake.

He also turned to the women who recognized him. They did much of the early leading and were trusted by him. Yet, as his supposed followers became an organization, they fell into old habits, making their own rules and repetitive requirements, putting women in a lesser category. Making beautiful buildings. Reinterpreting Jesus teachings — and then making “their” rules, not his teachings, the requirement for proving their faith. Not actually faith by following his teachings, but their own interpretations.

DC

JCE, I suggest you read the Bible again in a thematic manner. Look with the idea that Christ came to earth with the mission to undo the works of the devil brought about by the introduction of sin and death that separated God from Man. That Jesus restored man so that man may return to Paradise and be atoned or restored to being AT ONE with God as it was before the fall. That these books or testaments are testimony to God's work towards that goal. Preparing by prophesy, law and rites to bring you in preparation to Christ working in history.

What He brings is salvation/ restoration to God. Christ became man so that man can become like God. His Church is the Place He created to be the vehicle that serves you in this journey( WAY) to salvation in Christ. It is not a social welfare organization. It is not a governmental power to create "good" as defined by the morals of the day. And the devil offered all earthly governmental power to Jesus if He for go his death and simply worship the devil. Satan offers full belly's and equality and safety for all, Simply surrender to Him.

Jesus offers humility and obedience, the devil offers you outrage, anger, Restoration of wrongs, injustices and equality of outcomes. Quite sure the walls of hell will be grafittied with the quotes of Marx, Mao, the Beatles, Gloria Steinum, and the muzak in the elevators will play Imagine by the Beatles, I did it my way by Sinatra and all the sloppy feminist empowerment music from such notable as Beyonce and Cardi B.

WAP, now there's a message that empowers women. Study the word of God so that might transform YOU. You're in no condition to judge what state of righteousness is in others who you might foolishly presume is contrary to God's intentions.

JCE

DC Excuse me. I’m a retired ordained minister with a Master’s of Divinity. Graduated top of my class. I know the Bible. (And I’d gone to church through my childhood and read completely through the Bible when I was about 13.) I learned about the research on the times of Jesus and why there are biblical stories which seem contradictory. And the changes in it over centuries. So… I’m not just picking and choosing what some particular churches try to pound into my head, to go along with their views. I’m not just “trained”. I’m educated. The misuse of the Bible really hurts.

HGL

DC "Christ came to earth with the mission to undo the works of the devil"

Like the sins that cry to Heaven for vengeance. These being:

• murder
• sin against nature
• oppressing widows and orphans
• withholding justly earned wages

Or like dishonesty, one species thereof being taking of interest.

Have you read St. John Chrysostom? His work was highly influential on Monsignor Ignaz Seipel's Wirtschaftsethische Lehre der Kirchenväter.

Also, manmade starvation is murder. Within less than one century there were three of them in Europe.

• Capitalism with Protestant prejudice created one in Ireland
• Russian Magnates' admiration for Industrial Capitalism created one in the Volga valley, and Lenin rubbed his hands for the Revolutionary Potential
• Communists taking over the Volga Valley only averted a second starvation there by displacing it to Kuban and Ukraine, which had decent crops.

Usually, when you hear of manmade starvations, you only hear of the third and don't hear all of the story.

DC

HGL, yes, quite familiar with St. John Chrysostrum, we say his liturgy every Sunday.

If your familiar with orthodox thought you would realize that to combat sin you start with yourself, Not others. To many people prefer to destroy the choices of others rather than control their own sinful habits that contribute to sin. Siezing my means of production has never fed your poor, it just simply ended my means to survive. Jailing me in a gulag or Shooting my counter revolutionary ass for pointing out the obvious 100% failure rate of socialist communism is a very large sin against me. I think killing man to " save" a man compounded by millions of men killed who refused your program is a colossal failure and imminently the epitome of demonic sin.

JOL

HGL Please forgive, DC, HG. He is suffering from a bad infection of Communnitis, a mental illness whose primary symptom is that everthing to the left of him is perceived by him as an expression of Marxist-Lenninism.

HGL

DC "to combat sin you start with yourself"

Well, I unintentionally came to possess money gotten from interest. I paid it back to the poor via an intermediary.

However, politics exist. In a Monarchy, those starting with themselves who deal with this kind of thing are basically Monarchs. But in a Republic, it's voters. Which makes it a bit more commonplace to think about it.

"Siezing my means of production has never fed your poor,"

If you didn't get the memo the first time, I'm a Fascist, not a Communist. In 1920 to 1922, bands of Communists went from farm to farm and small factory to small factory (Fiat was safer for some reason) trying to seize the means of Production.

Meanwhile, Blackshirts went from small business owner to small business owner and told him "we'll defend your property, if you give the workers decent wages and decent working hours" ... many small business owners took that.

