Började kring en väns video om systembolaget (deras egen reklamfilm för monopolet)med att i lagom takt en person var för fri försälgning af alcohol, som i butiker i Frankrike. Han heter JA. En annan var glad öfver dennes "liberala värderingar" och han heter herr My (tils de sagt till att de vilja ha sina hela namn här).
"nanny state gone mad" - nå det står äfven soc. för:
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2010/12/news-from-sweden-my-country.html
(nyh 1 och comm 1)
Herr My: Det är lite skillnad mellan att tvinga ett barn att sitta hemma där de inte kommer i kontakt med andra barn och kan få vänner samt en någorlunda normal uppväxt, och att inte låta människor göra så som de själva vill så länge de inte skadar någon annan, som att köpa alkohol och tobak m.m.
Föräldrarnas själviska beslut att isolera ett barn är därför något som borde vara förbjudet därför att det skadar barnets framtida sociala förmågor att handskas med omvärlden som föräldrar ofta är oförmögna till att lära ut på egen hand.
Det är inte rätt att ta barn från dess familj (mot barnets vilja), men föräldrarna borde förbjudas att hemskola ett barn, punkt.
Men det var inget sjelfviskt beslut att isolera sin grabb. Hans mor är från Indien och racism var att frukta. Samt evt mobbing p g a religiösa och kulturella saker grabben fått af modern som ju intet är svenska eller serdeles sekulariserad i vestligt snitt. Uppskjutna vaccinationer och olagade hål tyder på en respect för barnets egen tvekan - ngt öfverdrifven men knappast sjelfvisk.
Och hemskolning är normalt, det borde snarare vara förbjudet att flockskola barnen i klasser på 20 30 pers, men lär knappast bli.
Herr My är atheist, trodde jag det när jag såg communist-commentaren ofvan ....
JA: Jag har lärt känna flera personer som blev hemundervisade som barn, deras förmåga att handskas med omvärlden är inte sämre än andras.
Herr My: Hans-Georg Lundahl: Om det är kommunistiskt att vilja att varje barn ska ha rätten att gå i skola där de undervisas i olika livssyner och teorier under mer kontrollerade omständigheter där föräldrars livssyn och religion inte undanhåller viss information så accepterar jag att jag har en del värderingar som kommer från den sidan av den politiska skalan. Till exempel så är det inte sunt eller rätt under några omständigheter att ett barn med kreationistriska föräldrar ska undervisas i biologi av dessa eller vetenskap över huvud taget. Det går inte att se till att barnet får den undervisning denne borde få när det sker i hemmet och jag stödjer det inte för allt i världen. Information manipuleras lätt, en förälder som inte tror att förintelsen ägt rum ska inte heller lära ut historia och så vidare.
Och att använda rädsla för rasism som argument att hålla ett barn hemma är inte annat än fel då denna rädsla förs över till barnet. Om du säger till ett barn att "du är inte säker där ute, där ute hatar folk dig för att du ser ut som du gör" är.... nä, fy fan, det måste väl även vara en "ond" handling i kristet mått också? Det gör inget annat än skadar barnets självkänsla och förtroende i omvärlden.
Och att skjuta upp vaccinationer och låta barnet ha olagade hål är ju att plåga denne, att gå till tandläkaren är sällan något som tycks om, men att låta det vara är att dra ut på lidande. Nej, usch och fy för att hålla språket på en någorlunda civiliserad nivå.
Nu blev inlägget längre än tänkt, men hemskolning är en produkt av kontrollfreaks till föräldrar som är för rädda att låta sina barn gå ut i den stora stygga världen.
@JA: Medan de andra barnen lekte på skolgården med kamrater, vad gjorde de hemskolade barnen?
@ "Till exempel så är det inte sunt eller rätt under några omständigheter att ett barn med kreationistriska föräldrar ska undervisas i biologi av dessa eller vetenskap över huvud taget."
Illa valt exempel. Min mor var - och är creationist. Och var - liksom min far vid tiden de möttes - medicinstuderande. Hon sparade fysikböckerna från sin flickskola och sitt gymnasium, jag läste dem vid 10 års ålder. Skolans vetenskapliga undervisning var mindre noggrann än den jag fick som hemundervisad af mor.
@ "Om det är kommunistiskt att vilja att varje barn ska ha rätten att gå i skola där de undervisas i olika livssyner och teorier under mer kontrollerade omständigheter där föräldrars livssyn och religion inte undanhåller viss information så accepterar jag att jag har en del värderingar som kommer från den sidan av den politiska skalan."
Ursäkten och åsigten är densamma under Jules Ferry, Lenin-och-Stalin, Azaña, samt Hitler.
@ "Det går inte att se till att barnet får den undervisning denne borde få när det sker i hemmet och jag stödjer det inte för allt i världen. Information manipuleras lätt, en förälder som inte tror att förintelsen ägt rum ska inte heller lära ut historia och så vidare."
Nähä, och hvad tycker du att skolan skall göra med barn till sådana föräldrar om de argumenterar med Leuchter i klassen? Svin.
Jag menade gifvetvis dig, och intet sådana föräldrar!
@ "Nu blev inlägget längre än tänkt, men hemskolning är en produkt av kontrollfreaks till föräldrar som är för rädda att låta sina barn gå ut i den stora stygga världen."
Och Jules Ferry, Lenin, Azaña (författaren som blef politiker för att få NÅGRA läsare) samt Hitler och du sjelf vore dermed icke contrôle-freaks?
Herr My: Kreationister är mänsklighetens strutsar, så jag tar inte tillbaka något som sagts. Att en del föräldrar är bra på att hemskola på så vis att barnen lär sig snabbare och mer noggrant (eftersom föräldrar för gott och för ont är mer involverade i barnet än en lärare) är väl bra på så vis att undervisningen kan bli mer effektiv, och att de arbetar med medicin gör inte att deras ovilja att acceptera världen så som den ser ut, alltså inte ca. 6000 år gammal gör dem oförmögna till att lära ut i detta ämnet.
Haha! Du vet att grekiska filosofer inte hade accepterat personangrepp? Men nu talar vi ju religion, så jag förstår att det är lite mer intensivt på en emotionellt plan. - jag ser att det dyker upp nya meddelanden hela tiden, jag kan inte svara ordentligt om du gör så.
Vi strutsar? Är du "ostrutsig" nog att taga del af fölgande argumenter på mina bloggar? http://o-x.fr/hspi och http://o-x.fr/53yh var det.
