Hans-Georg Lundahl · A few seconds ago
Mais pas contre "pédophilie" pèlemèle, comme on considère la question aujourd'hui y comprenant aussi jeunes mariages et autres choses hébéphiles entre consentants pubères de sexe différente.
UPDATE:
Mon premier amour était comme les autres filles de quatorze obligée d'aller à une école mixte. Elle était bourgeoise, elle y rencontrait mon rival qui ne l'était pas.
Lui, il l'a séduit et il s'en est vanté devant moi. Quand on allait vers l'inscription militaire il m'a dit qu'il l'avait larguée, parce qu'il la trouvait stupide.
Si elle avait pu ne pas aller à l'école, ou si elle avait pu épouser et s'il avait du épouser l'autre partie dans une séduction
...V'la, je déteste l'obligation scolaire ET les interdits pour adolescents de se marier. Si ça vous décourage d'être mes amis ...?
"J'irais jamais à l'école"/Plan France - Droits des Filles/Lien
- Mariés à 15 ans, divorcé à 18 ans !
Moi: Qui ça?
- ceux qui se marient adolescents !
Moi: ... ah bon? J'ai lu un article en Suède sur un couple marié à 12 et encore en couple à l'age de 24, le temps où l'article a été fait.
- des musulmans ?
Moi: Non, des suédois. Quand aux musulmans, ils ne considèrent pas le mariage comme indissoluble. C'est pas tout à fait comparable.
- oui c'est vrai / - ha oui ? hé bien tant mieux, mais en réalité trop jeune pour se marier à 12 ans (je coordonne deux réponses pour séparer les séries)
Moi: N'insulte pas la législation Romaine, Catholique, encore aussi française jusqu'à la révolution s t p
- hoo, non non !
Moi: Oh oui. Vérifier chez Jérôme Carcopino pour Rome et chez St Thomas d'Aquin pour l'église avant le XX siècle. Les trois: 14 pour le marié, 12 pour la mariée, ages minimum.
- S'ils sont aptes dans leur corps
Moi: Ce qui est normalement le cas. Ces dates (ou quelques mois mais pas un an entier ou même demi après) sont les ages moyennes pour la puberté. Les extrèmes sont 9 (voir législation islamique) et 18 (voir la législation laïque).
mercredi 6 octobre 2010
D'où "lou / la scoumouno"? De FSSPX, de ma paroisse, de St Nicolas du Chardonnet?
Selon une croyance de Marseille, quand quelqu'un se voit persécuté par guigne, y compris peut-être malheur systématique dans l'exploitation des chances offerts, il y a quelque part une excommunication, en parler marseillais "scoumouno".
J'ai été à cette paroisse pendant un an. Durant cette période, tout ce que j'ai entrepris pour mon bien-être temporel, sauf l'immédait, a glissé quasiment d'entre mes doigts.
Psaume 126 Nisi Dominus ædificaverit domum a été la lumière de ma vie, et si Dieu refuse de me benir, est-ce à cause de l'Église? Comment, pourquoi?
Je n'ai jamais prétendu à être prophète et obligé à la gratuité totale pour mes paroles. Pour mes textes, pour mes partitions. J'ai reclamé le mélange de gratuité et d'expectation de revenu qu'a un hospitalero del Camino dans un gite marqué donativo ou qu'a un guitariste de la rue. Le même mélange à peu près que le chœur de St Nicolas a reclamé pendant son concert annuel, celui qui m'a inspiré d'un Uhrsatz le dépli en thèmes de Sonata Nemetodurica.
Maintes fois, j'ai remarqué que les choses n'ont pas donné la réussite expectable, humainement, selon les connaissances que j'avais de ma situation. Guigne? Scoumouno?
Maintes fois j'ai écrit au curé là-dessus, sans réponse directe. J'ai déjà épuisé ce qu'est prévu par le VII (ou VIII?) canon du Concile de Nicée, c'est à dire, quand - je vais utiliser une langue populaire - quand je me vois niqué dans mes affaires temporelles par mon évêque j'ai le droit seulement de me plaindre en privé, par écrit privé.
Ce lundi par contre, j'ai choisi d'être ouvert devant toute la paroisse, de réellement ôter toute présomption que je doive être considéré comme traitre à une obligation stricte de pauvreté évangélique. J'ai punaisé un écrit sur le panneau, une dame qui m'a vu et qui semblait choquée a eu ma réponse (à quelle que soit sa question sous-entendue) "vous pouvez notifier le curé."
Ce n'est pas pour avoir mes affaires traité avec une confidentialité qui est contraires à mes interêts comme moi je les entend que je me tourne à une paroisse, mais pour y vivre chétiennement, dignement, honorablement.
J'ai été trahi à la mauvaise fortune qui m'a guetté en Suède par la décision de père/M. l'abbé Grüen FSPX, de m'y laisser seul après mon baptême sous condition, en 1993. Et encore une fois par sa prétence en 1997 qu'il serait tenter Dieu de laisser la situation que j'avais à l'époque. Une situation beaucoup plus dangéreuse que l'actuelle, selon mes jugements respectifs. Une situation qui m'a conduit à une quasi ruine juridique.
On n'a pas juste besoin d'un prêtre pour supplémenter les déficits de jugements dont on souffre éventuellement, mais aussi pour vivre une vie sacrementelle. Si M. l'abbé a décidé que je me doive abstiner de quelque chose que je fais ou que je doive faire quelque chose qu'il trouve que j'eusse négligé, alors il pourrait me le dire ou écrire. S'il n'a aucune critique à me faire, pourquoi attend-il quasiment mon retour au confessionnel, comme celui d'un pécheur publique, avant de me parler? Mais s'il dit "si ses affaires ont été tellement dégradés par nous, vous mieux qu'il nous évite", c'est une hypocrisie. Ça fait fi du fait qu'on a besoin des prêtres, même si on n'a pas besoin de leur présomption de juger les choses mieux qu'un-même.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
dans la Pompidolienne
6/X/2010, St Bruno
et le jour anniversaire
de mon arrivée à
Santiago de Compostela
PS, la question linguistique est reglé, une ligne rap que je me rappelle (génuine ou en Arleston/Léo Loden?) contient les mots "finie la scoumoune". Merci.
J'ai été à cette paroisse pendant un an. Durant cette période, tout ce que j'ai entrepris pour mon bien-être temporel, sauf l'immédait, a glissé quasiment d'entre mes doigts.
Psaume 126 Nisi Dominus ædificaverit domum a été la lumière de ma vie, et si Dieu refuse de me benir, est-ce à cause de l'Église? Comment, pourquoi?
Je n'ai jamais prétendu à être prophète et obligé à la gratuité totale pour mes paroles. Pour mes textes, pour mes partitions. J'ai reclamé le mélange de gratuité et d'expectation de revenu qu'a un hospitalero del Camino dans un gite marqué donativo ou qu'a un guitariste de la rue. Le même mélange à peu près que le chœur de St Nicolas a reclamé pendant son concert annuel, celui qui m'a inspiré d'un Uhrsatz le dépli en thèmes de Sonata Nemetodurica.
Maintes fois, j'ai remarqué que les choses n'ont pas donné la réussite expectable, humainement, selon les connaissances que j'avais de ma situation. Guigne? Scoumouno?
Maintes fois j'ai écrit au curé là-dessus, sans réponse directe. J'ai déjà épuisé ce qu'est prévu par le VII (ou VIII?) canon du Concile de Nicée, c'est à dire, quand - je vais utiliser une langue populaire - quand je me vois niqué dans mes affaires temporelles par mon évêque j'ai le droit seulement de me plaindre en privé, par écrit privé.