And when Mussolini became Il Duce (more prosaically Prime Minister in the Kingdom of Italy), the idea of seizing other people's property suddenly was way less popular. But so was the idea of underpaying or overworking employees.

HGL

DC "100% failure rate of socialist communism is a very large sin against me"

I wish the economically Fascist Marxisms of Nordic countries and the economically Distributist Marxism of Tito had failed as well, nearly. Nope. No 1990 to end those Marxisms. In the case of Yugoslavia, it ended but through Nationalist War. In the case of Sweden, Denmark, Norway, still way too Marxist, because the economic model is Fascism and didn't fail.

As a consequence, it was way after 1990 that Norwegian Child Protective Services targetted the Bodnariu family for being too Christian. If I didn't walk in protests before the Norwegian Embassy in Paris, it's because I supported the protests from my blog instead.

But when it came to feeding the population, the failure of Holodomor was worst and as said has parallels outside Communism.

HGL

JOL Did you say "mental illness"?

Matthew 5:22 ...

HGL

JCE "men ready to kill a woman who made decisions they criticized"

He criticised her decision too, "Go and sin no more" ...

As for killing, Judah had already lost sovereignty, which in Genesis 49 couldn't happen before Jesus came. Herod had forfeited the right to execute justice within his confines by that child massacre. It was not a Mosaic execution, but an Anti-Roman lynching (with no new Maccabee rising to match it).

Plus, where was the man she had sinned with?

MC

“to combat sin you start with yourself” No, to combat sin you start with Christ who had destroyed death and the power of sin and death over us.

DC

MC LOL, I mistook my audience to have AREADY be Christian. And having turned to Christ. But, that doesn't mean all are well catichised and well formed Christians. And to circle back, my opening point was that Christ came to defeat the power of the devil by destroying sin and death. Which starts in you not governments be they, kingdoms , nations or empires. Christ was offered the opportunity to allow nations to build an earthly paradise that filled the bellies of men. The master of this world offered it to Him. A world of forced peace and redistribution and even let Jesus be it's human leader. There's more to life than full bellies and forced peace and all that without a Risen Christ. There will be a time when one world will unite under their political messiah who will deliver full bellies and peace. But it's utopianism won't have room for Christ. Socialism has no room for Christ. Marx was speaking plainly, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, uncle Ho Che Minh, Fidel, none have lied, Christ is not welcome in their atheist, man centered humanist paradise where sin and the devil doesn't exist.

Really makes you wonder how the whole "I AM YOUR GOD,WORSHIP ME " demands of the antichrist are going to fit in their political/ economic/ atheistic philosophy of socialism. Power loves power they will adapt easy enough. Sin? No place for that archaic mind set. Death? Isn't that the natural reality of all animals and it's the States obligation to get the most out of the production units labors before he expires. We can soon replace the word state with corporate overlords who will decide if we have enough value to bother feeding. Socialist christians??? After all these millions of deaths, slavery and human suffering from socialist communism. It simply does not compute. It's as silly as atheistic Jews for Communism. There were plenty of Russian jews for Communism, but we all know what their reward was in the great purgings.

And the Christian left who work for socialist entities will no doubt be blessed with the same rewards.

The DNC stated there's no room for Christianity in their platform. It would take a pretty serious "true believer in socialism first/ Christ as means to that end " to stay there , where Christ is obviously not their God. The architect and builder of a Christless

Utopia is the devil. And sin is a word that will not be spoken in his kingdom of LOVE. That hate speech/ judgmental word will not be tolerated. What a paradise the lefty Christians are working hard for. No understanding of sin and there will be no salvation from death. It starts with you, you learn your a sinner, you get saved from death. You in cooperation with the Holy Spirit provide salt and light to a dark decaying world, calling them out a world that is destined to destroy itself when it's master challenges the God / man Christ who puts an end to satan and heals this creations sin rebellion. Sin is problem.

Change men's hearts, not the place where men fill their bellies.

JOL

So please explain, DC, why our Lord bid us to pray daily for bread and further commanded us to break bread with one another in his name?

MC

DC I wasn't talking about people who aren't Christians, or even about Christians who aren't well catechized or whose formation in Christianity might be less than ideal. The comment about starting, always, with Christ in combating sin applies to any and every one, even the those who are committed, devout, well-formed, and well-catechized Christians many years into their life in Christ. It doesn't start with ourselves, and it doesn't ever get to be about ourselves. It is always and forever about what Christ has accomplished in destroying the power of sin and death over us. We always need to be reminded. That's the point of regular worship, regular reception of the Eucharist, regular proclamation, and regular catechesis.