Men nu var detta om skola och hemskola. Och som du nämner är ämnet ngt hetare än cromosomtalen jag bloggat om. Grekiska rhetorer hade inget emot personangrepp, tro mig, jag har läst Lysias.
@ "Att en del föräldrar är bra på att hemskola på så vis att barnen lär sig snabbare och mer noggrant (eftersom föräldrar för gott och för ont är mer involverade i barnet än en lärare) är väl bra på så vis att undervisningen kan bli mer effektiv, ..."
Det skulle icke möjligen kunna vara just dessa som valde att hemskola sina barn?
För öfrigt var undervisningen intet hvad man vanligen kallar "effektiv", den var gedigen.
@ "och att de arbetar med medicin gör inte att deras ovilja att acceptera världen så som den ser ut, alltså inte ca. 6000 år gammal gör dem oförmögna till att lära ut i detta ämnet."
Att hon arbetade med medicin innebär att jag kan Mendels lagar rätt hyfsadt. Plus en del om trisomie-fel. Spontan-aborter och hjertfel verkar rätt läge att concurrera ut artfränder om parningsmöjligheter?
Herr My: Haha! Att jag får hamna i samma mening som Hitler och Lenin är lite smickrande då jag inte har gjort speciellt mycket för att förtjäna det, men jo, de var kontrollfreaks, hur vida jag är det eller ej lämnar jag åt någon kunnig inom psykologin att reda ut. Jag skulle inte kunna påstå det dock, det vore baserat på extremt lösa grunder.
I alla fall, jag tycker att barn med sådana föräldrar ska gå i skolan och få redig information som visar båda sidorna (man får faktiskt lära sig om teorin om att den aldrig ägt rum i skolan också) och sen få bestämma sig själv för vad som verkar mest troligt, att miljontals människor bara försvann i tomma intet i dessa icke existerande dödslägren, eller att de blev dödade i industriell anda. Att världen är 6000år gammal och att vi är resultatet av incest (Eva och Adam-historien), eller evolution.
@ "Jag skulle inte kunna påstå det dock, det vore baserat på extremt lösa grunder." - "rätten att gå i skola där de undervisas i olika livssyner och teorier under mer kontrollerade omständigheter"
"redig information som visar båda sidorna"
Skolan lär ut creationism och förintelseförnekelse på mycket förnedrande sätt för de berörda, d v s dem som ha uppfattningarne i fråga. Din sammanfattning af förintelseförnekelse är knappast Leuchters eller Faurissons. Din sammanfattning af creationism är intet min. Eller andra creationisters.
JA: [förnamn]: Eftersom jag inte blev hemundervisad utan gick i skola som de flesta vet jag inte vad de hemundervisade barnen gjorde. Jag kan bara säga att jag genom min studietid i Rom mötte flera personer som blev hemundervisade som barn, och de är inte mindre kapabla än andra att klara sig i världen.
Herr My: En kreationist tror att världen är skapad enligt bibeln på 6 dagar, en kreationist är benägen att försöka bevisa bibeln som vetenskap. Eva och Adam är ur bibeln och man kan med hjälp av bibeln räkna ut att världen enligt den skapades för ca. 6000 år sen. Sen hur pass kreationister från USA och Europa skiljer sig vet jag inte, men det borde vara ungefär detsamma.
Men det är ju en förolämpning till mänskligt intellekt (nu finns det inga kända psalmer som handlar om mänskligt intellekt heller, en slump?) att tro att satan placerat ut dinosaurieben för att testa våran tro.
Och orsaken till att de beskrivs på förnedrande sätt är för att de är en förnedring till allt vad vetenskap innebär. En kreationist gör vad denne kan för att bevisa att den har rätt och tänker inte kritiskt angående sina egna teorier, vetenskap fungerar inte så, man måste kolla om det funkar, evolution kan man bevisa och det fungerar både i teorin och har bevisats i praktiken i virus och dylikt.
Hur vi kom in på abort vet jag inte, men det är också ett intressant ämne att diskutera, men det gör jag gärna någon annan gång då det får vara i fokus tillsammans med kvinnliga rättigheter och så vidare.
@"En kreationist tror att världen är skapad enligt bibeln på 6 dagar,"
Vissa af oss, deribland jag.
@"en kreationist är benägen att försöka bevisa bibeln som vetenskap."
Icke just de sex dagarne. En creationistisk hufvudpoäng är att naturvetenskapen till skilnad från historian icke kan bevisa en tidsutsträckning i det aflägsna förflutna.
@"Men det är ju en förolämpning till mänskligt intellekt att tro att satan placerat ut dinosaurieben för att testa våran tro."
Vore det? Det vore snarare en förolämpning mot menskligt intellect att utesluta det utan grund. En kristen (creationist exvis) kanske utesluter det p g a Guds allmagt och godhet. En atheist kanske utesluter det p g a satans förmenta icke-existens. En satanist utesluter det kanske intet als. Men sedan ha vi det der med "timeline" ... Huru pass mycket om creationistisk dateringscritik fick du lära dig i skolan? Du verkar intet så ifrig att taga upp det? T Rex dateras till 60 miljoner år af forskare, bevisar det att de förstenade benen* äro äldre än 7200 år?
*förstenade ben - det är altså inga ben längre. En avancerad sculptur i hyper-modern konst hos en civilisation före syndafloden, ngn?
@"man måste kolla om det funkar"
Tack du. Det har äfven cromosomtalena ngt att säga till om, icke bara enstaka mutationer på bakteriers ena eller virusars inga cromosomer.
Än en gång: http://o-x.fr/hspi och http://o-x.fr/53yh
Jag kan svara på hvad jag gjorde som hemundervisad: jag läste. Jag mobbades intet och mobbade intet.
Syskonskaror med flera syskon samlade ha i öfrigt en viss tendens att leka på gården. Med hvarandra d v s barn i olika åldrar.