Ce lundi par contre, j'ai choisi d'être ouvert devant toute la paroisse, de réellement ôter toute présomption que je doive être considéré comme traitre à une obligation stricte de pauvreté évangélique. J'ai punaisé un écrit sur le panneau, une dame qui m'a vu et qui semblait choquée a eu ma réponse (à quelle que soit sa question sous-entendue) "vous pouvez notifier le curé."
Ce n'est pas pour avoir mes affaires traité avec une confidentialité qui est contraires à mes interêts comme moi je les entend que je me tourne à une paroisse, mais pour y vivre chétiennement, dignement, honorablement.
J'ai été trahi à la mauvaise fortune qui m'a guetté en Suède par la décision de père/M. l'abbé Grüen FSPX, de m'y laisser seul après mon baptême sous condition, en 1993. Et encore une fois par sa prétence en 1997 qu'il serait tenter Dieu de laisser la situation que j'avais à l'époque. Une situation beaucoup plus dangéreuse que l'actuelle, selon mes jugements respectifs. Une situation qui m'a conduit à une quasi ruine juridique.
On n'a pas juste besoin d'un prêtre pour supplémenter les déficits de jugements dont on souffre éventuellement, mais aussi pour vivre une vie sacrementelle. Si M. l'abbé a décidé que je me doive abstiner de quelque chose que je fais ou que je doive faire quelque chose qu'il trouve que j'eusse négligé, alors il pourrait me le dire ou écrire. S'il n'a aucune critique à me faire, pourquoi attend-il quasiment mon retour au confessionnel, comme celui d'un pécheur publique, avant de me parler? Mais s'il dit "si ses affaires ont été tellement dégradés par nous, vous mieux qu'il nous évite", c'est une hypocrisie. Ça fait fi du fait qu'on a besoin des prêtres, même si on n'a pas besoin de leur présomption de juger les choses mieux qu'un-même.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
dans la Pompidolienne
6/X/2010, St Bruno
et le jour anniversaire
de mon arrivée à
Santiago de Compostela
PS, la question linguistique est reglé, une ligne rap que je me rappelle (génuine ou en Arleston/Léo Loden?) contient les mots "finie la scoumoune". Merci.
From Journalistic ethics of James O'Keefe to Psychiatry (over Wallraff)
"As for O'Keefe dressing up as a pimp, yes, it is outrageous, but far less outrageous than the fact that so many ACORN employees were so anxious to work with him to help him establish and under-age prostitution ring"
James O'Keefe had a way of infiltrating ACORN. What if ACORN had a way of infiltrating under age prostitution rings?
The evil DONE by ACORN is more in the line of collaboration with the culture of death.
That is why I liked ACORN getting it for agreeing "yes, far too many black children are born, do donate for contraception and abortion."
I hope O'Keefe's videos about that may still do some good for stopping that in a wider perspective. But I am not sure that is all there is.
Since he is my friend, I will notify him what I said here.
He did imitate someone whose Chestertonian claim is greater, Günther Wallraff, infiltrator of German mental hospitals.
Answer:
OK, PP was not included in ACORN's agenda?
As for just war, it is true that not just killing but also some kinds of ruse are licit - but St Thomas actually states that lying is not one of them. Ambush is, if you get out of it before you start the killing.
Oops, it was even Lila Rose who did the PP prank?
Answer: Killing a bad man is an act of justice. Lying to him is not.
Answer: "Recent Popes" may have been misled by psychiatrists about what is merciful and what is a reasonable hope of recovery. I think the then Bishop Ratzinger was, when he sheltered a priest having done what he knew to be sexual misconduct (he did maybe not know age of other party) and he also knew the traditional way was defrocking.
Answer : No, you are talking about another story.
The one I talk about is when he was bishop [I think that was it, or maybe just priest]. He was not told what kind of offence it was and had nothing to do with the process.
He offered a room - shelter in the sense of couch-surfing - to a priest whose bishop was sending him to councelling rather than defrocking for a sexual misconduct the nature of which he did not know. What he DID know was the priest was getting to a psychologist or psychiatrist, to some kind of shrink.
Has he learned something from the mistake? (Even if not his own, mistakes in his knowledge are a matter he could licitly learn from).
a - he has not changed preference for long and painful rehabilitations over death penalty
b - he has on World Health Day 2006 pronounced one in five as suffering from a mental disorder or disease
c - he pardoned Susana Maiolo without making a process for what was objectively a sacrilege, though as against a celebrant only starting the procession very much less so than if she had done it during directly Eucharistic parts of Holy Mass: as if she was sure she was deluded.
What if she tried to make the Church make a process so she could make one against psychiatry? Then it was - to all appearances I know of - wasted on Benedict XVI. Or should one say Mr Ratzinger?
[Immediately added:]obviously - am I cursed by some priest or something? - "as if she was sure she was deluded" shall be "as if HE was sure she was deluded".
Answer : My point is has he evolved WITH psychiatry in sex abuse problems or has he evolved ABOUT psychiatry?
She is the one who floored him. A thing that has certainly been done to her once in a while in those institutions.
If she had been put to trial according to Church law she could have explained that detail in her background. And asked his holiness - supposing him to be so, I have not lost hope yet - whether he was aware of that, and if he had found the sensation confortable, and if it was fair to her and other victims of psychiatry for him to tell priests they should continue telling her and others to bear their "mental suffering" as a cross instead of complaining about mental institutions as a crime.
But I fear, as long as he thinks it humane to oppose death penalty - despite Romans 13 - because he hopes psychiatry will do better, he is deaf to such appeals.
That is my great problem with him. That was my great problem with my Roumanian bishop. (Is he holding me excommunicate and is Rome giving back Orthodox ecclesiastic power so he can do it?) He preached about suffering in Easter 2008 and thought "mental illness" an item sufficiently important to mention, i e he too agrees with psychiatry.
Answer: "My understanding is that BXVI has lost his faith in the psychiatry's power to "cure" pedophilia."
Yes. So has psychiatry. Does that prove him independent of psychiatry? No.
"I don't think speaking about mental illness as being a cross to bear necessarily is an endorsement of mental institutions, and I hope that not all mental institutions are criminal in their operation, although I do know that there are often abuses, and I'm sure BXVI would not approve of those."
By telling someone he or she is mentally ill, he is refusing to DISCOVER the abuses. So are you if you hope they are not all criminal. At least if you disapprove of Wallraff (who found out the German ones were a few decades ago, then he has done other stuff) - was that you?
In psychiatry among ten patients, it is not a question as many think of nine mentally ill and maybe the tenth one a mistake, it is a question of nine who are sane and maybe one who is mad. I am not saying the others are always morally all right - would you be after years of being treated with limitations of freedom and safety gadgets originally applied to madmen? I am saying they are NOT MAD.
See here: http://distributistreview.com/mag/2010/07/naive-experts-economists-and-the-real-world/
Psychiatrists tend to be the same, they miss both sanity and danger in persons.
Answer: bipolar? nothing worse?
a hot bath with roses or other things can be "done to" a depressive person (including bipolar during depressive period) - which is why people in depression are fearly easy to treat and fairly well treated in such places
quite sure it was her thoughts as opposed to emotions that were "not clear"?
I have seen a person have a very strange and ironic humor during a week of sleeplessness about once or twice a year - but never harming either herself or others, whether hospitalised or not. It also passed after a week (usually when she got her menstruation) whether she was hospitalised or not.