But working on sin, broadly in humanity or in a specific person, also isn't something applicable to government. That's not government's purpose. Working on sin isn't what the quote of Pope Francis is deriving at, or the advocacy of others for a better social, political, and economic system and against the ways unfettered capitalism and market fundamentalism abuses and harms people. We might point to the sin of such abusive and harmful actions, but the role of government is not to remedy sin. Power does indeed have a way of corrupting and bending toward itself. Other systems of government and other variations of socioeconomic structures also abuse and harm people. All of those are worthy of prophetic attention, including the terrible and violent autocratic regimes you use as a foil. That does not mean we simply give it over to evil, or call it evil in itself.

Recognizing that the purpose of the government is not to work on or combat sin, doesn't mean that there is nothing for a Christian, or the Christian community, to say about such matters. It certainly does not mean we leave it alone as a supposed kingdom of the devil. Government and law are not bad things. They are not inherently evil or diabolical, however much there is a tendency of power to corrupt. The purpose of law and government, even while it can often fail in purpose, is for communities to organize and structure themselves so that life in community is possible, and even to allow that community and its members to thrive. Law and government is good and necessary. It is a gift. It supports life. It can also be abused and misused, turned to selfish ends. All too often it is. Yet, it is still good. And we still need to point out where it fails and call our communities and those with power to do better and stop causing harm. Life and human beings are not black/white and unalloyed. It's all complex and nuanced.

Sin is not the only thing Christianity is concerned about, nor is it the only thing that Christians are called to have a concern for. It may be a root of so much from the perspective, which is, of course, why we need Christ and his defeat of the power of sin and death once for all. God, Christ, Christianity, the Christian church, and individual Christians are and are called to be concerned with life and the well-being of neighbor in its own right. That is, this is a concern and call that is parallel to any concern about sin. That concern does directly apply to what governments might do or not do, and how economic and social systems function. Those are, after all, things that directly contribute to life, or hinder it. So it is good and right for Christians to be concerned with how government might better support life, address inequality and problems in a society. It is good and right for us to be concerned with how we treat various people, how we structure our political, social, and economic life together, and so on.

What you might note here, contrary to your assertion, is that there is plenty of concern about sin. It isn't excised from the conversation. How people are harmed is discussed. It's a common theme. It just isn't all theologized into an abstraction or turned into matters of personal peccadilloes. It doesn't call for government to remedy sin, but it points out where sin and harms occur in concrete, everyday ways. And we call us back to that task of supporting life and wellbeing, even when that occurs in what appears to be secular rather than religious language. (I would also suggest that such a split is a false dichotomy.)

From my perspective, it isn't Christians on the "left" that are calling for a utopia. We want a better and more just society, in keeping with our calling to support and protect our neighbors and their wellbeing. We recognize that no one political, social, or economic system will ever be perfect. And we don't reject such matters as unworthy of our attention as Christians. On the other hand, this idea that if we all worked on our sinfulness as fully-formed Christians, while rejecting all that government and law stuff as evil and diabolical, all could be well. That sounds like a utopia to me, not a realistic outlook of the world or our faith and the interaction between the two.

HGL

DC "Utopia is the devil."

The Corporatist Utopia was all over the Western Europe's Cities during the Middle Ages, ending diversely by either Deformation or Revolution (so, between 1534 and 1848).

The Distributist Utopia was villages of Serbia in the Kingdom of Serbia and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, Slovenes.

Was Latin Christendom of the Devil? Was Byzantine Serbia of the Devil?

And who here is defending Pol Pot or Stalin?

HGL

MC "But working on sin, broadly in humanity or in a specific person, also isn't something applicable to government. That's not government's purpose."

However, governments consist of people.

And people are not exempt from descending from Adam and being candidates for redemption by Christ, even when they are in government position.

MC

HGL Yes, governments consist of people. People are bound by sin and given the gift of life and forgiveness in Christ. Government is thus subject to the foibles and gifts of human beings. But the purpose of government is still not that of working on sin.

DC

HGL, Distributism showed up as a word in GK Chestertons works in the early 20th century. Serbia was Slavic and just like Russia bound it's serfs to the lands in de facto slavery till the 1860's. If there was villages practicing Distributism it was on a very small scale and came to an end by the Greatest utopian evil Communism. Chartered Corporations were common means of raising money for grand ventures. The Virginia company and Mayflower compact come to mind. But capitalism and profit are their driving forces. The puritans simply signed up to be the corporations laborers. Nothing utopian about the reasons the investors bought stake in corporations. Coming back to Serbia, utopian Communism produced many Serbian Saints.