Abort som i framkallad kommo vi ej in på. Trisomier - d v s tre cromosomer i st f två - ha vissa typiska resultat. STORA cromosomers trisomier äro spontanabort, d v s missfall (på tidgt stadium). XXY (Kleinfeldt) eller 21-21-21 (Downs) äro mindre cromosomer. Downs är intet als den enda der detta medför hjertfel. Kleinfeldt gör det intet, men det är fråga om könscromosomer. I gengäld är en man med Kleinfeldt ofta ofruktbar. Kampen för tillvaron? Huru fick man fram däggdjur (spontanabort p g a afstötning f¨rekommer bara hos däggdjur) med fler cromosomer än 48?
http://o-x.fr/hspi och http://o-x.fr/53yh
Herr My: Alltså nu får du ge dig, man använder kol14 metoden för att ta reda på hur gamla saker och ting är, det är inte så konstigt, och vetenskapen uppdateras ständigt och hål fylls i med nya fynd hela tiden, det är bara att uppdatera sig lite.
Satanister tror inte på satan mer än som en symbol för styrka, en satanist anser sig själv vara gud, resten om satanister är mestadels masshysteri efter falska rykten (jag är ingen satanist, men tog mig tid att läsa lite om det).
Och om nu bibeln är fakta så har gud dödat flertalet miljoner medan djävulen endast dödat 10, alla var jobs barn som satan fick tillstånd att döda av gud.
Nu skickar du flera separata meddelanden igen så inte jag kan svara på allt i ett inlägg.
Dessutom, kom att tänka på personangreppet. Är det inte väldigt okristligt? Jesus förespråkade väl inget sånt, även om jag är en icke troende så är det väl guds jobb att straffa mig för det (som den "älskande" fader han verkar vara i bibeln)? Men det är ganska irrelevant egentligen, tycker bara att det är lite dåligt att inte leva som man lär.
Och att anse att dinosaurieben är hypermodern konst... så mycket ben överallt man har hittat kräver en massa konstverk av samma material, dessutom, när man hittade de första benen lyckades man inte ens placera benen rätt. Jag antar att det var så att konstnärerna inte var nöjda med sina dinosaurier och flyttade om dem så att de blev ett nytt konstverk?
Så eran låtsaskompis som dödat miljontals människor, men fortfarande är snäll, tillåter barn ärva sina barns synder (antar att du är för att barn ska ärva sina föräldrars skulder till banker och dylikt också då detta tydligen är den kärleksbaserade vägen att gå).
Jag kan läsa din blogg, men jag ska hjälpa min flickvän först. Jag återkommer och tar hand om de andra inläggen när jag kommer tillbaka.
Ha en trevlig fortsatt dag sålänge.
detsamma detsamma
samedi 4 décembre 2010
jeudi 2 décembre 2010
News from Sweden (my country)
by Hans-Georg Lundahl on Thursday, 02 December 2010 at 14:02
1) Dominic Johansson has been taken away from his parents. This link describes why. And that is my quarrel, not with all the people, but with the authorities in place in the country - my country - that I left in March 2004.
2) It is a Swedish judge who has asked the founder of WikiLeaks to be extradicted. Nature of his crime? Probable guess or at least a possible one:1 If in Sweden a woman consents to sex with "that hateful object outside the pharmacies", if during intercourse it bursts and if the man does not immediately withdraw, the woman can charge him with rape since she had not consented to "unprotected sex". Lessons to be learned?
a) In Sweden it is current for certain women (not practising Christians, obviously) to want to avoid pregnancies while "having fun" (or even worse chosing partners whose health they are not acquainted with), so much that they call out about rape when risking a visit (maybe murderous) to the gynecologist. Guess why a man who wanted a Duggar style family first got no family at all and then got accused of being a closet case making deliberately impossible any realistic ("realistic" for Sweden) contact with opposite sex;
b) even a paid homosexual male prostitutes should not rely over much on that rubber thing to keep away from AIDS. They do burst once in a while, and withdrawing in such a moment poses mental difficulties, so abstinence is safer.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bibliothecâ Pompidolianâ
On 2/XII/2010, or
Day of St Viviana, Church Year 2011
1Quote from NYT:
The Swedish prosecutor’s office said almost two weeks ago that a court in Stockholm had approved its request for the arrest of Mr. Assange to face questioning on suspicion of “rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion” — charges that he has strongly denied and that WikiLeaks has dismissed as “dirty tricks” meant to punish him for his organization’s work. Appeals by Mr. Assange to suspend the warrant have been unsuccessful.
The accusations were first made against Mr. Assange after he traveled to Sweden in mid-August and had brief relationships with two Swedish women.
According to accounts they gave to the police and friends, each had consensual sexual encounters with Mr. Assange that became nonconsensual. Mr. Assange has portrayed the relationships as consensual and questioned the veracity of the women’s accounts.
From: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/world/europe/02assange.html?_r=1&ref=world
alternatively: http://www.webcitation.org/5ufyLndRf
The doctor I have the link from supplied the guess (or possibly inside information), I will not otherwise divulge his identity.
vendredi 26 novembre 2010
Defending Commons and feudalism against Locke on FB, and legal kingship against supposedly powerless one
I am here commenting on a note on someone else's profile: More on Locke and Catholicism: by Joe Hargrave
Well, give me Hooker, then!
"What fewer people may know is that Pope Clement VIII said of Hooker's book, the very same one that influenced Locke, The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity: 'It has in it such seeds of eternity that it will abide until the last fire shall consume all learning.' This, of course, in spite of Hooker's status as a heretic."
Locke in Second Treatise Chapter V agrees with Pope Leo on ONE instance of elementary gain of property rights, but would have disagreed about the rights of dispossessed Connaught Papists to return to Ulster.
Some Anglicans - notably the Anglo-Catholics avant le mot - were less objected to by Catholics than other Prots.
Joe Hargrave:
Since both have it from Cicero, less than a Catholic credential for Locke.
But if your pragmatic or realistic purpose is simply defending the US Constitution, and your seeing attacks on Locke as indirect attacks on it, since Founding Fathers had read Locke more than say Rousseau or what's his name again [Hobbes, he is even, along with Calvin, honoured by comic strips nowadays] "Leviathan", the thing to do might just be, not to say that Locke has a complete Catholic philosophy of property, but to say that nothing really objectionable from Locke got via FF to the Constitution they wrote.
Joe Hargrave:
But Locke is more Social Democratic than Leo or St Thomas!
Rousseau is of course sufficiently Social Democrat to be Communist, but apart from that ...
Joe Hargrave:
He has one revolutionary principle though: that the property is meant for those who work on it and not those who quarrel about it - if you remember that quote from Treatise II Chapter V. It was of course meant against the Catholic inheritors in Connaught of properties in Ulster worked the last generation before him by either Protestants or their remaining poor Catholic tenants.