[adding about me and Roumanian Orthodox profession:] In answer to questions missed above: I am a convert to Catholic Church, sedisvacantist under last years of J.P.-II, exceited about election of Ratzinger, then disappointed - over this very point of psychiatry! - and went to Roumanian Church, whose bishop for Western Europe disappointed me too, to be precise with his Easter Pastoral of 2008. A year ago I went back to FSSPX (Mgr Lefèbvre's inheritors).
If traditional Western theology holds, Orthodox bishops lack jurisdiction and so lack power to excommunicate anyone, let alone a Catholic. St Ignatius of Loyola wrote the Copt Patriarch of Alexandria had neither jurisdiction nor grace to give Ethiopians. Be it noted, his quarrel was not over hesychasm - he prayed hesychastically himself and taught others to do so, though not with the Jesus prayer - but over their rejection of Rome's authority.
If they have jurisdiction now, does it mean they always had it and I exposed myself or does it mean they got it back when Paul VI kissed Athenagoras?
@J. P., I forgot this part: "You could just as easily take pedophile priests and say they are representative of Catholic moral teaching on sex with minors."
Sex as in marital relation or sex as fornication especially stuprum, seducing a virgin? Fornicating by seducing a virgin is worse than doing it with someone who already has whether that virgin is 14 or 20.
Marital relations are another matter and licit whether newly wed the bride be 12 or 20.
James O'Keefe had a way of infiltrating ACORN. What if ACORN had a way of infiltrating under age prostitution rings?
The evil DONE by ACORN is more in the line of collaboration with the culture of death.
That is why I liked ACORN getting it for agreeing "yes, far too many black children are born, do donate for contraception and abortion."
I hope O'Keefe's videos about that may still do some good for stopping that in a wider perspective. But I am not sure that is all there is.
Since he is my friend, I will notify him what I said here.
He did imitate someone whose Chestertonian claim is greater, Günther Wallraff, infiltrator of German mental hospitals.
J. P.: See here's the issue---people are getting a whole bunch of ideas conflated at once. Hans, aren't you confusing the PP prank calls with the ACORN videos? ACORN is ostensbily grounded in this:
"The members of ACORN take on issues of relevance to their communities, whether those issues are discrimination, affordable housing, a quality education, or better public services. ACORN believes that low- to moderate-income people are the best advocates for their communities, and so ACORN's low- to moderate-income members act as leaders, spokespeople, and decision-makers within the organization."
By itself, you'd even have to say that this mission statement is noble and admirable. The question is are they using that as a mask for illicit campaigning and influence. As I said--O'Keefe did nothing to elucidate that question. And now we'll likely never know for sure.
The right has imputed that the upper management of ACORN are pro-Choice, which fits the partisan profile, but it's a reach to compare the ACORN videos to Gunther Wallraff even in the most charitable light. (Besides Wallraff's work has also raised questions in ethics for some people. Remember, according to Catholic tradition, nothing can be measured by the ends alone.)
I've said elsewhere that the prank calls to Planned Parenthood were much more acceptable, though I think any information gained in pranks is going to be open to assault by the opposition. What would be more useful is internal documents that state that as a organizational policy.
You could just as easily take pedophile priests and say they are representative of Catholic moral teaching on sex with minors.
I'm not saying that Planned Parenthood isn't grounded in eugenics--of course those who know their history know that they are, but as far as educating the public on that, the PP prank calls are insufficient but amusing supporting evidence of that philosophical orientation.
I think a whole bunch of issues and facts are getting jumbled here--the planned parenthood stunt (and the lucky charms one which was hilarious) are completely separate from ACORN.
Answer:
OK, PP was not included in ACORN's agenda?
As for just war, it is true that not just killing but also some kinds of ruse are licit - but St Thomas actually states that lying is not one of them. Ambush is, if you get out of it before you start the killing.
Oops, it was even Lila Rose who did the PP prank?
J. M. : What's the difference between a ruse and a lie? I think the problem I'm having is that if you follow the logic of Aquinas on Just War regarding killing, how is it that killing is can be justified, but protecting a person's life through a lie cannot even be mitigated to a lesser sin? If I read the Catechism properly, circumstances DO matter in terms of removing culpability for a lie, even if they can never make a lie something "good".
Answer: Killing a bad man is an act of justice. Lying to him is not.
J.M. : But killing a bad man is not necessarily an act of justice, at least not according to the recent popes who seem to prefer that even very bad people not be executed if there is any other way possible to protect society from them. And isn't one of the rationales for accepting such killings that society has a right to defend itself? And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that lying can ever be made good, I'm simply saying that lying to protect a person from an evil aggressor does not seem as damaging as killing a person to protect someone from an evil aggressor. I mean, if you lied in such a situation you'd be operating under duress and with the intent of a) not killing the aggressor, and b) protecting the innocent party. Or are we saying it would actually be more moral to kill a person who was dragging away an innocent person than to tell them a lie to misdirect them?
Answer: "Recent Popes" may have been misled by psychiatrists about what is merciful and what is a reasonable hope of recovery. I think the then Bishop Ratzinger was, when he sheltered a priest having done what he knew to be sexual misconduct (he did maybe not know age of other party) and he also knew the traditional way was defrocking.
J. M. : Actually, I think then Cardinal Ratzinger intended on defrocking the priest in question, but the offending priest died before the process could be completed. As usual, the media completely misinterpreted the slowness of the wheels of justice at the Vatican as the Vatican "protecting" the offender rather than giving the accused due process.
Answer : No, you are talking about another story.
The one I talk about is when he was bishop [I think that was it, or maybe just priest]. He was not told what kind of offence it was and had nothing to do with the process.
He offered a room - shelter in the sense of couch-surfing - to a priest whose bishop was sending him to councelling rather than defrocking for a sexual misconduct the nature of which he did not know. What he DID know was the priest was getting to a psychologist or psychiatrist, to some kind of shrink.
Has he learned something from the mistake? (Even if not his own, mistakes in his knowledge are a matter he could licitly learn from).
a - he has not changed preference for long and painful rehabilitations over death penalty
b - he has on World Health Day 2006 pronounced one in five as suffering from a mental disorder or disease
c - he pardoned Susana Maiolo without making a process for what was objectively a sacrilege, though as against a celebrant only starting the procession very much less so than if she had done it during directly Eucharistic parts of Holy Mass: as if she was sure she was deluded.
What if she tried to make the Church make a process so she could make one against psychiatry? Then it was - to all appearances I know of - wasted on Benedict XVI. Or should one say Mr Ratzinger?
[Immediately added:]obviously - am I cursed by some priest or something? - "as if she was sure she was deluded" shall be "as if HE was sure she was deluded".
J. M. : From what I've read, BXVI, has evolved in his understanding of the nature of the sex abuse problem over the years. Like so many people in both the Church and the secular world, he followed the wisdom of secular experts about rehabilitating offenders, but over time he became convinced that was not working at all. Which just goes to show, sometimes the old ways really are the best ways. One in five seems rather high, but if you include mild depression, I guess you could get to that number. However, I seriously think if people availed themselves of the sacrament of reconciliation more often, even mild depression would be greatly reduced.
Is Susana Maiolo the one that jumped the rope and attacked him? I'm not quite sure I follow what you are saying about the Pope's pardon of her actions regarding "making a process".
Answer : My point is has he evolved WITH psychiatry in sex abuse problems or has he evolved ABOUT psychiatry?
She is the one who floored him. A thing that has certainly been done to her once in a while in those institutions.
If she had been put to trial according to Church law she could have explained that detail in her background. And asked his holiness - supposing him to be so, I have not lost hope yet - whether he was aware of that, and if he had found the sensation confortable, and if it was fair to her and other victims of psychiatry for him to tell priests they should continue telling her and others to bear their "mental suffering" as a cross instead of complaining about mental institutions as a crime.