DC

JOL, let's return to the temptation of Christ as it's not about bread. It's about who will be king in your life. Bread/ food is a necessity and an appetite created by God for our survival. But it rules our lives like it does the animals. You were called to be higher than the animals and not ruled by your appetites. A foreshadowing event happened in Genesis when a very starving Esau wandered in to Jacob's tent. Esau sold his birthright and future kingship over the tribe to fill his stomach. His words were final and the consequences eternal. His stomach/ appetite caused him to sin and separated him from his rightful place.

40 days of starvation a sinless Christ was tempted to sin against God by turning rocks in to bread. This sin would have destroyed Christ's mission to defeat sin by remaining sinless. His stomach didn't rule Him and cause Him to sell His birth right as the Son of God. Next temptation was to be perched a top of the Pinnacle and show yourself God by defying gravity. It was not in God's plans to show that power yet. So the devil was saying come show off, do your own thing and let us see your power. Surely God will honor your doing things your own way. The rebellion of the demons is they wanted to do things their own way and not in God's timing. Christ said you shall not test the lord by doing things foolishly, your own way assuming there is no consequences.

Thirdly the devil offers Christ a way to achieve satisfaction of all his earthly appetites and kingship of this world to feed all the world. To rule and control the world's peoples. Simply sell his birth right, avoid the cross, get what he wants in fixing all those world problems. Simply transfer His loyalty and worship and make Satan His God and king. Easy easy, full appetites of sinful completion, food, wine, women and song and no cross. No cross! We all will carry our cross, bread will always be scarce, Satan will always be a LIAR and someone will always be demanding earthly governments/kings to be their God's. It's not about bread , it's about lordship over your stomach.

HGL

MC Nevertheless, each person wielding government power is bound to try to be forgiven, bound to obey God.

This means, what God wants for society (for instance no abortion or just wages) is a thing that a person with government powers needs to obey in his life as it relates to governing.

HGL

DC "Distributism showed up as a word in GK Chestertons works in the early 20th century."

And Belloc's. A thing may precede a word.

"Serbia was Slavic and just like Russia bound it's serfs to the lands in de facto slavery till the 1860's."

I would like a source for that. You might be confusing Serbia with Romania.

But supposing it were true. Something replaced serfdom at some point when it was abolished. In Russia Kulaks showed up. Kulaks are distributism, even if the word is different.

"If there was villages practicing Distributism it was on a very small scale"

Very small scale is the EXACT point of Distributism. Can you point to Serbian villages with all farms tied to one single lord in the time between 1860 and 1948? Or to villages where some farmers bought up their neighbours' farms until they had expanded to plantations? If you can't, that means that they practised distributism.

"and came to an end by the Greatest utopian evil Communism."

Not really. Tito broke with Stalin over Stalin being against NEP.

"Chartered Corporations were common means of raising money for grand ventures."

Yes, but was farming in Serbia ever a "grand venture"?

"The Virginia company and Mayflower compact come to mind."

The Mayflower, after trying Communism, settled for Distributism.

Unlike the Virginia Company, they were not a chartered corporation.

"Coming back to Serbia, utopian Communism produced many Serbian Saints."

As I recall, not exactly over Economic policy, but over what was really Marxist in Tito's Yugoslavia: religious and national policy. And education policy. And feminism.

Sweden also has these Marxist things without a Leninist economy, Sweden has a Fascist economy, even if it doesn't like or commonly get referred to by that name (Lyndon LaRouche correctly assessed Olof Palme as a Fascist in economic policy).

HGL

DC Your words to JOL very well assess the duties of the poor as poor.

But it doesn't assess the duties of a king as king, or, in a democracy, of the voter as a voter.

Capitalism creates situations were people's lives are ruled by their stomach. Just as much as Communism. And I don't mean a free market as such, I mean extreme Capitalism.

MC

HGL I don't agree with your statement about a person with government powers (or anyone) needing to obey. First, we aren't bound by God. We are graciously called by God. That's a significant but important difference. We aren't puppets in God's hands. Second, I don't think God has a specific will with respect to what governments should do, or those in government should do with their position. The whole thing presents God as an authoritarian divine dictator. That's not who God is.

HGL

MC "We aren't puppets in God's hands."

Never said so.

Bound to obey means morally bound, not physically or quasi-physically bound.

Governments are free to obey, or to rebel, God to punish them or to reward them.

"I don't think God has a specific will with respect to what governments should do, or those in government should do with their position."

I get the opposite impression from "quare fremunt gentes" ... sorry, fremuerunt and it's Psalm 2.

There are government actions that God approves, there are government actions that He disapproves. The Psalmist is speaking up against the latter in the case of Gentile governments.

"The whole thing presents God as an authoritarian divine dictator. That's not who God is."

Mussolini tells a company they will be fined if they don't pay workers decently, I think God approved, you think He didn't?