You see the same thing in "Responsible rich" who dissuaded Bush from abolishing inheritance duty by appealing to "it is not good to be born with a silver spoon in your mouth". Locke attacks non-laborious means of acquiring property, not because of fraudulence as with ususry, but because of non-laboriousness, as with inherited titles, as with gifts, as with immemorial custom, and so on.
He also has one capitalist thought that amounts to a capitalist fallacy - not in disfavour of wellfare state, that might not be a fallacy but - in favour of usury and unsound over-investment.
He claims that as soon as there is an exchange goods that does not rot for being kept - gold - hoarding ceases to be wasteful.
Now, there are cases of late when attempts at hoarding gold have become wasteful and very much so.
Lyndon LaRouche, if you know about that guy, claims that real physical production (except of condoms and pills and toys including sex toys) is being hampered by Wall Street speculation bubbles.
In the conflict between Fr. Tryphon and Starbucks (a company which fortunately bucked back) Locke might have been adduced to favour Starbucks approriating the label "Christmas Blend" - and suing Fr. Tryphon for having in his monastery another blend that the monastery called "Christmas Blend". Locke does not really allow for the Commons, where a strip of wood or a general description of merchandise such as "Christmas Blend" may stay even against people wanting to appropriate it. Swedish legislation of immemorial times has a legislation favouring the Commons.
You may own a piece of wood in the sense that you may have a right to cut down the trees there or build a house there. But even so you do NOT own the wild berries that grow there or the mushrooms that grow there. They are still anyone's property who deigns to pick them.
Hence you have no right to fence in all of your wood. You can fence in only such places where you want your cows to stay and not to stray (and owning the land means no other man may graze his cows there without your permission, as of everywhere). Did Locke sufficiently allow for difference between staking a piece of land and picking a res nullius to accept that the berries and mushrooms and tenting space (as long s not intruding in owners privacy) of my land may still be res nullius, anyone's for the picking?
By contrast, St Thomas does give a theory of private property meaning it does not absolutely have to be private property in the full juridical sense at all. But he was thinking of feudal property. In practise a feudal lord does about as he pleases on his land - but he cannot sell it, or else he must "sell" his title along with it. Since in feudal theory the real owner is the King or Emperor. Since you "own" its usufruct and tenures only insofar as the King or Emperor "owns" you for a purpose of military or judicial kind. Did Locke allow for such half-ownership - or was he not a bit anti-feudal?
Was Tolkien misrepresented here?
First Things; David B. Hart: Anarcho-Monarchism
My objection when discussing this link led to this:
when interpreting Tolkien, why this:
"But a king—***a king without any real power, that is***—is such an ennoblingly arbitrary, such a tender and organically human institution."
Or maybe he was not at all interpreting Tolkien?
While it is true that Kings had more authority than power in Middle Ages, they did have some real power too.
Magnus Ladulås ("barn's lock") has this surname because he initiated a legislation barring the peasants' barns from getting gate-broken by nobles roaming around. He also changed the hereditary custom of no female inheritors at all (they enjoyed whatever heritage their husbands had) to each sister inheriting the hald part of what each of her brothers inherited (it took yet a while before we had iheritance equality in Sweden).
Magnus Eriksson, who lived a bit later, made away with Westrogothian, Ostrogothian, Sweonic, et c laws and after him Sweden had only the Town Law and the Country Law up to when we got a unified law in the XVIII-th C.
Both were kings before the union with Denmark and Norway (Finland was our own colony).
It seems the legislation process was in equal shares between king and representation, as was again the case between 1809 and 1917.
In the Letter, Tolkien did advocate a King being able to fire his prime minister for disliking the colour of his neck-tie. Not really a question of advocating powerless royalty
I have heard that too, but I am not sure if it is quite true for the Mediaeval period.
I have heard about Roman Law. I have heard about Visigoth law in Spain and Westrogoth law in Sweden. And of course these newer Swedish legislations. And King Ina's law, that seems to be a simplification of Justinian's CIC, for England, and Salic Law that seems to be an overriding exception (mainly in the inheritance department) overriding relevant parts but nothing else of Justinian.
Of course these written codes incorporated from start as much custom as they did legislation. And in jurisprudence there was and is a thing called "prejudicate" - where law is imprecise a court may look back to court decision so and so, which amounts in a way to a kind of custom.
For later periods, Medieval real law has sometimes survived as custom where not kept up as written law.
Non a rege lex, sed a lege rex - was a Mediaeval saying.
A Deo Rex, a Rege Lex - was a Jacobite one - disputed, I think by St Robert Bellarmine.
Well, give me Hooker, then!
"What fewer people may know is that Pope Clement VIII said of Hooker's book, the very same one that influenced Locke, The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity: 'It has in it such seeds of eternity that it will abide until the last fire shall consume all learning.' This, of course, in spite of Hooker's status as a heretic."
Locke in Second Treatise Chapter V agrees with Pope Leo on ONE instance of elementary gain of property rights, but would have disagreed about the rights of dispossessed Connaught Papists to return to Ulster.
Some Anglicans - notably the Anglo-Catholics avant le mot - were less objected to by Catholics than other Prots.
Joe Hargrave:
The one instance means a whole lot.
Since both have it from Cicero, less than a Catholic credential for Locke.
But if your pragmatic or realistic purpose is simply defending the US Constitution, and your seeing attacks on Locke as indirect attacks on it, since Founding Fathers had read Locke more than say Rousseau or what's his name again [Hobbes, he is even, along with Calvin, honoured by comic strips nowadays] "Leviathan", the thing to do might just be, not to say that Locke has a complete Catholic philosophy of property, but to say that nothing really objectionable from Locke got via FF to the Constitution they wrote.
Joe Hargrave:
My purpose is to defend private property and free markets for Catholics against the prevailing social democratic agenda.
But Locke is more Social Democratic than Leo or St Thomas!
Rousseau is of course sufficiently Social Democrat to be Communist, but apart from that ...
Joe Hargrave:
Locke is not social democratic at all. I reject the attempts some make to wring a welfare-state out of his work.
He has one revolutionary principle though: that the property is meant for those who work on it and not those who quarrel about it - if you remember that quote from Treatise II Chapter V. It was of course meant against the Catholic inheritors in Connaught of properties in Ulster worked the last generation before him by either Protestants or their remaining poor Catholic tenants.