But I fear, as long as he thinks it humane to oppose death penalty - despite Romans 13 - because he hopes psychiatry will do better, he is deaf to such appeals.
That is my great problem with him. That was my great problem with my Roumanian bishop. (Is he holding me excommunicate and is Rome giving back Orthodox ecclesiastic power so he can do it?) He preached about suffering in Easter 2008 and thought "mental illness" an item sufficiently important to mention, i e he too agrees with psychiatry.
J. M. : My understanding is that BXVI has lost his faith in the psychiatry's power to "cure" pedophilia. He now understands through experience with recidivism amongst offenders that this pathology is rarely cured through therapy. In fact, he was often at odds with JPII, because JPII had seen so many priests falsely accused of sexual abuse by Communists that he thought that most accusations were likely false. I think Pope Benedict came to terms with the reality of the situation before JPII.
I don't think speaking about mental illness as being a cross to bear necessarily is an endorsement of mental institutions, and I hope that not all mental institutions are criminal in their operation, although I do know that there are often abuses, and I'm sure BXVI would not approve of those.
I also don't think the reason he opposes the death penalty for killers is because he thinks these people can be cured, but rather to give them as much time as possible to repent and possibly be reconciled with God.
I'm not sure I understand. Are you Roumanian Orthodox by profession? And if you are, why do think that the Pope must give the Roumanian Church the authority to excommunicate you? Don't you believe the Roumanian Church has the authority to do that without the Pope's approval?
Answer: "My understanding is that BXVI has lost his faith in the psychiatry's power to "cure" pedophilia."
Yes. So has psychiatry. Does that prove him independent of psychiatry? No.
"I don't think speaking about mental illness as being a cross to bear necessarily is an endorsement of mental institutions, and I hope that not all mental institutions are criminal in their operation, although I do know that there are often abuses, and I'm sure BXVI would not approve of those."
By telling someone he or she is mentally ill, he is refusing to DISCOVER the abuses. So are you if you hope they are not all criminal. At least if you disapprove of Wallraff (who found out the German ones were a few decades ago, then he has done other stuff) - was that you?
In psychiatry among ten patients, it is not a question as many think of nine mentally ill and maybe the tenth one a mistake, it is a question of nine who are sane and maybe one who is mad. I am not saying the others are always morally all right - would you be after years of being treated with limitations of freedom and safety gadgets originally applied to madmen? I am saying they are NOT MAD.
See here: http://distributistreview.com/mag/2010/07/naive-experts-economists-and-the-real-world/
Psychiatrists tend to be the same, they miss both sanity and danger in persons.
J.M. : Hans, my aunt was bipolar for most of her adult life, and when she would have one of her bouts with either mania or depression, I often feared that she would either hurt herself or get hurt, because she wasn't thinking clearly. She was only hospitalized once or twice due to her mental illness, but I assure you she wasn't just a unique thinker, or sad, or weird, she was like a different person than the one she was when she wasn't having problems. And although her treatments weren't perfect, they usually were able to bring her back to her normal state through medication. However, I do see your point that a lot of people are diagnosed as mentally ill when they are really just dealing with difficult circumstances in their life. Being depressed when your life has been turned upside down is a normal response, not an abnormal one.
I don't know anything about Wallraff', so I don't think I'm the one you're thinking of that disapproved of his work. And I certainly wouldn't sanction abuses once they were uncovered. It makes me sick to think that people who are mentally fragile would be abused when they already have more than their share of problems.
Answer: bipolar? nothing worse?
a hot bath with roses or other things can be "done to" a depressive person (including bipolar during depressive period) - which is why people in depression are fearly easy to treat and fairly well treated in such places
quite sure it was her thoughts as opposed to emotions that were "not clear"?
I have seen a person have a very strange and ironic humor during a week of sleeplessness about once or twice a year - but never harming either herself or others, whether hospitalised or not. It also passed after a week (usually when she got her menstruation) whether she was hospitalised or not.
[adding about me and Roumanian Orthodox profession:] In answer to questions missed above: I am a convert to Catholic Church, sedisvacantist under last years of J.P.-II, exceited about election of Ratzinger, then disappointed - over this very point of psychiatry! - and went to Roumanian Church, whose bishop for Western Europe disappointed me too, to be precise with his Easter Pastoral of 2008. A year ago I went back to FSSPX (Mgr Lefèbvre's inheritors).
If traditional Western theology holds, Orthodox bishops lack jurisdiction and so lack power to excommunicate anyone, let alone a Catholic. St Ignatius of Loyola wrote the Copt Patriarch of Alexandria had neither jurisdiction nor grace to give Ethiopians. Be it noted, his quarrel was not over hesychasm - he prayed hesychastically himself and taught others to do so, though not with the Jesus prayer - but over their rejection of Rome's authority.
If they have jurisdiction now, does it mean they always had it and I exposed myself or does it mean they got it back when Paul VI kissed Athenagoras?
@J. P., I forgot this part: "You could just as easily take pedophile priests and say they are representative of Catholic moral teaching on sex with minors."
Sex as in marital relation or sex as fornication especially stuprum, seducing a virgin? Fornicating by seducing a virgin is worse than doing it with someone who already has whether that virgin is 14 or 20.
Marital relations are another matter and licit whether newly wed the bride be 12 or 20.
lundi 27 septembre 2010
La politique des parties et des mouvances, j'ai essayé de l'éviter.
Mais je me trouve en France, et en avance c'est pas gagné.
J'ai parfois l'impression que les adhérents de Rénouveau Français, que je côtoie dans la paroisse St Nicolas du Chardonnet, ont essayé un manoeuvre un peu dévié: en me faisant une bonne mine, en me parlant et saluant de façon que je les ai resalué, il y a un certain risque qu"ils ont pu vouloir me décrédibiliser devant tout ce qui est de gauche d'eux mêmes, là où j'ai joui d'un certain respect et un certain accueil.
Peut-être ils se disent qu'ils ont comme but de me sauver de la gauche marxiste. Là ils seraient alors victimes de la même illusion qu'ils essaient de faire aux gauchistes, si j'ai bien compri et pas déconné sur leur manœuvre.
Je ne suis ni adhérent de Rénouveau Français, ni de Jeunesse Ouvrière Catholique. J'apprécie les deux plus qu par exemple Communistes ou Musulmans. Mes vues politiques ne changent pas en fonction de la compagnie que je fréquente. À la limite, je préfère en exprimer certains aspects en certaines compagnies, d'autres en d'autres. Mais jamais pendant le période de mes textes les plus proches des Verts, je n'ai accepté que la limitation de la croissance industrielle passe par limitation de l apopulation par avortments ou par contraception. Et jamais dans mes textes les plus monarchistes, je n'ai accepté que l'industrie avec gros capital soit une aristocracie qui comprenne les choses mieux que les petites gens. Ou que les forces d'ordre auraient le droit d'embêter les chomeurs volontaires par ça seulement, plutôt que pour des débordements.
En plein chemin de St Jacques, en 2004, j'ai chanté:
Je vous aime, M. Gaucho et M. Facho, c'est le Christ Roi qui est ma loyauté.
C'est pas en lisant davantage de Chesterton ou moins d'Éric Gill que je devrais devenir plus droitiste. J'ai jamais lu Éric Gill, je me suis toujours nourri de Chesterton. C'est pas en décriant le nucléaire ou en affectionnant les boutiques coopératives - tel MAS des alternatives - que je deviendrais plus gauchiste. L'Autriche est très droitiste et antinucléaire. Les coopératives de Agro-Union m'ont toujours à l'époque communiste semblé être le moins communiste et le plus respectueux de la liberté de propriété privé qu'on trouvait chez les communistes.
Franco, je peux bien me ranger derrière ses détracteurs comme derrière ses adulateurs - ça dépend du contexte. Il a sauvé la fortresse où se trouvait Mozcardó? Il a battu l'exécrable Azaña? Il a sauvé l'Église? Il a laissé ses volontaires se battre contre les Soviétiques à la fronte de l'Est? Alors je suis pour Franco.
Il a fait la guerre en Afrique sur les prémisses que le vieillard Musulman a décrié "quand on portera chaussures vous nous appelerez civilisés", je suis contre cette aventure là. Il a torturé après sa victorie? Je suis contre. Il a donné moyens de recherche et pouvoir sur des malheureux aux psychiatres? Je suis contre ça. Il a modernisé l'économie dans les années 1960, je suis contre ça, pourtant il était moins mal que de Gaulle ou les Socialdémocrates suédois dans le même contexte.
J'ai gagné une sympathie pour Franco dans le sens que ce n'était pas lui, mais l'Église d'Espagne qui avait rendu l'éducation à peu près et praticalement obligatoire. J'ai perdu une sympathie pour lui en apprenant qu'il soutenait la psychiatrie, dans l'espoir de rechercher sur le génôme des révolutionnaires.
Ce n'est pas parce que je suis pour Dollfuss, ami chrétien de Mussolini, que je serais pour Hitler, plus tard allié payen de Mussolini. Ce n'est pas non plus parce que je suis contre Hitler (je parle de sa politique, on peut espérer qu'il soit échappé et qu'il aura fait une meilleure vie avec Eva Braun quelque part où ses oeuvres politiques avant 1945 étaient peu visées par l'opinion) que je serais contre Dollfuss.
Il y a un monde entre les positions que j'ai et celles qu'on me propose ou reproche comme connexes dans une logique flou du discours politique. Pour moi, la logique a été pleinement exploré ou presque par Aristote. La politique un peu moins: il soutenait un discours raciste en parlant du "naturellement maître" et "naturellement esclave" où il doit être corrigé par St Augustin. Ce qu'est aussi la position de St Thomas d'Aquin.
Quand à ceux qui voudraient que je change mon discours dans un sens qu'il comprendront mieux, désolé. S'ils essaient de la droite, sur les droits du pouvoir publique, celui-là est contre les méchant et pas contre les "tête-dans-l'air" ou leurs libertés. S'ils essaient de la gauche, sur mon prétendu interêt de me développer, je suis pas évolutionniste. Surtout pas quand on parle de l'évolution dans le contexte humain. Il y a apostasies, il y a des conversions, mais il n'y a pas vraiment d'évolution.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
in Pompidoliana Bibl.
27/IX/2010
J'ai parfois l'impression que les adhérents de Rénouveau Français, que je côtoie dans la paroisse St Nicolas du Chardonnet, ont essayé un manoeuvre un peu dévié: en me faisant une bonne mine, en me parlant et saluant de façon que je les ai resalué, il y a un certain risque qu"ils ont pu vouloir me décrédibiliser devant tout ce qui est de gauche d'eux mêmes, là où j'ai joui d'un certain respect et un certain accueil.
Peut-être ils se disent qu'ils ont comme but de me sauver de la gauche marxiste. Là ils seraient alors victimes de la même illusion qu'ils essaient de faire aux gauchistes, si j'ai bien compri et pas déconné sur leur manœuvre.
Je ne suis ni adhérent de Rénouveau Français, ni de Jeunesse Ouvrière Catholique. J'apprécie les deux plus qu par exemple Communistes ou Musulmans. Mes vues politiques ne changent pas en fonction de la compagnie que je fréquente. À la limite, je préfère en exprimer certains aspects en certaines compagnies, d'autres en d'autres. Mais jamais pendant le période de mes textes les plus proches des Verts, je n'ai accepté que la limitation de la croissance industrielle passe par limitation de l apopulation par avortments ou par contraception. Et jamais dans mes textes les plus monarchistes, je n'ai accepté que l'industrie avec gros capital soit une aristocracie qui comprenne les choses mieux que les petites gens. Ou que les forces d'ordre auraient le droit d'embêter les chomeurs volontaires par ça seulement, plutôt que pour des débordements.
En plein chemin de St Jacques, en 2004, j'ai chanté:
Os quiero, izquierdo y paquito
Rey Cristo es mi lealtad.
Je vous aime, M. Gaucho et M. Facho, c'est le Christ Roi qui est ma loyauté.
C'est pas en lisant davantage de Chesterton ou moins d'Éric Gill que je devrais devenir plus droitiste. J'ai jamais lu Éric Gill, je me suis toujours nourri de Chesterton. C'est pas en décriant le nucléaire ou en affectionnant les boutiques coopératives - tel MAS des alternatives - que je deviendrais plus gauchiste. L'Autriche est très droitiste et antinucléaire. Les coopératives de Agro-Union m'ont toujours à l'époque communiste semblé être le moins communiste et le plus respectueux de la liberté de propriété privé qu'on trouvait chez les communistes.
Franco, je peux bien me ranger derrière ses détracteurs comme derrière ses adulateurs - ça dépend du contexte. Il a sauvé la fortresse où se trouvait Mozcardó? Il a battu l'exécrable Azaña? Il a sauvé l'Église? Il a laissé ses volontaires se battre contre les Soviétiques à la fronte de l'Est? Alors je suis pour Franco.
Il a fait la guerre en Afrique sur les prémisses que le vieillard Musulman a décrié "quand on portera chaussures vous nous appelerez civilisés", je suis contre cette aventure là. Il a torturé après sa victorie? Je suis contre. Il a donné moyens de recherche et pouvoir sur des malheureux aux psychiatres? Je suis contre ça. Il a modernisé l'économie dans les années 1960, je suis contre ça, pourtant il était moins mal que de Gaulle ou les Socialdémocrates suédois dans le même contexte.
J'ai gagné une sympathie pour Franco dans le sens que ce n'était pas lui, mais l'Église d'Espagne qui avait rendu l'éducation à peu près et praticalement obligatoire. J'ai perdu une sympathie pour lui en apprenant qu'il soutenait la psychiatrie, dans l'espoir de rechercher sur le génôme des révolutionnaires.
Ce n'est pas parce que je suis pour Dollfuss, ami chrétien de Mussolini, que je serais pour Hitler, plus tard allié payen de Mussolini. Ce n'est pas non plus parce que je suis contre Hitler (je parle de sa politique, on peut espérer qu'il soit échappé et qu'il aura fait une meilleure vie avec Eva Braun quelque part où ses oeuvres politiques avant 1945 étaient peu visées par l'opinion) que je serais contre Dollfuss.
Il y a un monde entre les positions que j'ai et celles qu'on me propose ou reproche comme connexes dans une logique flou du discours politique. Pour moi, la logique a été pleinement exploré ou presque par Aristote. La politique un peu moins: il soutenait un discours raciste en parlant du "naturellement maître" et "naturellement esclave" où il doit être corrigé par St Augustin. Ce qu'est aussi la position de St Thomas d'Aquin.
Quand à ceux qui voudraient que je change mon discours dans un sens qu'il comprendront mieux, désolé. S'ils essaient de la droite, sur les droits du pouvoir publique, celui-là est contre les méchant et pas contre les "tête-dans-l'air" ou leurs libertés. S'ils essaient de la gauche, sur mon prétendu interêt de me développer, je suis pas évolutionniste. Surtout pas quand on parle de l'évolution dans le contexte humain. Il y a apostasies, il y a des conversions, mais il n'y a pas vraiment d'évolution.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
in Pompidoliana Bibl.