You see the same thing in "Responsible rich" who dissuaded Bush from abolishing inheritance duty by appealing to "it is not good to be born with a silver spoon in your mouth". Locke attacks non-laborious means of acquiring property, not because of fraudulence as with ususry, but because of non-laboriousness, as with inherited titles, as with gifts, as with immemorial custom, and so on.
He also has one capitalist thought that amounts to a capitalist fallacy - not in disfavour of wellfare state, that might not be a fallacy but - in favour of usury and unsound over-investment.
He claims that as soon as there is an exchange goods that does not rot for being kept - gold - hoarding ceases to be wasteful.
Now, there are cases of late when attempts at hoarding gold have become wasteful and very much so.
Lyndon LaRouche, if you know about that guy, claims that real physical production (except of condoms and pills and toys including sex toys) is being hampered by Wall Street speculation bubbles.
In the conflict between Fr. Tryphon and Starbucks (a company which fortunately bucked back) Locke might have been adduced to favour Starbucks approriating the label "Christmas Blend" - and suing Fr. Tryphon for having in his monastery another blend that the monastery called "Christmas Blend". Locke does not really allow for the Commons, where a strip of wood or a general description of merchandise such as "Christmas Blend" may stay even against people wanting to appropriate it. Swedish legislation of immemorial times has a legislation favouring the Commons.
You may own a piece of wood in the sense that you may have a right to cut down the trees there or build a house there. But even so you do NOT own the wild berries that grow there or the mushrooms that grow there. They are still anyone's property who deigns to pick them.
Hence you have no right to fence in all of your wood. You can fence in only such places where you want your cows to stay and not to stray (and owning the land means no other man may graze his cows there without your permission, as of everywhere). Did Locke sufficiently allow for difference between staking a piece of land and picking a res nullius to accept that the berries and mushrooms and tenting space (as long s not intruding in owners privacy) of my land may still be res nullius, anyone's for the picking?
By contrast, St Thomas does give a theory of private property meaning it does not absolutely have to be private property in the full juridical sense at all. But he was thinking of feudal property. In practise a feudal lord does about as he pleases on his land - but he cannot sell it, or else he must "sell" his title along with it. Since in feudal theory the real owner is the King or Emperor. Since you "own" its usufruct and tenures only insofar as the King or Emperor "owns" you for a purpose of military or judicial kind. Did Locke allow for such half-ownership - or was he not a bit anti-feudal?
Was Tolkien misrepresented here?
First Things; David B. Hart: Anarcho-Monarchism
My objection when discussing this link led to this:
when interpreting Tolkien, why this:
"But a king—***a king without any real power, that is***—is such an ennoblingly arbitrary, such a tender and organically human institution."
Or maybe he was not at all interpreting Tolkien?
JDB:Perhaps he is making a distinction between power and authority?
CWK: Or the distinction between compulsion and love.
While it is true that Kings had more authority than power in Middle Ages, they did have some real power too.
Magnus Ladulås ("barn's lock") has this surname because he initiated a legislation barring the peasants' barns from getting gate-broken by nobles roaming around. He also changed the hereditary custom of no female inheritors at all (they enjoyed whatever heritage their husbands had) to each sister inheriting the hald part of what each of her brothers inherited (it took yet a while before we had iheritance equality in Sweden).
Magnus Eriksson, who lived a bit later, made away with Westrogothian, Ostrogothian, Sweonic, et c laws and after him Sweden had only the Town Law and the Country Law up to when we got a unified law in the XVIII-th C.
Both were kings before the union with Denmark and Norway (Finland was our own colony).
It seems the legislation process was in equal shares between king and representation, as was again the case between 1809 and 1917.
In the Letter, Tolkien did advocate a King being able to fire his prime minister for disliking the colour of his neck-tie. Not really a question of advocating powerless royalty
CWK:The old Kings ruled by custom as much if not more so than by force of law.
I have heard that too, but I am not sure if it is quite true for the Mediaeval period.
I have heard about Roman Law. I have heard about Visigoth law in Spain and Westrogoth law in Sweden. And of course these newer Swedish legislations. And King Ina's law, that seems to be a simplification of Justinian's CIC, for England, and Salic Law that seems to be an overriding exception (mainly in the inheritance department) overriding relevant parts but nothing else of Justinian.
Of course these written codes incorporated from start as much custom as they did legislation. And in jurisprudence there was and is a thing called "prejudicate" - where law is imprecise a court may look back to court decision so and so, which amounts in a way to a kind of custom.
For later periods, Medieval real law has sometimes survived as custom where not kept up as written law.
Non a rege lex, sed a lege rex - was a Mediaeval saying.
A Deo Rex, a Rege Lex - was a Jacobite one - disputed, I think by St Robert Bellarmine.
mercredi 24 novembre 2010
A FB friend OF A FB friend (thus not my own) admired Guenon and Evola: I do not
Guenon a great thinker? R U serious?
If so much as Seraphim Rose followed Guenon, for a while, does it make Guenon holy? St Augustine followed Manicheans for a while, does that make Manicheans holy?
Seriously: I have NOTHING against Pagan mythology except the passages where it most clearly implies a Pagan "theology", like Theogony (which also is not tradition, but private revelation), but I do find still-pagan philosophies a bug. Platonists and Aristotelians had the good sense to convert to Christianity en masse, followers of the poor mortals Krisna and Siddharta Gautama so far have not.
Even followers of that other poor deluded or deliberately deluding dead man Odin/Wotan, have had the sense to get Christian. In the Yorkshire mission it was after all the Odinist priest who destroyed his own temple after hearing a Christian missionary.
And the first Norwegian dynasty includes the posterity of Odin. Some say the brother in law of Burgundian king Gunthari, variously known as Sigurd and Sigfrid, descended from that man. It does not mean some incubus raped someone and got credit for it under the name of Odin, like with Hercules and Zeus, or Romulus and Mars: in Northern tales the Gods who had posterity walked around. And since one of the "divine" titles of Odin was the "god of segd"=runic magic, I find it a pretty safe guess he was a magician.
As for Evola, I hold him co-responsible for the evil movement around Georgia Guidestones. God curse his memory.
Scripsi die vigesimo quarto mensis novembris
Anno Domini MMX in Bibliotheca Pompidoliana,
Hans-Georg Lundahl
If so much as Seraphim Rose followed Guenon, for a while, does it make Guenon holy? St Augustine followed Manicheans for a while, does that make Manicheans holy?
Seriously: I have NOTHING against Pagan mythology except the passages where it most clearly implies a Pagan "theology", like Theogony (which also is not tradition, but private revelation), but I do find still-pagan philosophies a bug. Platonists and Aristotelians had the good sense to convert to Christianity en masse, followers of the poor mortals Krisna and Siddharta Gautama so far have not.
Even followers of that other poor deluded or deliberately deluding dead man Odin/Wotan, have had the sense to get Christian. In the Yorkshire mission it was after all the Odinist priest who destroyed his own temple after hearing a Christian missionary.
And the first Norwegian dynasty includes the posterity of Odin. Some say the brother in law of Burgundian king Gunthari, variously known as Sigurd and Sigfrid, descended from that man. It does not mean some incubus raped someone and got credit for it under the name of Odin, like with Hercules and Zeus, or Romulus and Mars: in Northern tales the Gods who had posterity walked around. And since one of the "divine" titles of Odin was the "god of segd"=runic magic, I find it a pretty safe guess he was a magician.
As for Evola, I hold him co-responsible for the evil movement around Georgia Guidestones. God curse his memory.
Scripsi die vigesimo quarto mensis novembris
Anno Domini MMX in Bibliotheca Pompidoliana,
Hans-Georg Lundahl
dimanche 21 novembre 2010
note about hell + A note about Hilarion Alfeev
note about hell
by Hans G. Lundahl on Sunday, 21 November 2010 at 15:45
link and answers:
Fr Timothy Curtis posted this link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-simpson/understanding-hell-as-the_b_705988.html
"The same fire, the love of God, that ignites in the hearts of the faithful transmutes in the experience of those who reject it into the fire of hell; it purifies the former, but burns the latter."
OK: God is a natural force without will or direction. He does not inflict punishment but is automatically punishment. Hmmm ... no, I do not think this makes God more mercyful than the view of St Augustine and St THomas Aquinas.
Or than that of Dante, obviously.
And it is not what St Isaac the Syrian says, either.
St Augustine says as much as St Isaac: God has so much love for the hardened sinners, he refuses to destroy them - and so much hatred for their unjustice, he refuses to make them happy.
AR:
If tormenting someone eternally is "love" give me hate.
Ch A G:
It's more to do with the fact that your decisions/actions in this life (if they are, for want of a better term "bad") mean that God's fire burns you instead of nourishing you, as is God's intention.
GC:
Since God has not made us automata, and we are free to think and feel as we wish, he does not force us, even in eternity, to accept His love. A crude analogy might be music: a classical music lover might find sitting through a pop concert a really unpleasnant experience, and vice versa. People who have spent murderous lives might find a Kingdom of Love very painful
[@ Ch:] Well, that is Eric Simpson's view, I think it wrong.
St Augustine says: God loves everything he has created, but the spiritual creation (angelic and human creatures) more than the irrational one, the blessed and elect more than the damned and foreknown, and most of all the Humanity of Christ whose members the elect are.
Fr Timothy Curtis:
Therein lies an important difference between Orthodox and western forms of Christianity
Not between St Augustine and St Isaac, as far as I can see.
Eric Simpson takes a summing up of two patristic quotes that do not add up to his conclusion. Even if St Isaac the Syrian is a saint and a Church Father.
To take this a bit further (risking to be thought of as a lover of diatribe), there is a certain connexion to hypercorrectness and to V ec. Council.
The emperor asked that council to condemn 15 Origenist theses. All bishops except the Pope did so.
Hypercorrectness: over-emphasising a difference. When learning Latin syntax, I once was told I was too much avoiding the Latin constructions that correspond exactly to Swedish ones. A risk I think Orthos are running in the West, when relearning their own confession after getting used to Western thought sometimes as if they were learning it for the first time, as I was learning Latin.
There is also a real diatribe against Christianity, some people talk about a vengeful God. Some Christians try to please them, as some try to please Evolutionists and Heliocentrics.
But that is brought out not only by eternal damnation, but also by Flood and destruction of Sodom, and by Egyptian army sunk in the Red Sea. And one early Church Father says that in the era of NT this is stricter, since punishment is no longer death but precisely damnation.
We are not automata - it is now that I am answering Gillian Crow, yesterday at 10:30 was @ Ch. - but neither is God. Someone who has lead a murderous or harrassing life might be considered bad company in Heaven by the ones God wants to have there. Such a one not getting to Heaven might in one way be his own free decision, but in another way God's decision according to His justice.
Thinking of God's love as an automaton, as a natural force without intention, as something that hurts without ever intending to hurt anyone, because the hurt ones are those that are not agile enough to get the right angle of contact, is debasing the divine majesty. That is why I am against Eric Simpson's "alternative Orthodox view". And will have no communion with people calling it Orthodox.
...
A note about Hilarion Alfeev
by Hans-Georg Lundahl on Friday, 19 November 2010 at 18:09
which I posted on blog Eirenikon:
My dear diane, I was very pro-Hilarion until I read his polemics against the Catholic view of marriage as the sensuality of sex being primarily compensated by the good of offspring. He argues (in the Catechism in his website) that if so one would only have sex once a year or so. Which is wrong.
The attitude “primarily for offspring” requires us not to use any means of preventing conception while a couple is enjoying sex. Not to limit sex to “the only coitus in which a child is conceived” since it cannot be foreseen in each case if a child will be conceived or not, not even if a child has been conceived until menstruation does not come as usual.
St Robert Bellarmine was sure no Pope would legislate for what was in itself wrong. Contraception clearly belongs as much to that as usury or even more, and it is notorious that Orthodox used to be more lax on usury and are more lax on contraception than Roman Catholics.
MY problem with orthodox Church is not whether their sacraments have grace or not, but whether I need and will get these graces from their Sacraments. If ecumenic faction requires me to accept contraception and anti-ecumenic faction requires me to regard any Papism, including counterreformation and St Robert Bellarmine, as vile heresy, even requiring me to misconstrue like what St Robert Bellarmine says and loathe his theology for what they think is and I know is not in it, obviously I am no-where near getting any Orthodox Sacraments.
Especially if both factions require me to regret as heavily sinful what I think was righteous in my past and is righteous in my present.*
This sunday I celebrated the Feast of Christ the King, last sunday before All Hallows day, instituted by Pope Pius XI in St Nicolas de Chardonnet. I have not been to an “Orthodox” liturgy since Pentecost, in the sermon of which it was probably Benedict XVI who was maligned as scandalously uncharitable, without the mention of a name, but with clear reference to recent media hubbub.