27/IX/2010
samedi 25 septembre 2010
David Bawden/Pope Michael may be no Pope, but he is no fool either
Link discussed: http://www.facebook.com/PopeMichael1?ref=ts
N: "He's insane"
===
I was his friend back when I was Palmarian, and a little later too.
He concluded FSSPX and episcopal sedisvacantists were disregarding Papacy as much as the Orthodox, then that an alternative conclave as needed to amend that. Then that since one conclave had so small a minority of bishops as to be "practically" a laymen's conclave, laymen's conclaves are permitted in absence of bishops. He got six people together, all laymen, including himself and his parents/mom. He lives a celibate home at mom's farm.
To my mind he is not slow, he is a bit thick. Not meaning dishonest. Nor confused over any proportion to situation.
To my mind he is not slow, he is a bit thick. Not meaning dishonest. Nor confused over any proportion to situation.
===
SE: "How anyone can maintain such a personal delusion for 20 years is mystifying. But I'm no psychologist."
CK: "The internet aids in that."
===
It is not a matter of psychology, it as a matter of CANON LAW.
As an amateur canonist and sedisvacantist he arrived at a position which he has found no canonic reason to abandon.
@ C(K): being in any way cut off from the companies YOU consider as having common sense aids in maintaining the positions YOU consider as delusions. Mr Bawden lives on the country side.
Having any kind of access to companies YOU consider a...s lacking in common sense may aid there too.
But it is RUBBISH to claim he gets a great feedback on internet by fake followers.
He is getting the heat on internet. He had hopes for me, since I am geocentric, as is he, as is for that matter Robert Sungenis (who accpeted John Paul II). He got heat from me, on more than one canonic and Latin grammar account.
Papacy traditionally never claimed to be able to distinguish what person is "maintaining a delusion" (in psychological sense) and who is responsible for heresies. See here: http://o-x.fr/xet [St Robert Bellarmine]
I translate:
FIRSTLY we say, that the Pontiff cannot err in precepts, which are prescribed for all the Church; since, as we said above, it is not absurd that a Pontiff err in precepts or judgements on particular matters.
"on particular matters" could as easily be translated "concerning particular persons" or "in individual cases".
Whether a person has claimed that a conclave may be entirely made from laymen and supported it by example of a mediaeval conclave where laymen by far, far outnumbered the bishops or even simple priests and deacons, that is a matter of objective testing. David Bawden, even before taking practical steps of applying his conclusion, came to it and published it in "Will the Catholic Church Survive the XXth Century?".
If John Paul II was Pope at the time, it is also a very sound question: did he condemn the book, and if not why?
If John Paul had condemned David Bawden for writing and publishing that book - look it up in the acts of the Holy See! - he would have been acting on an objectively testable principle, he would also have been deciding for the whole church (or whoever accepts papacy and him as Pope) whether such a thing as a lay conclave is even theoretically possible. In such a case, he would have been within the limits of Papal Infallibility.
If on the other hand, he decided David Bawden was a kook, he was deciding purely on a matter concerning an individual whom, on top of that, he did not know. In such a case he was no wiser than Argentine officials calling the Mothers of Plaza de Mayo fools and dismissing their claim to get their children back.
For believe me: David Bawden certainly did think it was his duty to inform Karol Wojtyla that he was a heretic before the 1978 conclave, and so was Paul VI.
As an amateur canonist and sedisvacantist he arrived at a position which he has found no canonic reason to abandon.
@ C(K): being in any way cut off from the companies YOU consider as having common sense aids in maintaining the positions YOU consider as delusions. Mr Bawden lives on the country side.
Having any kind of access to companies YOU consider a...s lacking in common sense may aid there too.
But it is RUBBISH to claim he gets a great feedback on internet by fake followers.
He is getting the heat on internet. He had hopes for me, since I am geocentric, as is he, as is for that matter Robert Sungenis (who accpeted John Paul II). He got heat from me, on more than one canonic and Latin grammar account.
Papacy traditionally never claimed to be able to distinguish what person is "maintaining a delusion" (in psychological sense) and who is responsible for heresies. See here: http://o-x.fr/xet [St Robert Bellarmine]
"Dicimus PRIMVM, non posse errare Pontificem in iis praeceptis, quae toti Ecclesiae praescribuntur; quia, vt suprà diximus, in praeceptis, & iudiciis particularibus, non est absurdum Pontificem errare."
I translate:
FIRSTLY we say, that the Pontiff cannot err in precepts, which are prescribed for all the Church; since, as we said above, it is not absurd that a Pontiff err in precepts or judgements on particular matters.
"on particular matters" could as easily be translated "concerning particular persons" or "in individual cases".
Whether a person has claimed that a conclave may be entirely made from laymen and supported it by example of a mediaeval conclave where laymen by far, far outnumbered the bishops or even simple priests and deacons, that is a matter of objective testing. David Bawden, even before taking practical steps of applying his conclusion, came to it and published it in "Will the Catholic Church Survive the XXth Century?".
If John Paul II was Pope at the time, it is also a very sound question: did he condemn the book, and if not why?
If John Paul had condemned David Bawden for writing and publishing that book - look it up in the acts of the Holy See! - he would have been acting on an objectively testable principle, he would also have been deciding for the whole church (or whoever accepts papacy and him as Pope) whether such a thing as a lay conclave is even theoretically possible. In such a case, he would have been within the limits of Papal Infallibility.
If on the other hand, he decided David Bawden was a kook, he was deciding purely on a matter concerning an individual whom, on top of that, he did not know. In such a case he was no wiser than Argentine officials calling the Mothers of Plaza de Mayo fools and dismissing their claim to get their children back.
For believe me: David Bawden certainly did think it was his duty to inform Karol Wojtyla that he was a heretic before the 1978 conclave, and so was Paul VI.
Debate on credibility, as with tradition and revelation, of Genesis and Gospels
MMcGr: Adam and Eve is a myth, a story, not actual history. Nothing we experience now as a part of life is the result of their actions.
BR: M. J. McGr., Adam and Eve are not only real, they're pivotal to understanding the nature of humanity.
MMcGr: B., they weren't real. A lot of ppl may believe they were, but that doesn't make it any more true. There's no evidence --zip, zilch, nada-- to support their existence and every reason in the world to understand them as the protagonists of a primitive, yet re-worked, creation myth.
S. W.: McGr.---there is no evidence that YOU would accept---which means absolutely nothing. We have the Word of God and His Church.
MMcGr: S., there's no evidence. Period. With all due respect, it's a preposterous idea, as is the Bible being the Word of God, that only an indoctrinated person would believe. [I came out of that background myself. And saying that I would "believe nothing" is both incorrect and a diversionary tactic to deflect attention away from an utterly unsupportable assertion.]
===
Wrong.
Genesis story is backed up by dozens if not hundreds of para...llels in pagan mythology. It is grosso modo credible, as history, even if it were not the word of God.
I was an evolutionist before being a Bible believer.
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2008/11/what-kind-of-editing-i-did-and-what.html
After reading the message, read the others on same blog, they go into more detail.
===
MMcGr: Hans, I never said Genesis wasn't a ripoff of Pagan myths; it is. But, they're not actual history, either.
===
Ah: you have two testimonies, not as by two different eye-witnesses, but as by two different cultures.
They are divergent on some things but clearly convergent on others.
And that sort of *proves* to you one is a rip-off on the other?
And even when we go beyond Babylon and Israel and get to dozens other paleontologic tales, converging on same things and diverging even more in detail, it does not still strike you as even a remote possibility they could all be more or less mangled memories of real events?
===
B. R.: Mr. McGr., even a quick reading of the stories is enough to show that the authors not need worry about charges of derivative work. That the pagans have corrupted memories of the true beginning is not surprising, nor is it that they get all the key plot points wrong.
===
But they do not.
Creation - yes (though not quite ex nihilo in their versions)
Recent such - yes (well, Egyptian bragging made it less recent, like 40.000 ys ago)
Original bliss and immortality of man - yes.
A deceiver involved in the change for the worse - yes.
===
BR: Ex nihilo (from before anything God, the world of nothing key plot point)
Man sinned of own knowledge and choice. (Adam was not deceived! key plot point)
Most pagan creation myths don't have human immortals (key plot point)
How long ago, isn't a 'plot point'.
===
"Ex nihilo (from before anything God, the world of nothing key plot point)
Man sinned of own knowledge and choice. (Adam was not deceived! key plot point)"
Two plot points wrong, not all of them.
"...Most pagan creation myths don't have human immortals (key plot point)"
Some do.
"...How long ago, isn't a 'plot point'."
If it is within human memory or absolutely not is.
===
BR: Mr Lundahl, 'how long ago' may be important, but it is not a plot point.
"Most pagan creation myths don't have human immortals (key plot point)
Some do." - Duh, why do you think I said 'Most'?
The Pagan stories appear to be attempts to retell the 'fact' while avoiding the 'reasons'. Gilgemesh has a Flood, well enough, but it has no preacher urging repentance while building an ark for example.
===
Well, the thing is, if some DO have that plot point it is not true that all are wrong on EVERY plot point.
The exact time distance between us and creation may not be a plot point, but the possibility of a tradition surviving is.
===
BR: Mr Lundahl,
I didn't say that they all got 'every plot point wrong' - I said they got the key plot points wrong. Please, argue with what I say, not what you wish I said.
"The exact time distance between us and creation may not be a plot point, but the possibility of a tradition surviving is." I'm not sure what you mean by that. Moses writes a story that was revealed to him. Not one simply 'handed down' to him so there is a distance between the Genesis story and the other epics in 'source material' that is rather large. But yes, our knowledge of the stories (today) does depend on the survival of writing materials, so in that they are alike....
===
The six days, Moses writes what was revealed. From creation of Adam on, he writes what he knew by tradition, whether it was also revealed or not.
THE points means EVERY point, just as much as pointS means SOME of them. Grammar.
Of course, if you want to correct THE to SOME, you are more than welcome, and I admit having argued not against your position, only against a sloppy grammar.
===
Mr Lundahl, ALL scripture is given by inspiration. (St. Paul) Moses had no need to refer to 'tradition', he had God the Author for his source. We do not know what the tradition of the Jews/Hebrews was when Moses set down the account. It may have been as far wrong as those of the heathen.
Again you argue with what you wish I had written.
I did not write 'the points'. I wrote 'they KEY points', well, the key plot points.
Note, though if you will, that you've again ignored the little word 'key'. The is a particular determiner, key is the adjective modifying points, points is indeed in the plural. Syntax and grammar.
There are many places where the pagan misses the point (in the singular for the point that is missed is single, at most turns of the plot, even though by the time the story is done many points have been in error). The key points are those which mark the relationship between God and Man.
I've no need of an apology, refraining from further unmerited attack will be more than sufficient.
===
Nope.
Revelation and inspiration is not same thing.
And saying the plot points where pagans differ from Genesis are more key than those both differ from evolutionism is merda tauri.
===
BR: Who said they were? Nonetheless, the inspired scriptures reveal to us the true story of the origin.
Why do you insist on arguing against things not written?
I never said that the differences in plot between evolutionism and pagan myth were less key than between pagan myth and the Word of God. Both however do get their theology wrong
===
They [=sacred scriptures] do. THey also reveal to us the true story of King David. Obviously by human eyewitnesses being applied for Paralipomena and Kings. Not by writers knowing everything by revelations, but by inspiration guiding them from error in transmitting the witnesses.
Same applies to Gospels and - to Genesis from creation of Adam on. Which is why the possibility of transmission by tradition without error is one KEY point of the plot. And by erroneous, but not necessarily so traditions, pagans also got some KEY points of the plot right.
===
BR: The witnesses could not know the heart of the Kings, as is revealed in the text. Even when there are human witnessess, they've less information than the Author. The Scripture is not simply some 'eye witness account' it is far more than that, it is the more sure word of the prophets.
The 'possiblity' of the transmission of the story is not a key plot point in the story. In fact, one of the key points is that the story, as we have it in Scripture, actually IS the true story, written by the prophets and apostles and pen-men of Scripture under the inspiration of God.
===
Being an inspired writer sometimes meant being precisely a pen-man of God: Moses in taking down the law "and the LOrd spoke o Moses and said", dito for St John when writing the Gospel (according to tradition both hands wrote in automatic writing) or when seing the Apocalypse. But St Luke too was an inspired writer who wrote without error ACCORDING TO HUMAN TESTIMONY. As is said in prologue to his Gospel. I argue we know the story of Genesis mainly through Moses, who knew it mainly as St Luke knew what he wrote about. The Six days, the law, these are other matters, known by revelation only, obviously.
In both cases their are Pagan parallels. Flood is known by Pagan tradition, in a somewhat distorted way, pre-human events totally MIS-known by a false revelation given to Hesiod, known as Theogony.
"I never said that the differences in plot between evolutionism and pagan myth were less key than between pagan myth and the Word of God. Both however do get their theology wrong."
Ah, but there are plot elements that are other than theology. It makes sense the war of Troy happened, and the voyage of Odysseus, only the theology was gotten wrong by Homer.
Which implies that Pagans get some key points of plot right along with Genesis getting it right, but when Darwinism gets it wrong, because it is not tradition but reconstruction.
===
Mr. Lundahl, The beloved physician edited out that which was not true in the human witness (if any were error existed in that testamony). Genesis likewise had any errors corrected, (hence the differences in the key points of theological difference)
===
"if any were error existed in that testamony" - none did. St Mary and Christians before St Luke were not in any kind of error. He had nothing to correct in his material.
Genesis has no errors to correct either, since Hebrew tradition was not mangled after the tower of Babel.
Whether six days are:
- revelation to Moses
- tradition to Moses revealed already to Henoch
or
- tradition to Henoch and Moses revealed already to Adam
is not clear from the story.
It is clear they supplement information human witnesses had no direct access to.
===
BR: Mr. Lundahl,
You expect me to believe that the people who while Moses was on the mount had a golden calf to be their God had no errors in their creation story that needed correction?
===
Not in the family Moses came from.
Besides, Moses had already received the tradition when they apostasised to golden calf worship.
They did so being discouraged in the desert.
M.McGr. left the discussion between me and BR early with the words:
===
Guys, again, believe what you like. It has no basis in reality, but I'm all for freedom of religion, speech, etc.
http://truthbeknown.com/christconspiracy.html
===
I looked up the link. But before we get there:
G.Fr: Mr. McGr., absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
M.McGr.: G., in some instances it is.
But, the more salient question is, why would you believe in something completely outlandish given NO evidence?
===
If there were no witnesses to Christ rising, no Church speaking from fifty days later and getting persecuted and working miracles up to our own days, there would have been absence of evidence and evidence of absense as well. As it is there is neither. There is plenty of evidence, it is simply contested.
Similarily with the plot points I mentioned as common to Genesis and Pagans as opposed to evolutionism.
Diverging versions do not diverge all that much and the divergences there are point to tower of Babel.