I know that being in communion with maligners will not get me to heaven.
Here.
*Since then I have had reasons to wonder whether that is not also the case with Romans.
liberty and ecology vs malthusianism
by Hans G. Lundahl on Sunday, 21 November 2010 at 16:04
Joe Hargrave is a friend of mine, but his terminology sometimes puts me off.
Joe Hargrave:
My dear: growing less wheat over all or making less bread would equal genocide. Making less transports, letting bread eaters be in higher proportion wheat growers would not equal genocide. Making less electricty, i e making bread eaters be in less proportion TV watchers, radio listeners, cinema goers would not equal genocide.
As for saying the old fascism was genocide, I take exception at such a BIG slur against Mussolini. Or against smaller fascisms: Franco, Salazar, Dollfuss + Schuschnigg. If you mean that NAZISM was genocide, say so.
[Then I read above comment but still not article]
"The article deals with a degenerate academic scumbag who compared having children to littering. These people must be opposed and stopped."
I would not call that ecofascism, but malthusianism. It is an insult both to ecologists and to fascists to compare Georgia Guidestones cultists to either.
"And you traditionalists reading this had better understand the value of liberty in opposing these people."
I do.
"These are the people who are in charge of the state."
Too true.
"They won't be replaced with Christians."
If so it is about time for Our Lord to come back.
I also understand the use of liberty in getting more ecological. I mean: in France, parents are required by law - or so I was told in 2005 - to have electricity in their houses. If they have not, they are given the choice of installing electricity (if need be on public expenses) or losing their children.
Reading the article I am reminded why I hate the people who have so far succeeded in stopping me from marriage and from rearing children.
It goes to the heart to see what one is missing.
And yes, both Trad Cath anti-liberals and people like you have been collaborating with the Helen Fisher types of my Swedish background.
Both kinds have pretended what the Helen Fishers have pretended: to wit I were unfit to be a family man. Both types have pretended I am unfit to earn my living as a writer:
a) because as ecologically conscious, and against electric over-consumption, I have been made out as being an "ecofascist" not very far from Helen Fisher;
b) the antiliberals have thought me too libertarian about living off begging (while keeping writing without pay);
c) libertarians like you have bundled me along with the people who attack liberty. Because I attack some sorely abused and not so necessary economic liberties. Such as taking interest. Or merging companies.
I am not part of, at least I do not want to be part of a future unchristian anti-liberal government - but opposing it is to my moral consciousness not identical with attacking all and sundry anti-liberal politicians in human and historic memory.
I am not part of and at least do not want to be part of a libertarian-on-all-accounts establishement that erodes the state to nothing and puts all power in private big corporations. Or informal networks.
Dollfuss and Schuschnigg - worst thing that happened to Jews was getting into fistfights. Franco and Salazar - helped Jews escape from Hitlerian persecution, though Franco limited the offer to Shepharads.
Mussolini: start - 38, no anti-Jewish racism; 38 - 43, racial segregation in marriage laws; 43 to the end: Mussolini was captive of the Germans except a few days as captive of partisans.
The mayor of Assisi was a fascist, and helped saving Jews.
CC: "Sir, Mussolini never invaded Ethiopia? Never sided with Hitler?"
Ethiopia was genocidal? About as much as Afghanistan in my opinion.
The goal was not to eradicate Ethiopians but to teach them courtesy with women, more recently known as women's rights. The excuse was customs like a show of bride capture "forced marriages" - as well as, possibly, "female circumcision". I have somewhere heard the Muslims who do that learned it from Ethiopian Christians.
Sided with Hitler? Yes, but not about killing (or even making captives among) Jews.
No Jews were deported from Italy before a date in 1943 known as founding of the Saló Republic. And in that, Mussolini was no longer an ally but a captive puppet of Hitler's.
It may be added that in 1943 Pius XII dealt with Ethiopian cases of "forced marriage" and found evidence of force insufficient for annulment. (Acta Apostolicae Sedis)
Joe Hargrave is a friend of mine, but his terminology sometimes puts me off.
Joe Hargrave:
Eco-fascism = genocide. Just like the old fascism.
http://www.insidecatholic.com/feature/littering-love.html
[I did not read this comment or even the article at first, but answered only Joe's first presenting comment] The article deals with a degenerate academic scumbag who compared having children to littering. These people must be opposed and stopped. And you traditionalists reading this had better understand the value of liberty in opposing these people. These are the people who are in charge of the state. They won't be replaced with Christians.
My dear: growing less wheat over all or making less bread would equal genocide. Making less transports, letting bread eaters be in higher proportion wheat growers would not equal genocide. Making less electricty, i e making bread eaters be in less proportion TV watchers, radio listeners, cinema goers would not equal genocide.
As for saying the old fascism was genocide, I take exception at such a BIG slur against Mussolini. Or against smaller fascisms: Franco, Salazar, Dollfuss + Schuschnigg. If you mean that NAZISM was genocide, say so.
[Then I read above comment but still not article]
"The article deals with a degenerate academic scumbag who compared having children to littering. These people must be opposed and stopped."
I would not call that ecofascism, but malthusianism. It is an insult both to ecologists and to fascists to compare Georgia Guidestones cultists to either.
"And you traditionalists reading this had better understand the value of liberty in opposing these people."
I do.
"These are the people who are in charge of the state."
Too true.
"They won't be replaced with Christians."
If so it is about time for Our Lord to come back.
I also understand the use of liberty in getting more ecological. I mean: in France, parents are required by law - or so I was told in 2005 - to have electricity in their houses. If they have not, they are given the choice of installing electricity (if need be on public expenses) or losing their children.
Reading the article I am reminded why I hate the people who have so far succeeded in stopping me from marriage and from rearing children.
It goes to the heart to see what one is missing.
And yes, both Trad Cath anti-liberals and people like you have been collaborating with the Helen Fisher types of my Swedish background.
Both kinds have pretended what the Helen Fishers have pretended: to wit I were unfit to be a family man. Both types have pretended I am unfit to earn my living as a writer:
a) because as ecologically conscious, and against electric over-consumption, I have been made out as being an "ecofascist" not very far from Helen Fisher;
b) the antiliberals have thought me too libertarian about living off begging (while keeping writing without pay);
c) libertarians like you have bundled me along with the people who attack liberty. Because I attack some sorely abused and not so necessary economic liberties. Such as taking interest. Or merging companies.