Now to my appraisal of M.McGr:s link:
Dishonest misconstruing:
"The denial of "Christ come in the flesh" is an early "heresy" called "Docetism," whose proponents not only abounded during the first centuries of the Christian era but were the original "Christians," i.e., Gnostics...."
Not so. They did not deny people saw Christ, they said a spirit arranged a series of hallucinations over very long time in order to teach and that the people claiming he had a real body had simply not learned as much from that spirit as they.
Ludicrous anachronism:
"Longinus was the name of the Roman soldier who stuck Jesus in the side with a spear. Legend held that Longinus was blind and was subsequently cured by Jesus's blood. Again, this is not a historical event but part of the mythos and sacred king ritual, as Walker relates:"The true prototype of the legend seems to have been the blind god Hod, who slew the Norse savior Balder with the thrust of a spear of mistletoe. March 15, the "Ides of March" when most pagan saviors died, was the day devoted to Hod by the heathens, and later Christianized as the feast day of the Blessed Longinus."
Ther was no cult of Hod or Balder until very much later, and the Vikings who did worship them (or at least Balder) knew nothing about Ides of March until they became Christians and used Julian calendar.
Abuse of generous admissions:
"Writings regarding Pilate and Jesus, such as the obviously fictitious "Acts of Pilate," are well-known forgeries, admitted by the Catholic Encyclopedia. The Jewish historian Philo wrote about Pilate, mentioning... his abuses, but not a single word about anyone remotely resembling Jesus Christ being crucified under his procuratorship.
These "letters" are KNOWN FORGERIES, which is why they are apocryphal."
They - the letters - were non-canonic all the time, because accepted and known only by part of Church. Not because they were in any sense "known" to be forgeries until very much later when renaissance men got an itch for proving this and that a forgery. If the Acts of Pilate are "well known" as forgeries, that only happened so much later. Catholic Encyclopedia is no Church Father.
dimanche 15 août 2010
On beer.
With a FB friend named Genevieve I was discusing a bottle on a photo.
- Blonde or wheat?
- Barley.
- as in blonde
barley goes blonde, amber, dark
wheat is lighter than barley
in the bottle the colour could be very light blonde or very yellow wheat
- Ah, so barley=blonde?
- no, Genevieve:
blonde=barley
amber=barley
dark=barley
from white to close on blonde=wheat
the three colours of barley depend on how much you heat the malt when drying it.
blonde is a k a lager, though amber apart from malt colour may well be lager brewed too
dark is ale brewed, typically or universally
ale brew/lager brew mean different types of yeast that work on different temperatures
apart from ale and lager brewing, there is also Belgian geuse brewing, waiting for air to give a ferment, which makes for bitter bear (Lambik, Guese, I cannot remember which is mixed with ordinary lager, and Kriek mixed with cherries)
- How do you know so much? You and Stanford are like super brains ;)
- My gramp was a distiller, from childhood I have known how whiskey is made.
In 2005 I was guest of a brewer and saw some of these things.
Malting is a process in which barley (or, obviously wheat) grains are put on nets and soaked, turned over and around a few days on row until sweet, dried. If you dry them over smoky turf fire, you will get a beer to brew whisky from, if you add barley grains simply charred you will get the right hue and bitterness of Guiness.
When malted grains are dried, they are ground. After grinding, you add boiling water in proportions that will allow over all temperature to be like 70° C (whatever that is in F, but well over 100), so all microbes are eliminated. This is left over night without air (except as said above, for Lambik/Geuse).
Day after the liquid is drained from that porridge (it is called mash) and the cold nearly solid porridge that is left is typically fed to poultry. It works quite as well as maize.
THe pure liquid has yeast and some air added and is then sealed off for fermentation.
If you distill beer you get whisky or vodka. Whisky is from barley beer, vodka from wheat beer. If you do not distill beer it is a good thing to hav made the beer tasty, and that is typically done by adding hops - dried and ground and mixed with ground malt - before adding hot water to make the mash.
There are different races of hops, just as there are of roses or strawberries or cherries - apples are even more different, that is quite another league of genetic variation - and you have one hop for Pilzner (a blonde lager) and another (unless I misremember) for Guiness.
If you make Belgian beer, cherries (Kriek), air exposure ferment (Geuse, Lambik), or cloves and maybe other spices (Leffe abbey beer) may well replace hops.
After fermentation is over - a thing known for number of weeks by different yeast varieties, then tested day after day by taste - you bottle the beer and seal the bottles.
I have described the making of a strong beer. When draining the mash, you have much liquid, and adding hot water once again will give an after soak or two. If first drain is for 8%, second drain goes for 6% and third drain for 4% - if it was the mash I saw, with the proportions of malt and water that I saw. With more water to start with, first drain will be less strong. Obviously you can either mix the drains to get a 6% or keep them separate for different beers of different strength.
- Blonde or wheat?
- Barley.
- as in blonde
barley goes blonde, amber, dark
wheat is lighter than barley
in the bottle the colour could be very light blonde or very yellow wheat
- Ah, so barley=blonde?
- no, Genevieve:
blonde=barley
amber=barley
dark=barley
from white to close on blonde=wheat
the three colours of barley depend on how much you heat the malt when drying it.
blonde is a k a lager, though amber apart from malt colour may well be lager brewed too
dark is ale brewed, typically or universally
ale brew/lager brew mean different types of yeast that work on different temperatures
apart from ale and lager brewing, there is also Belgian geuse brewing, waiting for air to give a ferment, which makes for bitter bear (Lambik, Guese, I cannot remember which is mixed with ordinary lager, and Kriek mixed with cherries)
- How do you know so much? You and Stanford are like super brains ;)
- My gramp was a distiller, from childhood I have known how whiskey is made.
In 2005 I was guest of a brewer and saw some of these things.
Malting is a process in which barley (or, obviously wheat) grains are put on nets and soaked, turned over and around a few days on row until sweet, dried. If you dry them over smoky turf fire, you will get a beer to brew whisky from, if you add barley grains simply charred you will get the right hue and bitterness of Guiness.
When malted grains are dried, they are ground. After grinding, you add boiling water in proportions that will allow over all temperature to be like 70° C (whatever that is in F, but well over 100), so all microbes are eliminated. This is left over night without air (except as said above, for Lambik/Geuse).
Day after the liquid is drained from that porridge (it is called mash) and the cold nearly solid porridge that is left is typically fed to poultry. It works quite as well as maize.
THe pure liquid has yeast and some air added and is then sealed off for fermentation.
If you distill beer you get whisky or vodka. Whisky is from barley beer, vodka from wheat beer. If you do not distill beer it is a good thing to hav made the beer tasty, and that is typically done by adding hops - dried and ground and mixed with ground malt - before adding hot water to make the mash.
There are different races of hops, just as there are of roses or strawberries or cherries - apples are even more different, that is quite another league of genetic variation - and you have one hop for Pilzner (a blonde lager) and another (unless I misremember) for Guiness.
If you make Belgian beer, cherries (Kriek), air exposure ferment (Geuse, Lambik), or cloves and maybe other spices (Leffe abbey beer) may well replace hops.
After fermentation is over - a thing known for number of weeks by different yeast varieties, then tested day after day by taste - you bottle the beer and seal the bottles.
I have described the making of a strong beer. When draining the mash, you have much liquid, and adding hot water once again will give an after soak or two. If first drain is for 8%, second drain goes for 6% and third drain for 4% - if it was the mash I saw, with the proportions of malt and water that I saw. With more water to start with, first drain will be less strong. Obviously you can either mix the drains to get a 6% or keep them separate for different beers of different strength.
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)