I am not part of, at least I do not want to be part of a future unchristian anti-liberal government - but opposing it is to my moral consciousness not identical with attacking all and sundry anti-liberal politicians in human and historic memory.
I am not part of and at least do not want to be part of a libertarian-on-all-accounts establishement that erodes the state to nothing and puts all power in private big corporations. Or informal networks.
Dollfuss and Schuschnigg - worst thing that happened to Jews was getting into fistfights. Franco and Salazar - helped Jews escape from Hitlerian persecution, though Franco limited the offer to Shepharads.
Mussolini: start - 38, no anti-Jewish racism; 38 - 43, racial segregation in marriage laws; 43 to the end: Mussolini was captive of the Germans except a few days as captive of partisans.
The mayor of Assisi was a fascist, and helped saving Jews.
CC: "Sir, Mussolini never invaded Ethiopia? Never sided with Hitler?"
Ethiopia was genocidal? About as much as Afghanistan in my opinion.
The goal was not to eradicate Ethiopians but to teach them courtesy with women, more recently known as women's rights. The excuse was customs like a show of bride capture "forced marriages" - as well as, possibly, "female circumcision". I have somewhere heard the Muslims who do that learned it from Ethiopian Christians.
Sided with Hitler? Yes, but not about killing (or even making captives among) Jews.
No Jews were deported from Italy before a date in 1943 known as founding of the Saló Republic. And in that, Mussolini was no longer an ally but a captive puppet of Hitler's.
It may be added that in 1943 Pius XII dealt with Ethiopian cases of "forced marriage" and found evidence of force insufficient for annulment. (Acta Apostolicae Sedis)
mercredi 10 novembre 2010
Transmit a spirit? Which one of them, there are mainly two?
.by Hans-Georg Lundahl on Sunday, 07 November 2010 at 21:41.
Mgr Fellay, to celebrate the fortieth anniversary of FSSPX (founded on diocesan level in perfect communion with a conservative bishop faithful to Pope Paul VI) and thirtieth of Institut Universaitaire St Pie X celebrated todays pontifical Mass.
One thing he said me struck me: Mgr Lefèbvre, in the Cathedral of Dakar, was dreaming about apostasy and realised there was only ONE solution: transmitting the Sacraments and the Doctrine was not enough, one had to transmit a spirit as well.
OK.
A Christian spirit.
OK.
Because there were just so m ...
No, I must have got this one wrong. I seemed to remember something vaguely synonymous to: just so many who received the sacraments and believed the doctrine but carried so little fruit because they did so in the wrong spirit.
Or, wait again. Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is where we make our sacrifice. We must unite ourselves to Christ. If we do not do so while assisting mass - and this he said - we make God a liar.
Is that so? Is lack of devotion, of whole heartedness, of unreserved offering of self not just irreverent in Holy Mass, but actually a worse offense than not assisting mass at all? If so, why did Church exact of us assistance at Holy Mass each Sunday and each Holiday of obligation?
As far as I can see, his preaching today is very akin to the liturgy in Novus Ordo I try to avoid by going there.
When certain N[ovus]O[rdo] priests say we should confess [in abridged confiteor or remade kyrie] that we have not always lived up to the graces we have been given, I feel bypassed, what about those of us who have actully sinned, like punch someone in the face, who when rejecting red coins was maybe offering to save me the thirty cents I had no yellow coins for? Or who, even if it was not anything we could help - at least it felt so to me - acvtually wanted to punch a priest in the face, because he was praying for a conversion that is impossible, since conversion from sins I had not committed. Not meaning I had committed no sins at all, but meaning I had committed quite other ones.
Such a liturgy says what today's sermon says, or feels like saying, to a man like me: even if you believe all the dogmas, you do not belong here, since you are not as devout as we.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Beaubourg/Paris
7/XI/2010
Added comment: Re title: Holy Spirit is transmitted by sacraments, and that is a dogma. Not first and foremost by natural efforts to "transmit a spirit".
But I think Dom Gérard did just fine transmitting a spirit in that sense too - only in his case the ones receiving were close disciples, like monks et c.
Sunday at 21:43
Mgr Fellay, to celebrate the fortieth anniversary of FSSPX (founded on diocesan level in perfect communion with a conservative bishop faithful to Pope Paul VI) and thirtieth of Institut Universaitaire St Pie X celebrated todays pontifical Mass.
One thing he said me struck me: Mgr Lefèbvre, in the Cathedral of Dakar, was dreaming about apostasy and realised there was only ONE solution: transmitting the Sacraments and the Doctrine was not enough, one had to transmit a spirit as well.
OK.
A Christian spirit.
OK.
Because there were just so m ...
No, I must have got this one wrong. I seemed to remember something vaguely synonymous to: just so many who received the sacraments and believed the doctrine but carried so little fruit because they did so in the wrong spirit.
Or, wait again. Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is where we make our sacrifice. We must unite ourselves to Christ. If we do not do so while assisting mass - and this he said - we make God a liar.
Is that so? Is lack of devotion, of whole heartedness, of unreserved offering of self not just irreverent in Holy Mass, but actually a worse offense than not assisting mass at all? If so, why did Church exact of us assistance at Holy Mass each Sunday and each Holiday of obligation?
As far as I can see, his preaching today is very akin to the liturgy in Novus Ordo I try to avoid by going there.
When certain N[ovus]O[rdo] priests say we should confess [in abridged confiteor or remade kyrie] that we have not always lived up to the graces we have been given, I feel bypassed, what about those of us who have actully sinned, like punch someone in the face, who when rejecting red coins was maybe offering to save me the thirty cents I had no yellow coins for? Or who, even if it was not anything we could help - at least it felt so to me - acvtually wanted to punch a priest in the face, because he was praying for a conversion that is impossible, since conversion from sins I had not committed. Not meaning I had committed no sins at all, but meaning I had committed quite other ones.
Such a liturgy says what today's sermon says, or feels like saying, to a man like me: even if you believe all the dogmas, you do not belong here, since you are not as devout as we.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Beaubourg/Paris
7/XI/2010
Added comment: Re title: Holy Spirit is transmitted by sacraments, and that is a dogma. Not first and foremost by natural efforts to "transmit a spirit".
But I think Dom Gérard did just fine transmitting a spirit in that sense too - only in his case the ones receiving were close disciples, like monks et c.
Sunday at 21:43
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)
